[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36585-36586]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-124-000.
    Applicants: Atlantic City Electric Company, Public Service Electric
and Gas Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Potomac Electric Power
Company, PECO Energy Company, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, UGI
Utilities Inc., Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Atlantic City Electric Company, et
al.
    Filed Date: 7/23/2018.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-008; ER13-342-012; ER16-700-001; ER16-701-
001.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC, CPV Shore, LLC, CPV Towantic, LLC,
CPV Valley, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to June 30, 2017 Market Power Update of CPV
Maryland, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-706-004.
    Applicants: GridLiance West LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: GridLiance West 7-23-18 Compliance
Filing to be effective 9/14/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1169-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-07-23 Commitment Cost
Enhancements Phase 3 Compliance to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1778-000.
    Applicants: CFE International LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 13, 2018 CFE International LLC
tariff filing (certified translations for documents cited in the
affidavit of Dr. Agustin J. Ros and Ms. Judy W. Chang).
    Filed Date: 7/20/2018.
    Accession Number: 20180720-5210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/2018.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1952-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Gulf Power Amendment to Market-Based
Rate Filing to be effective 12/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1953-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to July 3, 2018 OATT
Filing to be effective 12/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1954-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to July 3, 2018 NITSA
Filing to be effective 12/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2052-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WAPA Work Performance
Agreement for Pleasant Valley Pumping Plant (SA 59) to be effective 7/
24/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2053-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised ISA No. 3917,
Queue No. Y1--047/Y2-060/Z2-103/AD1-110 to be effective 6/22/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2054-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-07-23_Attachment X GIP and GIA
revisions relative to EL18-17-000 to be effective 7/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180723-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2055-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1154R14 Associated Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA
to be effective 7/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/2018.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/2018.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2056-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TFO Tariff Interim Rate
Revision to Conform with PUCT-Approved Rate--April 2018 to be effective
4/27/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2057-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TFO Tariff Interim Rate
Revision to Conform with PUCT-Approved Rate--July 2018 to be effective
7/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2058-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revisions to Attachment AE to Change Market Settlement
Timelines to be effective 5/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/24/2018.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5073.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2059-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2018-07-24_SA 3138 Pioneer-DEI
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 6/20/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/24/2018.
    Accession Number: 20180724-5096.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16218 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13970-13975]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0013]
RIN 1660-AA80

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Program Administration by
States

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is seeking
public comment on implementing a provision of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act regarding State
administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The
provision directs FEMA to establish criteria to delegate authority to
States to administer HMGP. FEMA is seeking input from the public to
help inform the development of this new method of program delivery.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: mailto: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID:
FEMA-2014-0013, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation
portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecelia Rosenberg, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-3015. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). FEMA specifically
invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or
federalism effects that might result from implementation of any final
rule stemming from this ANPRM. Comments most helpful to FEMA will
address one or more of the questions identified in this notice, and
will include as much explanation of the commenter's views as possible.
All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. If you submit a comment, please include the Docket ID for
this rulemaking, FEMA-2014-0013.

A. Privacy Act

    Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
For more information, you may want to review the Federal Docket
Management System system of records notice published in the Federal
Register on March 24, 2005 (70 FR 15086).

 B. Submission of Sensitive Information

    Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, or confidential
commercial or financial information to the public regulatory docket.
Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rule.
Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately
marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the
address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM. If FEMA
receives a request to examine or copy this information, FEMA will treat
it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552, and the Department of Homeland Security's FOIA regulation
found in 6 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 5 and FEMA's
regulations found in 44 CFR part 5.

II. Background

A. General Description of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

    The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP or Program) provides
grants to States, Indian Tribal governments, and U.S. Territories (all
of which are collectively called ``State'' or ``States'' in this
notice) to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major
disaster declaration. The HMGP is intended to reduce the loss of life
and property resulting from natural hazards and to help States
implement mitigation measures during recovery from a disaster. The HMGP
is authorized by Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5170c.
States wishing to participate in the program must request an HMGP grant
as part of their request for disaster assistance. See 44 CFR
206.36(c)(4), 206.40(a), and 206.432.
    HMGP funds may be used for mitigation planning and mitigation
projects that will reduce or eliminate damage, loss, or suffering from
future disasters. Projects must contribute to a long-term solution to
an existing or anticipated hazard. For example, elevation of a home to
reduce the risk of flood damages is considered hazard mitigation, but
buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood is not. In addition, a
project's anticipated benefits must be equal to or more than the cost
of implementing the project, which is demonstrated through a benefit
cost analysis that compares the cost of the project to the benefits
anticipated to occur over the lifetime of the project. Funds may be
used to protect either public or private property. In the post-disaster
context, the quicker the program is implemented, the more effectively
it aids individuals and communities in their recovery efforts.
    Both at the time of the request for assistance and at the time FEMA
obligates funds to the State, the State must have a FEMA-approved State
Mitigation Plan. Section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165(a). As
part of the State planning process, States identify and rank mitigation
activities that the State will support if funding is available. HMGP
project applications, known as subapplications, are developed and
submitted to the State by State agencies, local jurisdictions, Indian
Tribal governments, and private non-profit organizations. Section 322
of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165(b) requires local or Tribal
governments to each have a mitigation plan as a condition of receiving
HMGP funding. Proposed projects must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the State Mitigation Plan and relevant Local or Tribal
Mitigation Plan. The projects selected must also meet minimum criteria
identified in 44 CFR part 206. The criteria are designed to ensure that
cost-effective and beneficial projects are selected for funding.
    To properly manage its HMGP grant, the State is required by 44 CFR
206.437 to prepare an Administrative Plan, which is different than a
State Mitigation Plan. The Administrative Plan details the State's HMGP
processes and procedures. It governs program operations and describes
how the State will ensure that proposed projects meet all regulatory
criteria. Among other requirements, the Administrative Plan must
identify the general staffing and resource needs to manage the HMGP;
provide details on how the State will seek, review, and select
applications for projects; describe how the State will forward selected
applications to FEMA; and describe how the State will manage projects
approved by FEMA.
    The Stafford Act sets forth criteria to calculate the amount of
funding available for the HMGP under any particular declaration for
disaster assistance. FEMA may provide a State with an HMGP grant that
is an amount up to 15 percent of the estimated total disaster grants
awarded by FEMA for the major disaster. States may qualify for a larger
percentage if they have an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan. 42 U.S.C.
5170c. In addition to meeting the State Mitigation Plan requirements,
the Enhanced plan must demonstrate, among other factors, that the State
is committed to a comprehensive mitigation program, that the State uses
available mitigation funding effectively, and that it is capable of
managing the increased funding.
    For a declared disaster, FEMA can fund up to 75 percent of eligible
costs for FEMA-approved projects. The State must provide a 25 percent
match, which can be cash, in-kind, or fashioned from a combination of
cash and in-kind sources. The State generally sets its own deadline for
subapplication submittal, but all subapplications must be submitted by
the State to FEMA within

