[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1439-1444]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73987; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-115]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for
NYSE MKT OpenBook MKT Order Imbalances

January 5, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 23, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook to
establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-
display basis and to establish an access fee for managed non-display
data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook,\4\
as set forth on the NYSE MKT LLC Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to establish eligibility requirements for
redistribution of market data on a Managed Non-Display basis and to
establish an access fee for Managed Non-Display data recipients,
operative on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285 (Apr. 3,
2013), 78 FR 21172 (Apr. 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-32) and 72020
(Sept. 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040 (Sept. 15, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-72)
(``Non-Display Fee filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-Display Use of NYSE MKT market data means accessing,
processing, or consuming NYSE MKT market data delivered via direct and/
or Redistributor \5\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of
a data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display
Services manages and controls the access to NYSE MKT OpenBook and does
not allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution
of NYSE MKT OpenBook by the data recipients. Managed Non-Display
Services Fees apply when a data recipient's non-display applications
are hosted by a Redistributor that has been approved for Managed Non-
Display Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE MKT data product to a data recipient or to any
system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is
required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data
recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT OpenBook through the
Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving
NYSE MKT OpenBook through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service
does not have any reporting requirements.
    Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved
under the Unit-of-Count policy.\6\ The Exchange is proposing to retire
the Unit-of-Count Policy, and as a result, eligibility for Managed Non-
Display Services of NYSE MKT Open Book would no longer be based on
eligibility under the Unit-of-Count Policy. The Exchange proposes
instead to establish eligibility requirements specifically for the
redistribution of market data for Managed Non-Display Services. The
Exchange also proposes to add an access fee that would apply to a data
recipient that receives NYSE MKT OpenBook from an approved
Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Non-Display Fee filings, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed
Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements
for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the
Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE MKT OpenBook for
data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further
internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by
data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-
Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the
data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the
Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE
MKT OpenBook in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than
using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE
MKT OpenBook prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of
NYSE MKT OpenBook and without rendering NYSE MKT OpenBook inaccurate,
unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The
proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution
models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70748 (Oct. 23,
2013), 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-105) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``Phlx'')); 70269 (Aug. 27, 2013), 78 FR 54336
(Sept. 3, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-106) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish non-display
Managed Data Solution for NASDAQ Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')); and
69182 (Mar. 19, 2013), 78 FR 18378 (Mar. 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-28)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for Phlx
equities market PSX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display
Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-
Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a
monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT OpenBook
through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data
recipient receiving NYSE MKT OpenBook through a Redistributor's Managed
Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting
requirements.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $500/
month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE MKT OpenBook
from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services,
operative January 1, 2015. Currently, data recipients, including
recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to pay an
Access Fee of $1,000/month to receive NYSE MKT OpenBook. Because the
purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for access to the
Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients, including
recipients of Managed Non-Display Services.\8\ In recognition that data
recipients of Managed Non-Display Services receive NYSE MKT OpenBook in
a controlled format, the Exchange proposes to establish an Access Fee
that would be applicable only to data recipients of Managed Non-Display
Services and that would be half the size of the current Access Fee. In
connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes to amend the
Fee Schedule to specify that the current Access Fee of $1,000/month is
charged to data recipients other than those receiving data through
Managed Non-Display Services. The proposed Managed Non-Display Access
fee would be in addition to the current Managed Non-Display Services
Fee of $750/month by each data recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is proposing to establish an access fee
for Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE MKT BBO, NYSE MKT Trades,
and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances that are also half of the existing
access fee for each respective data feed. See SR-NYSEMKT-2014-113
and SR-NYSEMKT-2014-114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements
for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more
closely aligned

