[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50315-50318]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Notice of Fiscal Year 2012 Safety Grants and Solicitation for
Applications

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; change in application due dates.

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

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of FMCSA's Fiscal Year (FY)
2012 safety grant opportunities and FMCSA's projected application due
dates. FMCSA announces these grant opportunities based on authorities
provided for in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users. The Agency will inform
applicants if new authorizing legislation changes its grant programs
for FY 2012 through a Federal Register notice. The 10 safety grant
programs include the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)
Basic grants; MCSAP Incentive grants; New Entrant Safety Audit grants;
MCSAP High Priority grants; Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operator
Safety Training grants; Border Enforcement grants (BEG); Commercial
Driver's License Program Improvement (CDLPI) grants; Performance and
Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) grants; Safety Data
Improvement Program (SaDIP) grants; and the Commercial Vehicle
Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) grants. It should be noted
that FMCSA does not expect the Commercial Driver's License Information
System (CDLIS) Modernization grants to be continued in reauthorization,
and, therefore, FMCSA will not be soliciting applications for this
grant program in FY 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the following FMCSA
staff with questions or needed information on the Agency's grant
programs:

MCSAP Basic/Incentive Grants--Suzanne Poole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
202-493-0804.
New Entrant Safety Audits Grants--Arthur Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-3695.
Border Enforcement Grants--Carla Vagnini<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-
366-3771.
High Priority Grants--Cim Weiss<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0275.
CMV Operator Safety Training Grants--Arthur Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0710.
CDLPI Grants--James Ross<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0133.
SaDIP Grants--Cim Weiss<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0275.
PRISM Grants--Julie Otto<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0710.
CVISN Grants--Julie Otto<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-366-0710.
    All staff may be reached at FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.S.T.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    FMCSA recognizes that State and local governments and other
grantees are dependent on the Agency's safety grants to develop and
maintain important CMV safety programs. FMCSA further acknowledges that
delays in awarding grant funds may have an adverse impact on these
important safety programs. As a result, FMCSA completed a grants
process review to identify ways to streamline the application, award,
and grants management processes, and to award grant funds earlier each
fiscal year. In addition, FMCSA made changes in the grants application,
award and oversight processes to standardize application forms,
increase the use of electronic documents, standardize quarterly
reports, and reduce the number of needed grant amendments.
    FMCSA continues to enter into grant agreements beginning October 1
or as soon thereafter as administratively practicable. FMCSA intends to
begin awarding grants no later than 90 days from the date the
application is due.
    FMCSA uses the standard grant application form and quarterly
reporting process. FMCSA requires the Standard Form 424 (Application
for Federal Assistance) and its attachments for all grant program
applications. While each grant program may request different data in
some of the data fields on the form, the use of the Standard Form 424
is mandatory. FMCSA uses the Standard Form-Project Progress Report (SF-
PPR) as its required form for quarterly reporting. While each grant
program may request that different data be submitted in some fields or
boxes on the

form, the use of the SF-PPR is mandatory.
    FMCSA uses the Standard Form-425 Federal Financial Report as its
required form for quarterly financial reporting; use of this form is
mandatory. Because FMCSA has implemented a new grants management
information technology system, GrantSolutions, the Agency will provide
all grant agreement documents electronically to its financial
processing office. GrantSolutions is a comprehensive grants management
system provided by the Grants Center of Excellence (COE). The Grants
COE serves as one of three consortia leads under the Grants Management
Line of Business E-Gov initiative offering government-wide grants
management system support services. GrantSolutions provides
standardized grant application, award, and management and oversight
throughout the Agency's grant programs. Electronic signature of grant
documents in GrantSolutions is the Agency's preferred method for
executing grant agreements. FMCSA will provide more information on how
to electronically sign documents to grantees after award decisions have
been made. Grantees will, however, be required to submit the completed
Automated Clearing House (ACH) Vendor Payment Form (SF-3881) directly
to FMCSA's financial processing office by U.S. Postal Service, courier
service, or secure fax. Additional information is provided below for
each individual grant program.