12 months from the date of disaster declaration. 44 CFR 206.436(d).
After a disaster, the State is encouraged to coordinate HMGP activities
with recovery and reconstruction efforts so that States can maximize
mitigation opportunities.
    Upon Presidential approval of a State's request for disaster
assistance and upon signing of a FEMA/State HMGP grant management
agreement, the State becomes a grantee and is responsible for providing
and managing subgrants from the overall grant award to eligible
entities. The State establishes funding priorities and criteria for
selecting proposed mitigation activities, solicits program interest,
and helps subapplicants determine eligibility and develop their
subapplications. Eligible subapplicants include State agencies, local
governments, Indian Tribal Governments, and some private not-for-profit
organizations (all of which are also known as ``program
participants''). The State, as grantee, establishes deadlines for
submission of those subapplications, and selects and forwards
subapplications to FEMA for final project eligibility review. FEMA
reviews the entire subapplication, with an emphasis on technical
feasibility--whether the project will substantially reduce the risk of
future damage--as well as engineering and cost-effectiveness.
Concurrently, FEMA reviews the subapplication to ensure that it
contains all required information regarding potential impacts to
environmental and historic resources, and that FEMA has the necessary
information to fulfill its environmental planning and historic
preservation (EHP) review responsibilities.
    Prior to making funding decisions for the HMGP, FEMA is required by
law to evaluate the impacts of the proposed mitigation action on the
quality of the human environment. The EHP requirements include
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq., and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Other requirements contained in Executive Orders
ensure that FEMA evaluates and avoids adverse impacts to floodplains
and wetlands, and avoids adverse and disproportionate environmental
impacts on low-income and minority populations. Executive Order (EO)
11988 Floodplain Management, EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands, and EO
12898 Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations.
    If a subapplication is approved by FEMA, funds are obligated to the
State as part of the overall grant. The State then disburses the
funding to the successful subapplicant who becomes the subgrantee. The
State must ensure that subgrantees adhere to all programmatic,
administrative and audit requirements. The State does this by
monitoring and evaluating compliance with programmatic requirements and
monitoring the progress of completing funded projects. The State
submits quarterly reports to FEMA indicating the status and completion
date for each approved project. The State must ensure project
completion and closeout, or settlement, of all the financial
obligations related to the subgrant. In addition, the State evaluates
the effectiveness of completed projects as part of their mitigation
planning processes.
    States perform all of these functions in a managerial role as they
do not make the final eligibility and funding decisions. Those
decisions fall within FEMA's purview, as the overall administrator of
the grant.

B. Early Steps Towards Delegation--The Managing State Concept

    In 1998, FEMA introduced the Managing State Concept (MSC) for
implementation of the HMGP in selected States. Thirteen States that
wished to assume a greater role in the application review and approval
process participated in the MSC. No Indian Tribal governments or
Territories participated in the MSC. The MSC was seen as a means to
enhance FEMA-State collaborative partnerships, and an opportunity to
provide States with an increased level of flexibility in program
management. The MSC was also aimed at streamlining the implementation
of the HMGP, which is a significant consideration for program delivery
in the aftermath of a disaster; and facilitates incorporating
mitigation into the recovery process.
    FEMA first initiated the MSC through the use of three individual
FEMA-State operational agreements. The first agreement was entered into
in May 1998 with Florida. In August 1998, North Dakota and Ohio signed
agreements. Each agreement was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) specifically tailored to each State.
    During implementation of the MSC, FEMA conducted partnership
evaluations to review the MSC's progress. These evaluations included
State staffs, FEMA program and financial specialists, attorneys, and
Inspector General auditors. Based on these evaluations, in March of
2000 FEMA expanded the MSC to other interested States. Fundamental
elements from the three initial agreements served as the basis for
agreements with the new States. These fundamentals included negotiating
Managing State roles based on a State's capabilities and continuing
partnership evaluations as an essential element. Ultimately, ten
additional States were selected for participation.
    Significantly, under the MSC, FEMA retained program administration
responsibilities including final approval of subapplications and
environmental reviews. The MSC consisted of agreements to implement
processes that would expedite program delivery, but FEMA still retained
sole authority to administer the program. Eventually, States stopped
participating in the program for various reasons, and FEMA effectively
dissolved the MSC with the publication of the 2010 Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Unified Guidance.