with the nature of the services being provided is reasonable. The
proposed additional requirements for hosting in the Redistributor's
data center and for reformatting and/or altering the market data prior
to retransmission are also consistent with similar requirements of
other markets for the provision of managed data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-
Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to
recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee
because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a
controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the
significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of
computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading
activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to
grow through innovation and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx
also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access
fees for such services.\12\ The fee is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE MKT
OpenBook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7. NASDAQ offers a Managed Data Solution
that assesses a monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of
$1,500 and monthly Subscriber fees of $60 for non-professionals to
$300 for professionals. See NASDAQ Rule 7026(b). Phlx charges a
monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of $2,000 and a
monthly Subscriber fee of $500. The monthly License fee is in
addition to the monthly Distributor fee of $3,500 (for external
usage), and the $500 monthly Subscriber fee is assessed for each
Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-
Phlx-2013-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the
feeds.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE MKT OpenBook is entirely optional. The
Exchange is not required to make NYSE MKT OpenBook available or to
offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any
firm required to purchase NYSE MKT OpenBook. Firms that do purchase
NYSE MKT OpenBook do so for the primary goals of using it to increase
revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with
the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to
determine for themselves whether NYSE MKT OpenBook or any other similar
products are attractively priced or not.
    Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE MKT OpenBook at the new
prices have a variety of alternative market data products from which to
choose,\13\ or if NYSE MKT OpenBook does not provide sufficient value
to firms as offered based on the uses those firms have or planned to
make of it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use NYSE MKT OpenBook. The Exchange
notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase proprietary
market data to comply with their best execution obligations.\14\
Similarly, there is no requirement in Regulation NMS or any other rule
that proprietary data be utilized for order routing decisions, and some
broker-dealers and ATSs have chosen not to do so.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NASDAQ Rule 7023 (Nasdaq Totalview) and BATS Rule
11.22.(a) and (c)(BATS TCP Pitch and Multicast Pitch.
    \14\ See In the Matter of the Application of Securities Industry
And Financial Markets Association For Review of Actions Taken by
Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-15350;
AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014).
    \15\ For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, L.P. has
disclosed that it does not use proprietary market data in connection
with Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3, available at
http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-order-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of
comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses proprietary market data
feeds from all registered stock exchanges and the LavaFlow ECN. See
http://www.iextrading.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

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

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission, to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for

the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature
of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the
Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (DC Dist.) 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-
to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data
products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \19\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \20\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary market data products because
they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if
an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and
trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable
to customers using them in support of order routing and trading
decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by
competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus,
competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts
significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data
fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE MKT OpenBook
unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay
the proposed fees unless NYSE MKT OpenBook can provide value by
sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's
business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT and NYSE MKT's affiliates New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')
was executed by market participants that purchased one or more
proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for
each market). A supra-competitive increase in the fees for either
executions or market data would

create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\21\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \22\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F. W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''), and
internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow
and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ FINRA's Alternative Display Facility also receives over-
the-counter trade reports that it sends to CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated
as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively,
have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in
order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from
resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for
their users.\24\ Similarly, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\25\ In this environment, there is no economic
basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an
industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to
the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
    \25\ See ``LavaFlow--ADF Migration,'' available at https://www.lavatrading.com/news/pdf/LavaFlow_ADF_Migration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the
Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE MKT OpenBook,
competitors offer closer substitute products.\26\ Because market data
users can find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data
products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a
high risk that users may substitute another source of market data
information for its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status
in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 25.

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

    In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's
products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the
purchase.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \28\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \29\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \30\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-115 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-115. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-115 and should be submitted on or before
January 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00133 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 						             	Served:   December 29, 2004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

CORRECTED NOTICE*

Japan Charter Authorizations

(January 1 – December 31, 2005)

Under the terms of a 1998 U.S.-Japan Memorandum of Understanding (1998
MOU), U.S. carriers can operate 800 one-way charter flights (hereinafter
we refer to “one-way charters” simply as “charters”) between the
United States and Japan during the calendar year 2005 (January
1-December 31, 2005), subject to the limitation that no more than 300 of
these flights may serve Tokyo.