MCSAP Basic and Incentive Grants

    Sections 4101 and 4106 of SAFETEA-LU authorize FMCSA's Motor
Carrier Safety Grants. MCSAP Basic and Incentive formula grants are
governed by 49 U.S.C. 31102-31104 and 49 CFR part 350. Under the Basic
and Incentive grants programs, a State lead MCSAP agency, as designated
by its Governor, is eligible to apply for Basic and Incentive grant
funding by submitting a commercial vehicle safety plan (CVSP). See 49
CFR 350.201 and 350.205. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31103 and 49 CFR
350.303, FMCSA will reimburse each lead State MCSAP agency 80 percent
of eligible costs incurred in a fiscal year. Each State will provide a
20 percent match to qualify for the program. The FMCSA Administrator
waives the requirement for matching funds for the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. See 49 CFR 350.305. In accordance with 49 CFR 350.323, the
Basic grant funds will be distributed proportionally to each State's
lead MCSAP agency using the following four, equally weighted (25
percent) factors:
    (1) 1997 road miles (all highways) as defined by the FMCSA;
    (2) All vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as defined by the FMCSA;
    (3) Population--annual census estimates as issued by the U.S.
Census Bureau; and
    (4) Special fuel consumption (net after reciprocity adjustment) as
defined by the FMCSA.
    A State's lead MCSAP agency may qualify for Incentive funds
pursuant to 49 CFR 350.207(a) if it can demonstrate that the State's
CMV safety program has shown improvement in any or all of the following
five categories:
    (1) Reduction in the number of large truck-involved fatal crashes;
    (2) Reduction in the rate of large-truck-involved fatal crashes or
maintenance of a large-truck-involved fatal crash rate that is among
the lowest 10 percent of such rates for MCSAP recipients and is not
higher than the rate most recently achieved;
    (3) Upload of CMV crash reports in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines;
    (4) Verification of Commercial Driver's Licenses during all
roadside inspections; and
    (5) Upload of CMV inspection data in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines.
    Incentive funds will be distributed in accordance with 49 CFR
350.327(b). Prior to the start of each fiscal year, FMCSA calculates
the amount of Basic and Incentive funding each State is expected to
receive. This information is provided to the States and is made
available on the Agency's Web site. The projected FY 2012 distribution
is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/safety-initiatives/mcsap/mcsapforms.htm. It should be noted that MCSAP Basic
and Incentive formula grants are awarded based on the State's
submission of the CVSP. The evaluation factors described in the section
below titled ``Application Information for FY 2012 Grants'' will not be
considered. MCSAP Basic and Incentive grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov).

New Entrant Safety Audit Grants

    Sections 4101 and 4107 of SAFETEA-LU also authorize the Motor
Carrier Safety Grants to enable grant recipients to conduct interstate
New Entrant safety audits consistent with 49 CFR parts 350.321 and
385.301. Eligible recipients are State agencies, local governments, and
organizations representing government agencies that use and train
qualified officers and employees in coordination with State motor
vehicle safety agencies. The goal of the New Entrant Safety Assurance
Program is to reduce CMV involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries
through consistent, uniform, and effective safety programs. New Entrant
grant funds will be awarded, at the discretion of the FMCSA to States
to conduct safety audits on new interstate motor carriers. States may
use these funds for salaries and related expenses of New Entrant
auditors, including training and equipment, and to perform other
eligible activities that are directly related to conducting safety
audits. The FMCSA's share of these grant funds will be 100 percent
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31144. New Entrant grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov.

MCSAP High Priority Grants

    Section 4107 of SAFETEA-LU also authorizes the Motor Carrier Safety
Grants to enable recipients to carry out activities and projects that
improve CMV safety and compliance with CMV regulations. Funding is
available for projects that are national in scope, increase public
awareness and education, demonstrate new technologies and reduce the
number and rate of CMV crashes. Eligible recipients are State agencies,
local governments, and organizations representing government agencies
that use and train qualified officers and employees in coordination
with State motor vehicle safety agencies. For grants awarded for public
education activities, the Federal share will be 100 percent. For all
other High Priority grants, FMCSA will provide reimbursements for no
more than 80 percent of all eligible costs, and recipients will be
required to provide a 20 percent match. Examples of High Priority
activities include innovative traffic enforcement projects, with
particular emphasis on work zone enforcement, rural road safety, and
innovative traffic enforcement initiatives such as Ticketing Aggressive
Cars and Trucks (TACT). TACT provides a research-based safety model
that can be replicated by States when conducting a high-visibility
traffic enforcement program to promote safe driving behaviors among car
and truck drivers. The objective of this program is to reduce the
number of commercial truck and bus related crashes, fatalities and
injuries resulting from improper operation of motor vehicles and
aggressive driving behavior. More information regarding TACT can be
found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

safety-security/tact/abouttact.htm. High Priority grant applications
must be submitted through grants.gov.