C. Next Steps Toward Delegation--Program Administration by States

    On October 30, 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, Public Law 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552 (Oct. 30, 2000). The Act
amended Section 404 of the Stafford Act by adding statutory authority
for HMGP ``Program Administration by the States'' (PAS), including
Indian Tribal governments and Territories. The amendment contained many
provisions similar to the MSC but with several significant changes.
    Specifically, the amendments to Section 404 of the Stafford Act
direct FEMA to delegate program administration responsibilities to
eligible, interested States. The amendments require the President to
establish criteria for the approval of requests. The criteria, which
must be developed in consultation with States and local governments,
must require, at a minimum, that the State have an approved State
Hazard Mitigation Plan, demonstrated ability to manage the HMGP, and
demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities. Finally, the
amendments provide FEMA with the authority to withdraw delegated
program responsibilities if the State is not administering the program
in a satisfactory manner. These PAS provisions provide FEMA with a
statutory mandate to advance beyond the former MSC and fully develop
State administration of the HMGP.
    Since passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act, FEMA did not
implement PAS because it was implementing the MSC. After the MSC was
terminated, one State expressed interest in PAS participation. That
State submitted an application to FEMA, but

criteria had not been developed for that method of program delivery so
the application could not be adequately reviewed.
    In January of 2013, the President signed into law the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), Public Law 113-2, 127 Stat. 4
(Jan. 29, 2013). SRIA amended Section 404(c) of the Stafford Act,
adding a provision allowing FEMA to carry out a pilot program for PAS
if FEMA determines it is necessary to expeditiously implement PAS and
until such time as the Administrator promulgates regulations to
implement PAS. Consistent with the SRIA mandate, FEMA is currently
carrying out a pilot program for PAS.
    Concurrently and consistent with the authority under the Stafford
Act to promulgate program implementation regulations, FEMA is
publishing this ANPRM and requesting the public's input on a number of
general PAS-related concepts to develop a comprehensive program and
implementing regulations.
    SRIA's amendment to Section 404(c) applies to all major disasters
or emergencies declared on or after SRIA's enactment date, January 29,
2013, and for major disasters or declarations for which the application
period for processing requests for HMGP funding is still open as of
SRIA's enactment date. Under the PAS pilot, FEMA delegates certain
program responsibilities to the State. Participation in the program is
voluntary and States can select the grants management activities they
would like to perform. To participate in the program, States must have
an approved State Mitigation Plan, demonstrated ability to manage the
HMGP, and demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities.
    To determine whether a State has a ``demonstrated ability to manage
the HMGP'' FEMA reviews HMGP grants activity within the past four
quarters from the date of the State's request. FEMA's review for State
demonstrated ability to manage HMGP includes reviewing documentation to
determine the following:
     Whether in the past the State has submitted (and FEMA has
approved) the State HMGP Administrative Plan within 90 days of the
disaster declaration date;
     Whether the State has submitted applications in an
electronic data system such as FEMA's National Emergency Management
Information System (NEMIS) or has completed a FEMA data collection form
and application review checklist (or beginning in FY13, the Eligibility
and Completeness checklist);
     Whether the State has submitted an Eligibility and
Completeness checklist for all applications;
     Whether the State has provided requested information to
FEMA for an application, enabling FEMA to approve the application
within 60 days of subgrant application submittal for at least 75% or
more of the applications (depending on the number of applications
submitted); Whether 100% of the applications can be approved by FEMA
within 90 days of application;
     Whether within the past five years from the date of
application submittal, State staff have completed FEMA sponsored
trainings (for instance, on Hazard Mitigation Assistance, Benefit Cost
Analysis, Environment and Historic Preservation and Mitigation
Planning);
     If the State has submitted a request to extend the
application period, whether the request was submitted 30 days before
the end of the application period; and
     If the State submitted a request to extend the period of
performance, whether the request was submitted at least 60 days before
the end of the application period and/or period of performance.
    A State must meet additional requirements before FEMA will delegate
responsibility for specific activities. Depending on the nature of the
requested delegation, FEMA's review may include determining the
following:
     Whether past quarterly progress and financial reports are
complete and were submitted on time;
     Whether past extension requests were supported by
information in quarterly progress reports;
     Whether subgrant close-out and financial reconciliation
were completed within six months of work completed;
     Whether grant program and financial close-out activities
were completed within 90 days of the end of the period of performance;
     Whether there were no drawdowns requested or performed
after the liquidation period has ended;
     Whether financial procedures and systems meet FEMA grants
management standards;
     Whether there are any major findings on the last single
audit obtained by the State related to Hazard Mitigation Assistance
activities; and
     Whether all local hazard mitigation plans submitted to
FEMA in the past four quarters are at least ``approvable pending
adoption.''
    Under the pilot, applicants are required to use FEMA forms or
documentation agreed upon by FEMA for application completeness review,
benefit cost analysis, progress reporting, and financial reporting.
    To document a State's ``Demonstrated Commitment to Mitigation
Activities,'' FEMA requires States to provide documentation of existing
processes and activities in the following categories: (1) State
management of a mitigation, hazard safety, and/or insurance program;
(2) planning capability and authority to support risk reduction in the
planning processes of local communities (e.g., statewide building
codes); (3) State provision of resources and funding to support
mitigation activities within local communities; and (4) State
commitment to floodplain management.
    If the State PAS application is approved, the State enters into an
operational agreement with FEMA and updates the Administrative Plan to
document how the State will implement the HMGP with reduced oversight
from FEMA. As part of the rulemaking process, FEMA will use insight
gained from implementing the pilot to draft program regulations.

D. Developing PAS Regulations

    To successfully implement PAS, FEMA must determine how the program
will operate, and how available resources can facilitate program
performance. FEMA performs numerous and varied responsibilities in the
administration of the HMGP. These include keeping States informed of
the anticipated amount of available funding, reviewing subapplications
selected by a State, and deciding if the subapplication proposals meet
program requirements and merit funding. As part of this process, FEMA
conducts detailed reviews of project information, examines the
schedule, scope of work, engineering and technical feasibility, and
cost-effectiveness, and performs environmental analyses. All of these
reviews can affect a project's scope of work, budget, and delivery.
Following an award of subgrant funding to the State, FEMA provides
additional technical assistance and monitors quarterly reports to
ensure subgrants are implemented as planned and on schedule.
    To develop PAS, FEMA is exploring the extent to which its
determinations regarding cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility and
engineering, and final eligibility and funding can be made at the State
level. FEMA is also exploring whether there are EHP responsibilities
that FEMA may legally delegate to the States under applicable Federal
law, and that the grantee or subgrantee would be interested in
assuming. Consistent with Federal EHP laws,