By Orders 92-6-32 and 92-9-21, we established new procedures to simplify
the distribution of the annual charters available to U.S. carriers for
operation in the U.S.-Japan market.  Specifically, we replaced our
year-to-year comparative allocation proceedings with streamlined advance
allotment/charter pool procedures.  Under these procedures, a portion of
the available charters are allotted in advance to carriers that have
operated an average of at least 20 charters over the previous two years.
 The balance is maintained in a charter pool for distribution on a
first-come, first-served basis.  We stated that allotments would be
issued in advance of the beginning of the charter year to qualifying
carriers for the upcoming charter year.

Under our streamlined procedures, five carriers—Atlas Air, Continental
Micronesia, Evergreen International Airlines, Gemini Air Cargo, and
Polar Air Cargo—are entitled to advance allocations.  Based on the
attached summary of carrier operations in the U.S.- Japan market,
consistent with the procedures established in Orders 92-6-32 and
92-9-21, we grant Atlas an advance allocation of 38 charters,
Continental Micronesia 36, Evergreen 36, Gemini 30, and Polar 26
charters.   The remaining 634 flights are reserved in a charter pool for
distribution on a first-come, first-served basis.

As discussed in Order 92-9-21, we require carriers issued advance
allotments to notify the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44),
Office of International Aviation, by letter no later than 14 days after
the service date of this notice as to what portion of their advance
allotment they intend to operate, together with an estimate of the
number of

________________________

*Corrects Notice served on December 21, 2004, to reflect a correction in
the number of flights allocated to Continental Micronesia.

2

charters to be used for Tokyo service in calendar year 2005.  They also
are required to file monthly reports of the charter flights operated
from their advance allocations.  Carriers operating flights from the
charter pool must also file post flight reports, identifying the date of
the Notice of Consistency under which those flights were approved.

The advance allotments issued by this notice and flights operated from
the charter pool for operations in calendar year 2005 are subject to the
conditions and procedures established in the Appendix.

By:

KARAN K. BHATIA

Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs

(SEAL)

Dated: December 29, 2004

Attachment

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

										APPENDIX

										Page 1 of 2

1.	The advance allotments are subject to the following condition:

Where fewer than 40 percent of a carrier’s allocated charters have
been

used or been committed for use by contracts during the six-month

period ending June 30, the remaining charter allotments exceeding or
equal

to the number of those already operated or committed by contract in the

preceding six months would be forfeited and placed in the charter pool.

2.	The charters not subject to advance allotment for the charter year
are reserved in a charter pool for distribution on a first-come,
first-served basis subject to the following conditions:

(a)	For the period January 1 through October 31, 2005, carriers may
apply

for up to 50 charters per month;

(b)	After October 31, 2005, no restrictions apply on the number of

charters that may be applied for each month;

(c)	Applications to operate charters may be filed no earlier than

120 days in advance of the flight date; and

(d)	Applications must identify the type of charter (passenger or

cargo); the date of each one-way flight; the charterer(s); the city-pair

markets involved by direction; the type of aircraft to be used; and

(for cargo charters) the type of cargo transported.  After October 31,

2005, a copy of the charter contract would also be required.

3.	Each carrier granted an advance allotment must notify the U.S. Air
Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office of International Aviation, by
letter, no later than July 11, 2005, of the number of charters it has
operated through June 30, 2005, and the number of flights committed by
firm contracts for the balance of the charter year.  For charters under
contract, carriers shall indicate the charterer(s), dates, city-pair
markets, and nature of the traffic.

4.	Each carrier granted either an advance allotment or pool charters
must notify the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office of
International Aviation, no later than the tenth day of each month (or
until its charters are exhausted, whichever occurs earlier) of: (1) the
number of Japan charters operated during the preceding month; (2) the
city pairs served by direction; (3) the date of each one-way flight; (4)
the charterer(s); (5) the type of aircraft used (6) the type of traffic
and the type of cargo carried, if any; and (7) the number of charters
for which Japanese authority was obtained for that month which
subsequently were canceled or rescheduled.   										APPENDIX

										Page 2 of 2

Carriers with advance allotment charters shall notify the Department
whether or not any charters have been operated by the carrier during the
month and such carriers shall return to the Department immediately any
allotted flights(s) that it will not use; and

5.	The Director of the Office of International Aviation is assigned the
authority for this and subsequent charter years, to administer
distribution of flights from the charter pool established by this Notice
and, where deemed in the public interest, to waive the restrictions on
the charter pool.

U.S.-JAPAN CHARTER OPERATIONS

					2 0 0 2				   2 0 0 3

			Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total

Continental Micronesia	  0             6            2            0
      0           2             7            11           3            0
            0           0                 31

Polar Air Cargo		  3             1            2            4
2           0             1             3            0            1
       3           4                 24

Gemini Air Cargo	  0             0            0           41*        18*
        0             0             0            0            0
   0           0                 59

Atlas Air		  0             0            0           64*          4*
   0             0             0            1            0             0
          0                 69

Evergreen		  0             0            0           45*        12*
  2*           0             0            0            0             0
        0                 59

					2 0 0 3				   2 0 0 4

			Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total

Continental Micronesia	 0	 2	 0	 2	 2	 4	 6	 8	 0	 2	 8	 1      	     40

													 5*

Polar Air Cargo		 2	 1	 3	 2	 1	 2	 1	 4	 1	 3	 4	 2                26

Gemini Air Cargo	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0                  0

Atlas Air		 0	 0	 0	 4	 1 	 0	 0	 0	 0 	 0	 0	 0                  5

Evergreen		 0	 4	 3	 2	 0	 1	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0	 0                10

*Flights obtained from the charter pool

Two Year Average

											            Rounded to Next

			2002/2003		2003/2004		Average			Even Number

Continental Micronesia	     31			      40			   35.5
              36

Polar Air Cargo                       24
       26                                    25
                 26

Gemini Air Cargo                   59
      0                                     29.5
              30

Atlas Air Cargo                      69
         5                                    37
                  38

Evergreen		    59                                         10
                       34.5                                        36

Our procedures provide that the average number will be rounded to the
next even number.  See Order 92-6-32 at page 4.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 40372]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-10]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On March
24, 2023, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public
comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
July 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the
search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On March 24, 2023, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public
comment on the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 88 FR
17917. FRA received no comments related to the proposed collection of
information.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment.
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to
file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest
public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: System Safety Program Plan.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0599.
    Abstract: In 2020, FRA issued a final rule \1\ that requires
passenger rail operations to develop and implement a system safety
program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 12826 (Mar. 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA uses the information collected to help ensure that commuter and
intercity passenger rail operations establish and implement SSPs to
improve the safety of their operations and to confirm compliance with
the rule. Each passenger rail operation should use its SSP to
proactively identify and mitigate or eliminate hazards and the
resulting risk on its system at an early stage to reduce the number of
railroad accidents, incidents, and associated injuries, fatalities, and
property damage. A passenger rail operation has the flexibility to
tailor an SSP to its specific operations. An SSP must be fully
implemented within 36 months of FRA's approval of a passenger rail
operation's submitted SSP plan. Under the SSP regulation, FRA will
audit a passenger rail operation's compliance with its SSP plan and
will use the information collected to ensure compliance with this
regulation.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 33 passenger rail operations + 1 new passenger
rail operation.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 767.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,891 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$153,019.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-13131 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37833-37835]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0558]
RIN 1625-AA00