including NEPA, the NHPA, the ESA, as well as EOs 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), FEMA has final review
and approval authority on the environmental impact of a proposed
Federal action or undertaking. Only FEMA can perform certain EHP
responsibilities, such as formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA, or preparing an
environmental impact statement under NEPA. However, FEMA may delegate
EHP responsibilities related to preparation for environmental review to
the States. Those responsibilities include providing enough background
information to assess the environmental impact of the Federal action on
historic properties, endangered and threatened species, critical
habitats, wetlands, floodplains, and on low income and minority
populations. The responsibilities could also include initiating
communication with appropriate Federal agencies, such as the USFWS, or
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and with State
regulatory agencies including the State or Tribal Historic Preservation
Office for the purposes of allowing those agencies to identify any
potential impacts from the project, and to allow FEMA to prepare the
required documentation on project impacts and decisions.
    PAS eligibility criteria may consider the quality of State planning
activities (administrative and mitigation planning), the availability
of State financial resources for program administration, and a State's
ability to perform all grant objectives in a timely manner. The PAS
program will continue to support HMGP principles of fairness and
transparency, and incorporate long term recovery. FEMA will provide
appropriate guidance tools, and include standards for meeting and
maintaining PAS status, and processing appeals. In summary, to
participate in PAS a State should demonstrate an expanded ability to
manage the Program to ensure that they will be able to successfully
assume Federal-level responsibilities.

III. Questions for Commenters

    FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of PAS, but would
derive particular benefit from commenters addressing one or more of the
following questions:
    1. Criteria for PAS Designation: FEMA seeks input on how to assess
the State's ability to manage the HMGP throughout the program
lifecycle. What approval criteria and documentation should FEMA
consider when reviewing State requests for PAS designation? What
metrics should be used? How should these be measured? How far back
should past performance be measured (the last four quarters, 3 years, 5
years)? Possible considerations are:
    a. The extent of technical and organizational resources committed
to the program, such as whether staff have completed FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance-related trainings;
    b. Ability to prepare and approve cost effective applications and
to adhere to technical and program requirements; ability to use
anticipated benefits or losses avoided in ranking projects for funding;
ability to calculate actual losses avoided as a result of completed
mitigation activities;
    c. Ability to submit complete and eligible subapplications,
prepared by the State or local communities, within 12 months of the
disaster declaration date and any additional extensions (for example,
whether FEMA needs to request additional information to complete
subapplication reviews, and if the State uses the minimum application
review checklist to validate that subapplications are complete);
    d. Ability to perform EHP responsibilities that can be delegated to
States by FEMA under applicable Federal laws;
    e. Past experience in assisting and monitoring local governments in
developing and completing mitigation activities (whether there is a
monitoring and auditing process in place, and whether quarterly reports
are submitted to FEMA on time);
    f. Ability to maintain sound financial management (no major
findings in audit reports);
    g. Ability to complete the grant in the regulatory timeframe (for
instance, closeout activities are completed 90 days after the end of
the period of performance, extension requests are supported by
information in quarterly reports, and no more than two six-month
extensions are required);
    h. Ability to close out the subgrants and the grant within the
existing programmatic timeframe (i.e., whether subgrant activities are
closed out within 90 days after the activities have been completed);
    i. Ability to manage other FEMA grants especially when the State
has no recent experience with HMGP (evaluating past performance using
data from Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants, Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grants, or other FEMA grants).
    2. Enhanced State or Tribal Mitigation Plan: What should the
relationship be, if any, between having a FEMA-approved Enhanced
Mitigation Plan and receiving a PAS designation? Questions include the
following:
    a. Should PAS approval be required before FEMA approves an Enhanced
Plan?
    b. Should a FEMA-approved Enhanced Plan be required for PAS
designation?
    c. Should an Enhanced Plan have no relationship to PAS designation?
    d. Should there be another relationship between the two?
    e. If Enhanced Plans are not required, how should States document
losses avoided for completed mitigation projects?
    3. Commitment to Mitigation: FEMA seeks input on how to assess the
State's demonstration of commitment to mitigation. Possible examples of
commitment to mitigation include State management of mitigation, hazard
safety or insurance programs, statewide planning or building code
authorities, State resources that are dedicated to support mitigation
activities in local communities, and demonstrated State commitment to
floodplain management. What documentation should FEMA consider in
reviewing a State's request and granting a PAS designation?
    4. Model Federal Performance Measures: What performance measures
from other State-administered Federal programs could be considered or
incorporated in PAS designation requests?
    5. Administrative Planning: FEMA's program regulations at 44 CFR
206.437 and the State Administrative Plan set out minimum criteria.
What additional elements, if any, should FEMA consider requiring in
Administrative Plans for States with PAS designation?
    6. Decision Making Processes: When States have an expanded role in
application approval, how can States demonstrate impartial and
consistent selection and management of applications when they are also
eligible to be program participants and submit and manage their own
subapplications (independent panels, blind applications, cost benefit
ratio or other means)? What decision making documentation should FEMA
consider?
    7. Interaction: FEMA seeks input on the level and type of
coordination necessary between eligible applicants and the public where
the State has an expanded role in administering HMGP. What should be
the level of interaction between FEMA, the State, local governments,
and other program participants regarding day-to-day program
administration (e.g., solicitation of applications, progress reporting,
record-keeping, and closeout)?

    8. Factors Affecting Delegation: Should PAS designation include
limits or factors (such as the magnitude of the declared disaster or
the number of open events) that would affect the level of State
responsibility granted by FEMA? If so, what should these limits or
factors be?
    9. EHP Requirements and Responsibilities Under PAS: FEMA seeks
input from States and other stakeholders as to which EHP
responsibilities should be delegated to States under applicable Federal
law. For instance:
    a. Should States be able to initiate communication with appropriate
agencies such as the USFWS, USACE, or State regulatory agencies (for
instance, the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Office) for the
purposes of identifying potential project environmental impacts or
other considerations within these agencies' jurisdiction?
    b. Should States be delegated the responsibility to collect
information necessary for performing categorical exclusions and the
eight-step floodplain or wetland analyses?
    c. Could the States, rather than FEMA, engage other Federal
agencies to streamline unified review where possible?
    d. What abilities and resources are needed to assume these types of
responsibilities?
    e. What guidance from FEMA would States need to assume these or
other similar EHP responsibilities?
    f. What methods or processes from other Federal programs should be
considered?
    g. Are there existing State processes that perform a similar
function?
    10. Performance Evaluation: FEMA seeks input on criteria to assess
performance of those States that receive PAS designations (e.g., grants
management, technical and engineering feasibility, cost effectiveness,
plan requirements, and EHP responsibilities and requirements):
    a. What elements/metrics should be used in this assessment?
    b. How frequently should FEMA assess a State's performance under
PAS (quarterly, annually, 3 years, 5 years, or other)?
    c. What measures should FEMA use to address or correct deficiencies
in performance?
    d. What level of monitoring or oversight should FEMA use to assess
compliance with Federal EHP requirements?
    11. Program Evaluation: How could the analysis of program benefits
(economic, environmental, public health and safety, equity) justifying
program costs be an indicator of state performance?
    12. Significant Non-compliance: FEMA seeks input on what would
constitute a significant non-compliance deficiency warranting temporary
withdrawal or full termination of PAS designation. Areas of concern
include subgrant eligibility determinations, cost effectiveness
reviews, grant management, plan requirements, and EHP responsibilities
and requirements. Under what circumstances should failure to meet
requirements and responsibilities established by FEMA result in removal
of a PAS designation? What criteria should FEMA consider using for PAS
reinstatement? What other remedies should FEMA consider if a PAS
jurisdiction fails to comply with Program requirements?
    13. Electronic Systems: What, if any, are the States' concerns
regarding the use of existing FEMA grant reporting and management
electronic systems (such as NEMIS) when mandated for PAS participation?
    14. Participation: What factors could FEMA consider and use to
facilitate and encourage State participation in PAS?
    15. Tribal Considerations: What factors should FEMA consider and
use to encourage Tribal participation in PAS? What are the potential
challenges for Tribes in applying for and maintaining PAS designation?
    16. Challenges and Resources: What are the potential challenges for
States in maintaining PAS designation (such as keeping key personnel,
covering multiple disaster and recovery needs, or liability concerns)?
What resources do States need to successfully implement PAS (management
cost support, training, guidance, job-aids, or other resources)?
    17. Program Participants Impacts: How would program participants be
impacted when their State administers HMGP under a PAS designation?
What are the potential benefits (increased access to funding, decreased
duplication, faster obligation of funding, or other benefits)? What are
the potential costs (e.g., increased time and paperwork, longer
obligation timeframes)?
    18. State Impacts: How would States be impacted by administering
HMGP under a PAS designation? What are the potential benefits? What are
the potential costs?
    19. State Interest: For FEMA's State, Indian Tribal government and
Territory stakeholders: Would your State or Tribe consider applying for
the PAS option for your next disaster declaration?
    20. Overall Effect: Do you think PAS would be beneficial in
streamlining the provision of funding under the HMGP? Do you think PAS
would be beneficial in implementing more effective hazard mitigation
projects? If so, how?

IV. Conclusion

    Comments most helpful to FEMA will address one or more of the
questions identified above, and will include a detailed explanation of
the commenter's views. FEMA also invites comments that relate to the
economic, environmental, or federalism effects that commenters believe
might result from any PAS program implementation model. All comments
received will be considered by FEMA in designing future PAS program
implementation regulations.

    Dated: March 6, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-05437 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 71392]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2022-1564]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection:
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves the recordkeeping requirement for
owners/operators of aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport aircraft category (SLSA) to keep the current status
of applicable safety directives, and transfer these records with the
aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. The information to be
collected is necessary to determine and ensure the SLSA aircraft is in
a condition for safe flight prior to aircraft operation. The title of
this collection is being revised from Certification of Aircraft and
Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft to Special Light-Sport
Aircraft (SLSA) Safety Directive Recordkeeping, to better reflect the
purpose of the information collected.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:

By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field)
By email: Tanya Glines, [email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Glines by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0730.
    Title: Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of
Light-Sport Aircraft.
    Form Numbers: Aircraft maintenance records/logs.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 14 CFR, Sec.  91.417(a)(2)(v) requires each
registered owner or operator to retain records containing the current
status of applicable safety directives including, for each, the method
of compliance, the safety directive number and revision date.
Additionally, if the safety directive involves recurring action, the
time and date when the next action is required.
    Recording this information and retaining these records is necessary
to determine if unsafe conditions have been corrected on aircraft
issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
(SLSA), which assists in ensuring that the SLSA aircraft is in a
condition safe for flight prior to its operation within the national
airspace.
    Respondents include owners/operators of SLSA, aircraft mechanics,
and LSA repairmen with a Maintenance rating. The records of SLSA safety
directive compliance are retained by the aircraft owner/operator, who
must keep the records for the life of the SLSA aircraft and transfer
them to the new owner at the time the aircraft is sold. The burden
estimates are based on the current number of registered SLA and a
projected future growth rate.
    Respondents: 3224 owners/operators of SLSA aircraft.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,448 hours of annual burden.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2022.
Tanya A. Glines,
Aviation Safety Inspector, Office of Safety Standards, Aircraft
Maintenance Division, Airmen Section.
[FR Doc. 2022-25350 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55801-55804]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98109; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule Related to the Options Regulatory Fee