Security Zone; USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a 100 yard temporary
security zone surrounding the USCGC EAGLE during a reception while
anchored in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. This security zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of dignitaries embarked on USCGC EAGLE
for the reception. Entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring
within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12 noon. (PDT) to 11 p.m. (PDT) on
July 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0558 and are available for
inspection or copying at USCG Sector Seattle, Waterways Management
Division between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
rule, call Ensign Heidi A. Bevis, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing a NPRM would be
contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of the dignitaries that will be on board USCGC EAGLE
on the date and times this rule will be in effect. If normal notice and
comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective
until after the date of the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the U.S. Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication is necessary to ensure the safety of the
dignitaries that will be onboard the USCGC EAGLE on the date and times
this rule will be in effect.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a 100 yard temporary security
zone surrounding USCGC EAGLE to provide for the safety of visiting
dignitaries while on board USCGC EAGLE for a reception. USCGC EAGLE's
presence in the Puget Sound is part of the annual ASTA Pacific Tall
Ships Challenge and the Tacoma Tall Ships 2008 Event. The U.S. Coast
Guard is establishing this zone to ensure that no unauthorized vessels
or persons enter into the 100 yard area surrounding the USCGC EAGLE.
The security zone is needed to protect the dignitaries from any
waterborne threats.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule will control the movement of all vessels and persons in a
security zone surrounding USCGC EAGLE as indicated in section 2 of this
Temporary Final Rule. The security zone includes all waters within 100
yards surrounding USCGC EAGLE. The security zone does not extend on
land.
    The U.S. Coast Guard through this action intends to promote the
security of personnel and USCGC EAGLE. Entry into this zone by all
vessels or persons will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port. This security zone will be enforced by U.S. Coast Guard
personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal,
state, or local agencies as needed.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This rule will be in effect for only 11
hours and vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for only 11 hours and vessel traffic can pass
safely around the security zone. Before the effective period, we will
issue maritime advisories widely available throughout the Puget Sound.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
not required for this rule because it concerns an emergency situation
of less than 1 week in duration.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public
Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. From 12 noon (PDT) to 11 p.m. (PDT) on July 2, 2008, a temporary
Sec.  165.T13-048 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-048  Security Zone: USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle,
Washington.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: 100 yards
surrounding the USCGC EAGLE during a reception while anchored in
Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor
within this security zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section is effective from 12 noon
(PDT) to 11 p.m. (PDT) on July 2, 2008. If the need for the security
zone ends before the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the
Port will cease enforcement of

this section and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

    Dated: June 20, 2008.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. E8-15040 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53024]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Financial
Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities

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. Information is used to determine if licensees have complied
with financial responsibility requirements (including maximum probable
loss determination) as set forth in FAA regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0601.
    Title: Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This collection is applicable upon concurrence of
requests for conducting commercial launch operations as prescribed in
14 CFR, Parts 401, et al., Commercial Space Transportation Licensing
Regulation. A commercial space launch services provider must complete
the Launch Operators License, Launch-Specific License or Experimental
Permit in order to gain authorization for conducting commercial launch
operations.
    Respondents: 6 commercial space launch services providers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-21672 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49465-49467]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19999]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0272; FRL-9997-16-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; South Coast Air Quality Management
District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD or ``the District'') portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are finalizing approval
of a revision governing issuance of permits for stationary sources,
including review and permitting of major sources and major
modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act''). Specifically, the revision pertains to SCAQMD Rule 1325
``Federal PM2.5 New Source Review Program.''

DATES: This rule is effective on November 19, 2019 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives one or more adverse comments by October
21, 2019. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public