August 10, 2023.
    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 August 8, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule related to the Options Regulatory Fee. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 its Options Fee Schedule, to
harmonize the language and processes relating to the Options Regulatory
Fee (``ORF'').\3\ By way of background, the ORF is designed to recover
a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and
regulation of Member customer options business, including performing
routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial
monitoring, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement
activities. The revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all
of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, covers a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed rule change on
August 1, 2023 (SR-CboeBZX-2023-057). On August 8, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The
Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a

minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory
revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee
change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies Members of
adjustments to the ORF via an exchange notice. The Exchange provides
Members with such notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the change.
    The Options Regulatory Fee section of the fees schedule sets forth
the details and description of how and when the ORF is assessed. For
example, the fee schedule explicitly specifies that the Exchange may
only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee
change will be effective on the first business day of February or
August. The fee schedule further states that the Exchange will notify
participants of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30
calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange proposes to update the fee schedule language relating
to the timing of ORF changes. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the strict requirement that the ORF may only be modified on
the first business day of February or August, and also the explicit
requirement that it must provide at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date.
    The Exchange first proposes to eliminate the requirement that ORF
may only be modified on the first business day of February or August to
afford the Exchange increased flexibility in amending the ORF. As noted
above, the ORF is based in part on options transactions volume, and as
such the amount of ORF collected is variable. If options transactions
reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from
Members may increase as well. Similarly, if options transactions
reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF collected from
Members may decrease as well. Accordingly, the Exchange monitors the
amount of ORF collected to ensure that it does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines the
amount of ORF collected exceeds costs over an extended period, the
proposed rule change allows the Exchange to adjust the ORF by
submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') in a month other than just February or
August. Although the Exchange proposes to eliminate the explicit
language in the fee schedule that provides the Exchange will adjust the
ORF only semi-annually, and only on the first business day of February
or August, it would continue to monitor its regulatory costs and
revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis and submit a proposed rule
change for each modification of the ORF as needed.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the explicit language in
the fee schedule that it will notify participants of any change in the
amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date
of the change. Although the Exchange proposes to eliminate this
language from the fee schedule, it notes that it will endeavor to
notify Members of any planned change to the ORF by Exchange Notice at
least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of such change. The
Exchange believes this proposed change also provides the Exchange
additional flexibility. For example, the Exchange often provides fee
change notices on the first business day of the month. It may be the
case that such date is less than 30 days from the effective date of
proposed change (e.g., if the Exchange wished to amend the ORF,
effective, August 1, 2023, the Exchange would not have met the 30-day
notice requirement if it had announced on the first business day of
July, as it has been historic practice, since the first business day
falls on July 3, 2023). As such, the proposed rule changes provides
added flexibility while still committing to provide notice on the
timing of any changes to the ORF and ensuring that Members are prepared
to configure their systems to properly account for the ORF.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes result in ORF
processes and fee schedule language that aligns with those of its
affiliated exchanges, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'') and Cboe
C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options).\4\ Particularly, although typically
the practice, neither Cboe Options nor C2 Options are limited to only
adjusting ORF to only the first business day of August or February.
Moreover, other options exchanges recently amended their fees to allow
for flexibility to adjust ORF during months other than February or
August.\5\ The Exchange notes that neither Cboe Options nor C2 Options
explicitly provide in their fees schedules that it will provide notice
at least 30 calendar days in advance of any ORF change. They have both
represented in various ORF fee filings that they endeavor to notify
Members of any planned change to the ORF by Exchange Notice at least 30
calendar days prior to the effective date of such change, just as the
Exchange represents here.\6\ The Exchange believes the proposed change
provides uniformity across is affiliated options exchanges and reduces
potential confusion. It also provides the Exchange added flexibility as
to when modifications to the ORF may occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule and Cboe C2 Options Fees
Schedule. The Exchange intends to submit an identical proposal for
its affiliate, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'').
    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96066 (October
13, 2022), 87 FR 63565 (October 19, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-45).
    \6\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92597 (August
6, 2021), 86 FR 44451 (August 12, 2021 (SR-CBOE-2021-044). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92596 (August 6, 2021), 86 FR
44461 (August 12, 2021 (SR-C2-2021-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange 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 securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Fees Schedule
with respect to how ORF is assessed and collected are appropriate as it
provides the Exchange more flexibility in its assessment of ORF based
on its periodic monitoring of ORF rates. The Exchange also represents
that it will continue to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on a semi-

annual basis, just as it, and its affiliated options exchanges
(including Cboe Options and C2 Options) do today. The Exchange believes
that the proposed elimination of language specifying that the Exchange
may only increase or decrease the ORF on the first business day
February or August is reasonable because it is designed to afford the
Exchange increased flexibility in making necessary adjustments to the
ORF, as the Exchange is required to monitor the amount collected from
the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory
fees and fines, does not exceed total regulatory costs.
    The Exchange also represents that it will endeavor to provide
notice of any changes at least 30 days in advance of the effective date
of such change, thereby providing Members with adequate time to make
any necessary adjustments to accommodate any proposed changes. Taking
out the strict requirements from the fee schedule, however, will
provide the Exchange flexibility in modifying ORF and being able to
adjust ORF even if it doesn't meet the strict 30-day deadline in event
extenuating circumstances prevent the Exchange from meeting this
deadline or in the event such notice is a day or two less than 30 days
due to when the first business days of the month fall. For example, as
noted above, the Exchange often provides fee change notices on the
first business day of the month. It may be the case that such date is
less than 30 days from the effective date of proposed change (e.g., if
the Exchange wished to amend the ORF, effective, August 1, 2023, the
Exchange would not have met the 30-day notice requirement if it had
announced on the first business day of July, as it has been historic
practice, since the first business day falls on July 3, 2023).
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they conform to the
process and fee schedule language used by two of its affiliated options
exchanges, thereby providing consistency across the Cboe family options
exchanges and reducing potential confusion. The proposed changes also
apply uniformly to all Members subject to ORF. As noted above, other
options exchanges are also not confined to making ORF changes on the
first business day of February or August.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96066
(October 13, 2022), 87 FR 63565 (October 19, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-
2022-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the proposed change will apply to all Members subject to ORF
uniformly. Further, the proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because
it merely amends the fees schedule and timing relating to the
modification of the ORF and conforms to the timing and fee schedule
language of the Exchange's affiliated options exchanges, Cboe Options
and C2 Options. Further, ORF is a regulatory fee that supports
regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is
obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected
from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs and the proposed rule change does not
seek to change that.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange originally
filed this proposal under Rule 19b-4(f)(2) on August 1, 2023.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not raise any novel legal or
regulatory issues, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ See supra, note 3.
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-061 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-CboeBZX-2023-061. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-061 and should
be submitted on or before September 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17533 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20764-20767]
[FR Doc No: E9-10171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59834; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex
Equities Rules 1000, 60 and 123C To Be More Consistent With the Trading
Characteristics of Securities Traded on NYSE Amex

April 28, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 20, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000
(``Automatic Execution of Limit Orders Against Orders Reflected in
Exchange Published Quotation''), NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60
(``Dissemination of Quotations'') and NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C
(``Market on the Close Policy and Expiration Procedures'') to be more
consistent with the trading characteristics of securities traded on
NYSE Amex. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange''), formerly the
American Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Alternext US LLC,\3\ proposes to
amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000 (``Automatic Execution of Limit
Orders Against Orders Reflected in Exchange Published Quotation''),
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60 (``Dissemination of Quotations'') and NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 123C (``Market on the Close Policy and Expiration
Procedures'') to be more consistent with the trading characteristics of
securities traded on NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 3, 2009, the Exchange submitted a rule filing to
change its name from NYSE Alternext US LLC to NYSE Amex LLC (SR-
NYSEALTR-2009-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 1000 to allow securities priced at $1000 or higher (``high-priced
securities'') to be eligible for automatic execution and make a
conforming amendment to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60(d)(iii)(B)(I)-(II).
The Exchange also seeks to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(5) to
reduce the order imbalance size required for mandatory imbalance
publications at 3:40 p.m. and 3:50 p.m. from 50,000 shares to 25,000
shares.
a. Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\4\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext called NYSE Alternext US LLC, and continues to operate
as a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\5\ The
effective date of the Merger was October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex
2008-62) (approving the Merger).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Amex Trading
Systems'') are operated by the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') on
behalf of the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Amex adopted NYSE Rules 1-
1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules to the
Exchange, as the NYSE Amex Equities Rules to govern trading on the NYSE
Amex Trading Systems.\7\ The NYSE Amex Equities Rules, which became
operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially identical to the
current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues to update the NYSE
Amex Equities Rules as necessary to conform with rule changes to
corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58833
(October 22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
106) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58839 (October 23,
2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-03)
(implementing the Bonds Relocation); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 59022 (November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3, 2008) (SR-
NYSEALTR-2008-10) (adopting amendments to NYSE Amex Equities Rules
to track changes to corresponding NYSE Rules); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59027 (November 28, 2008), 73 FR 73681 (December 3,
2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11) (adopting amendments to Rule 62--NYSE
Amex Equities to track changes to corresponding NYSE Rule 62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex Equities Rules 1000(a)(vi) and 60(d)(iii)(B)(I)-(II), as
adopted from the NYSE, provide that high-priced securities, i.e.,
securities priced above $1,000, are ineligible for automatic
executions. High-priced securities are traded manually by the assigned
Designated Market-Maker (``DMM'').
    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C, as adopted from the NYSE, sets forth
the procedures for the entry of market at-the-close (``MOC'') and limit
at-the-close (``LOC'') orders.\8\ Included in these procedures is the
requirement that at 3:40 p.m. if a security has a disparity between MOC
and marketable LOC interest to buy and MOC and marketable LOC interest
to sell of 50,000 shares or more, the assigned DMM is required to
disseminate a publication informing the investing public of the
disparity.\9\ In addition, a DMM may, with Floor Official approval,
disseminate an imbalance publication even if the disparity is less than
50,000 shares if the imbalance in the security is significant in
relation to the average daily trading volume in the security. At 3:50
p.m. the DMM is required to provide an update of the previous imbalance
publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the NYSE Rules and for the purposes of this discussion,
the terms ``market-on-close'' and ``limit-on-close'' are used
interchangeably with ``market-at-the-close'' and ``limit-at-the-
close.''
    \9\ NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Amendments
    As previously discussed, NYSE Amex adopted NYSE Rules 1-1004,
subject to minor changes as necessary to apply those rules as NYSE Amex
Equities Rules on the NYSE Amex trading Floor. Since the implementation
of these rules on December 1, 2008, the Exchange has determined that
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000, NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60 and NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123C, as applied, are inconsistent with the trading
characteristics of its securities. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to
amend these rules to provide regulatory imbalance information and
automatic execution that is more aligned with the trading activity and
volume on its Floor.
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000 to make
high-priced securities eligible for automatic execution. Prior to the
Exchange's relocation and implementation of Amex Equities Rules, all
securities, including high-priced securities, traded on the Amex
Exchange, were automatically executed.\10\ Given the specific market
characteristics of NYSE Amex, the Exchange believes it is appropriate
to make high-priced securities eligible for automatic execution because
such automation benefits the NYSE Amex market participant and serves
the public interest. Liquidity in NYSE Amex-listed securities is more
dispersed among multiple market centers than securities traded on the
NYSE. As such, high-priced securities on NYSE Amex must be eligible for
immediate and automatic execution in order to effectively compete for
order flow with protected quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Amex Legacy Rules established the automatic execution of
securities traded on the Amex. See Amex Rule 128A--AEMI (Automatic
Execution), Amex Rule 123--AEMI (Manner of Bidding and Offering),
and Amex Rule 126--AEMI (Precedence of Bids and Offers). Auto-Ex
Eligible Securities are defined in Amex Rule 128A--AEMI as ``all
ETFs, equities, and securities that trade like equities traded on
the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to rescind section (a)(vi) from
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000, thereby allowing high-priced securities
to be