that this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0272 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this action with the date it
was adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Rule No.                               Rule title                  Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1325......................................  Federal PM2.5 New Source Review           1/4/2019          4/24/19
                                             Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 5, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for Rule
1325 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal review by the EPA.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    The current SIP contains a version of Rule 1325 ``Federal
PM2.5 New Source Review Program,'' approved into the SIP on
November 30, 2018.\1\ The EPA's final approval of the rule identified
above in Table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding our
prior approval of the same rule in the current SIP-approved program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 83 FR 61551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    Rule 1325 addresses nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit
requirements for major sources of PM2.5. The rule has been
amended to address the single deficiency the EPA identified in our
November 18, 2018 action regarding the lack of inclusion of volatile
organic compounds and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors when
evaluating if a project will result in a major modification. The
District also made minor clarifying edits.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    In our November 30, 2018 action conditionally approving Rule 1325
into the SCAQMD portion of the California SIP, we determined that
separate from the identified deficiency, the rule satisfied the
applicable requirements for a PM2.5 NNSR permit program.
Therefore, in this action we are only evaluating whether the amendments
to Rule 1325 address the identified deficiency and if the minor
clarifying edits are approvable.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    The definition of term Regulated NSR Pollutant was revised to
include all PM2.5 precursors. This revision corrects the
deficiency previously identified by EPA.
    The definitions of Major Polluting Facility in paragraph (b)(4) and
Precursors in paragraph (b)(9), were revised to remove the existing
August 14, 2017 applicability date since the date has passed. Likewise,
revisions were made to section (f)--Two Year Limit on Facility
Exemption, to implement the 70 ton per year applicability threshold,
rather than provide a future effective date. In paragraphs (b)(6) and
(b)(15), a new definition for the terms Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile
Organic Compound, respectively, were added. These definitions are
consistent with EPA definitions for these terms. Other minor
capitalization edits were made throughout the rule. EPA finds each of
these revisions approvable.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. Because the revisions to the rule are minor, or
correct the identified deficiency, we do not think anyone will object
to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in
advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same
submitted rule. If we receive an adverse comment by October 21, 2019,
we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify
the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we
will address the comment(s) in a subsequent final action based on the
proposal. If we do not receive any timely adverse comment, the direct
final approval will be effective without further notice on November 19,
2019. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable
SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the rule
listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue
to

make, these materials available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(509)(i)(A)(2) and
(c)(524) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (509) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on November 30, 2018 in paragraph
(c)(509)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(524)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 1325.
* * * * *
    (524) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on April 24, 2019 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference. (A) South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
    (1) Rule 1325, ``Federal PM2.5 New Source Review
Program'' amended on January 4, 2019.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]

Sec.  52.248   [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.248 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (f).

[FR Doc. 2019-19999 Filed 9-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 60139-60141]
[DOCID:fr12oc06-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8230-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0002]

Draft Toxicological Review of Dichlorobenzenes: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period, Rescheduled
External Peer Review Panel Meeting, and Meeting Format Change.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the public comment period and
rescheduling an external peer review panel meeting to review selected
sections of the EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
final draft document titled, ``Toxicological Review of
Dichlorobenzenes: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-03/015), regarding the
inhalation reference concentration (RfC) and inhalation cancer
assessment for 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The EPA is also changing the format
of this external peer review meeting to include both a teleconference
and an in-person panel meeting.
    On July 11, 2006, EPA published a Federal Register notice (71 FR
39113) announcing a comment period that ended August 9 and an external
peer review panel meeting (by teleconference) that was scheduled for
August 16. On August 11, 2006, EPA published a second Federal Register
notice announcing an extension of the public comment period to October
10 and a rescheduling of the external peer review meeting to October
30. EPA is extending the public comment period to October 17, 2006,
rescheduling the external peer review meeting to November 3, 2006, and
changing the format to include both a face-to-face meeting and a
teleconference option for participation. This extended public comment
period and change in format for the external peer review are in
response to requests from the public.
    The public comment period and the external peer review meeting are
separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. In addition to consideration by
EPA, all public comments submitted in accordance with this notice will
also be forwarded to EPA's contractor, the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE), for consideration by the external peer
review panel prior to the meeting.
    As previously stated in 71 FR 39113 and 71 FR 46220, EPA is
releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    ORISE invites the public to register to attend this peer review
panel meeting as observers, either in person or by telephone. In
addition, ORISE invites the public to give brief oral comments at the
meeting regarding the draft document under review. The draft document
and EPA's peer review charge are available via the Internet on NCEA's
home page under the Recent Additions menu at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

When finalizing this draft report, EPA will consider ORISE's report of
the comments and recommendations from the external peer reviewers and
any public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice.

DATES: The period for submission of comments on the final draft
document will end on October 17, 2006. Technical

comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by October
17, 2006. Comments submitted to the EPA by October 17, 2006, will be
provided to the external peer review panel prior to the panel review
meeting. The peer review will be on November 3, 2006, and will begin at
9 a.m. and end approximately at 1 p.m., eastern time.