automatically executed on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange seeks
to make conforming changes to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60. The Exchange
proposes to amend section (d)(iii)(B)(I) and (II) in order to have all
high-priced securities autoquoted like all other securities pursuant to
the provision of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60.
    The Exchange further proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C
to reduce the share volume required to disseminate mandatory imbalance
publications at 3:40 p.m. and 3:50 p.m. from 50,000 shares to 25,000
shares. Prior to the adoption of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C, Amex
Rule 131A governed entry and execution of MOC and LOC orders as part of
the closing transaction. Pursuant to Amex Rule 131A, a specialist was
required to disseminate an imbalance publication if there was a buy or
a sell disparity in the amount of 25,000 shares.
    Exchange-listed securities are significantly different from those
securities listed on the NYSE which overall have a much higher Average
Daily Volume (``ADV'') and therefore are more likely to have MOC/LOC
orders that result in imbalances of 50,000 shares or more. Conversely,
a MOC/LOC imbalance of 25,000-50,000 shares in an NYSE Amex listed
security is generally significant given the typically lower ADV of such
securities; thus, publication of an imbalance is appropriate. The
Exchange reviewed trading statistics of MOC/LOC orders submitted to
NYSE Amex and found that from January 2, 2009-January 20, 2009, NYSE
Amex only had six out of 248 securities that had received MOC/LOC
orders for shares totaling more than 50,000 shares. This represented
2.4% of NYSE Amex MOC/LOC orders that met this 50,000 share threshold.
Additionally, none of the trading imbalances in the 247 Amex securities
ever totaled 50,000 shares.
    Given this information, NYSE Amex proposes to amend NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123C to reduce the order imbalance size required for
mandatory imbalance publication from 50,000 to 25,000 shares.
Currently, an imbalance of 25,000 shares would not be subject to the
mandatory publication requirement. The DMM on the Exchange would not be
required to publish an imbalance of 25,000 shares unless the DMM
determined, with Floor Official approval, that such imbalance was
significantly greater than the average daily volume in the security.
The Exchange believes that reducing the share volume from 50,000 to
25,000 shares will result in more transparency for NYSE Amex market
participants and promotes the principles of a free and open market
which benefits the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the reduction of the size parameter for
mandatory publishing of imbalances is appropriate for the Exchange's
listed securities because it provides mandatory imbalance publications
consistent with trading volume on the Exchange, thus providing
investors with more accurate information about disparities in MOC/LOC
orders consistent with the trading volume on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5),\11\ which requires that an exchange
have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendments are consistent with these objectives. Currently
DMMs manually trade NYSE Amex high-priced securities. This proposed
rule change would allow for these high-priced securities to be eligible
for automatic execution and auto-quoting which would allow NYSE Amex to
protect its quote and remain competitive with the other market centers.
Furthermore, reducing the mandatory publication of imbalances to 25,000
shares provides more transparency to the NYSE Amex market participants.
NYSE Amex submits that these proposed rule changes remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed
rule change operative upon filing. The Exchange stated that the waiver
of this period will allow orders in high-priced securities to
effectively compete as protected quotations. In addition, the Exchange
stated that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to
conform the mandatory publication requirements to the market
characteristics of the Exchange, benefitting NYSE Amex market
participants and the public interest. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-14. 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, 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 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-NYSEAmex-2009-14 and should be submitted on or before
May 26, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10171 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49795-49796]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17282]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371; FRL-8202-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU97

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Gasoline Distribution Technology Review and Standards of Performance
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of data availability; request for
comment; extending the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a
notice of data availability (NODA) and extending the comment period for
proposed amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Gasoline Distribution facilities and the
Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals and proposed New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The original proposed rule was
published on June 10, 2022, with a 60-day public comment period closing
August 9, 2022. With this notification, EPA is extending the public
comment period for an additional 30 days, until September 12, 2022.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published June 10,
2022, at 87 FR 35608, is extended. Comments should be received by
September 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0371. Follow the detailed instructions provided
under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of June 10, 2022 (87
FR 35608) for the submission of comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Feinberg, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address: [email protected].
For more information on this action please visit https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/gasoline-distribution-mact-and-gact-national-emission-standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The source categories subject to the June
10, 2022, proposal are Gasoline Distribution regulated under 40 CFR
part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB and Petroleum Transportation and
Marketing regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. The EPA proposed
revised requirements for loading operations, storage vessels and
equipment leaks at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout
stations at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions under
the NESHAP for the major source gasoline distribution facilities (part
63, subpart R). The EPA also proposed revised requirements for loading
operations, storage vessels and equipment leaks at area source bulk
gasoline terminals, bulk gasoline plants, pipeline breakout stations,
and pipeline pumping stations under the NESHAP for the area source
gasoline distribution facilities (part 63, subpart BBBBBB). The sources
affected by the proposed NSPS (part 60, subpart XXa) are loading
operations and equipment leaks at bulk gasoline terminals that
commenced construction or modification after June 10, 2022; emissions
from storage vessels are covered under a separate NSPS (part 60,
subpart Kb), which was not proposed to be amended.
    On July 25, 2022, Our Children's Earth Foundation (``OCE'')
requested an extension of the comment deadline for 30 to 45 days to
review the proposed rules and supporting information included in the
docket. OCE outlined several instances where they believed information
appeared to be missing in the rulemaking docket. The EPA reviewed the
rulemaking docket and concluded that, in most cases, the docket record
was complete. However, we realized that we inadvertently omitted
enforcement reports relied on for the proposed lower explosive limits
(LEL) monitoring requirements included for internal floating roof
storage vessels in that major and area source NESHAP. Following this
request from OCE, EPA has decided to provide this notice of data
availability (NODA) and comment period reopening to provide to notice
and time for commenters to fully review the proposed rulemaking,
including the additional information on LEL

enforcement records that have been added to the docket after June 10,
2022. The comment period is being extended for 30 days, from August 12,
2022 to September 12, 2022.

Penny Lassiter,
Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-17282 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25255-25256]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0071; FRL-9994-35-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (EPA ICR Number 1891.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0428),
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on May 30, 2018 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 neither conduct nor 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 July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0071, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or 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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-2970; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that 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, WJC 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: www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVV) apply to both existing and new POTW located at a
major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), or to Group 1 POTW that
are either area or major sources. New facilities include those that
either commenced construction or re-construction after the date of
proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. These notifications, reports, and records are
essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected
facilities subject to NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of publicly
owned treatment works.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 7 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $351 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in the respondent
burden from the most recently- approved ICR. This decrease is due to
changes in the estimates. The previous ICR renewal had included burden
for existing sources to submit periodic reports and maintain records;
however, the 2016 amendments clarified that the 13 existing sources are
not required to submit periodic reports or maintain records.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-11349 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P