ADDRESSES: The external peer review panel meeting will be held at the
American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20009-1277. Under an Interagency Agreement between EPA and the
Department of Energy, the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education
(ORISE) is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer review panel
meeting. To attend the meeting, register by October 17, 2006, by
calling ORISE at<PHONE_NUMBER>, sending a facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or sending an e-mail to Margaret Lyday at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Interested
parties may also register via the Internet at http://www.orau.gov/dichlorobenzene.
 You must register by October 17, 2006, if you wish to

provide brief oral comments or if you plan to use the teleconference
option at the peer review panel meeting.
    The draft ``Toxicological Review of Dichlorobenzenes: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)''
(EPA/635/R-03/015) is available primarily via the Internet on NCEA's
home page under the Recent Additions menu at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A

limited number of paper copies are available by contacting the IRIS
Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you are requesting a paper copy, please

provide your name, mailing address, the document title, and the EPA
number of the requested publication. Copies are not available from
ORISE.
    Copies of the study by Aiso et al. (2005), referenced in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice, are available from
the IRIS Hotline in paper or electronic format or via the docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. If you are requesting a copy from the IRIS

Hotline, please provide your name, mailing address or e-mail address,
and document citation: Aiso et al. (2005) Carcinogenicity and chronic
toxicity in mice and rats exposed by inhalation to parA-dichlorobenzene
for two years. J Vet Med Sci 67(10):1019-1029. EPA is providing this
study in the interest of transparency. EPA is not endorsing or
supporting the study or its findings.
    Technical comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov
, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/

courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding registration and
logistics for the external peer review panel meeting and teleconference
should be directed to Margaret Lyday, ORISE, P.O. Box 117, MS 17, Oak
Ridge, TN 37831-0117, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

    If you have questions about the document, contact Audrey Galizia,
Chemical Manager, National Center for Environmental Assessment;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    IRIS is a database that contains Agency scientific positions on
potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or
lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. The database (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris
) contains qualitative and quantitative health effects

information for more than 500 chemical substances that may be used to
support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response
evaluation) of the risk assessment process. When supported by available
data, the database can be used as a resource for oral reference doses
(RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for chronic
health effects, and oral slope factors and inhalation unit risks for
carcinogenic effects. Combined with specific exposure information,
government and private entities use IRIS to help characterize public
health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and
thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public
health.
    1,4-Dichlorobenzene is widely used as a space deodorant for toilets
and refuse containers, as a moth repellent in moth balls or crystals,
and in other pesticide applications. The current IRIS assessment for
1,4-dichlorobenzene was placed on the database in 1994 and contains an
inhalation RfC. A reassessment of the potential health effects of
dichlorobenzenes has been undertaken. The draft assessment for
dichlorobenzenes (including the 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-isomers) was
subject to an external peer review and 30-day public comment period in
February 2004 (69 FR 4514, January 30, 2004). The scope of the current
external peer review and public comment is limited to the analyses
based on a chronic inhalation bioassay of 1,4-dichlorobenzene published
in the peer-reviewed literature (Aiso et al., 2005. J Vet Med Sci
67(10):1019-29) that was not included in the February 2004 external
peer review draft. This study was identified originally as an
unpublished study report by the Japan Bioassay Research Center (JBRC,
1995). Data from Aiso et al. (2005) were used subsequently in the
quantitative dose-response assessments for the 1,4-dichlorobenzene RfC
and inhalation cancer assessment.

II. Panel Meeting Information

    Members of the public may attend the panel meeting as observers,
and there will be a limited time for comments from the public. To make
oral comments at the commencement of the peer review meeting, you must
pre-register with ORISE indicating your intent to do so. Space is
limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis.

III. How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2004-
0002 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is (202)
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone

number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2004-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the

EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: October 5, 2006.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E6-16925 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P