CMV Operator Safety Training Grants

    Section 4134 of SAFETEA-LU established a grant program which
enables recipients to train current and future drivers in the safe
operation of CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301(4). Eligible awardees
include State governments, local governments and accredited post-
secondary educational institutions (public or private) such as
colleges, universities, vocational-technical schools and truck driver
training schools. Funding priority for this discretionary grant program
will be given to regional or multi-state educational or nonprofit
associations serving economically distressed regions of the United
States. The Federal share of these funds will be 80 percent, and
recipients will be required to provide a 20 percent match. CMV Operator
Safety Training grant applications must be submitted electronically
through grants.gov.

Border Enforcement Grants (BEG)

    Section 4110 of SAFETEA-LU established the BEG program. The purpose
of this discretionary program is to provide funding for border CMV
safety programs and related enforcement activities and projects.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31107, eligible awardees include State
governments that share a land border with Canada or Mexico, and any
local government, or entities (i.e., accredited post-secondary public
or private educational institutions such as universities) in that
State. FMCSA encourages local agencies to coordinate their application
with the State lead CMV inspection agency. Applications must include a
Border Enforcement Plan and meet the required maintenance of
expenditure requirement. BEG funding decisions take into consideration
the State or entity's performance on previous BEG awards; the
applicant's ability to expend the awarded funds with the BEG
performance year; and activities meeting the BEG national criteria
established by FMCSA. As established by SAFETEA-LU, the Federal share
of these funds will be 100 percent. BEG grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov.

CDLPI Grants

    Section 4124 of SAFETEA-LU established a discretionary grant
program that provides funding for improving States' implementation of
the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program, including expenses for
computer hardware and software, publications, testing, personnel, and
training. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31313, funds may not be used to rent,
lease, or buy land or buildings. The agency designated by each State as
having the primary driver licensing responsibility, including
development, implementation, and maintenance of the CDL program, is
eligible to apply for basic grant funding. State agencies, local
governments, and other entities that can support a State's effort to
improve its CDL program or conduct projects on a national scale to
improve the national CDL program may also apply for projects under the
High Priority and Emerging Issues components. Grant proposals must
include a detailed budget explaining how the funds will be used. The
Federal share of funds for projects awarded under this grant is
established by SAFETEA-LU as 100 percent. The funding opportunity
announcement on grants.gov will provide more detailed information on
the application process; national funding priorities for FY 2012;
evaluation criteria; required documents and certifications; State
maintenance of expenditure requirements; and additional information
related to the availability of funds. CLDPI grant applications must be
submitted electronically through grants.gov.

SaDIP Grants

    Section 4128 of SAFETEA-LU established the Safety Data Improvement
Program grant opportunity to support State programs by improving the
overall quality of CMV data and specifically to improve the timeliness,
efficiency, accuracy and completeness of State processes and systems
used to collect, analyze and report large truck and bus crash and
inspection data, as described 49 U.S.C. 31102. Eligible recipients are
State agencies, including the Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the District of Columbia. SaDIP applications must address the FMCSA
State Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) map, which provides a color-coded,
pictorial representation of the State's overall performance against the
SSDQ methodology. This methodology was developed by FMCSA to evaluate
the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of the State-
reported CMV crash and inspection records in the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS). The SSDQ methodology is
comprised of nine measures and one Overriding Indicator. Ratings are
updated quarterly, and individual State performance is portrayed
through the color-coded rating system: Green (good performance), Yellow
(fair performance), and Red (poor performance). The color-coded rating
system depicts each State's Overall Rating which considers all nine
SSDQ measures, except those measures with a rating of ``Insufficient
Data,'' plus the Overriding Indicator. Priority will be given to
proposals received from States rated Yellow and Red on the SSDQ Map.
The FMCSA will provide reimbursements for no more than 80 percent of
all eligible costs; recipients are required to provide a 20 percent
match. SaDIP grant applications must be submitted electronically
through grants.gov.

PRISM Grants

    Section 4109 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes FMCSA to award financial
assistance funds to States to implement the PRISM requirements that
link Federal motor carrier safety information systems with State CMV
registration and licensing systems. This program enables a State to
determine the safety fitness of a motor carrier, a registrant, or both
when licensing or registering and while the license or registration is
in effect. No matching funds are required. PRISM grant applications
must be submitted electronically through grants.gov.

CVISN Grants

    Section 4126 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes FMCSA to award financial
assistance to States to deploy, operate, and maintain elements of their
CVISN Program, including commercial vehicle, commercial driver, and
carrier-specific information systems and networks. The agency in each
State designated as responsible for the development, implementation,
and maintenance of a CVISN-related system is eligible to apply for
grant funding. Section 4126 of SAFETEA-LU distinguishes between two
types of CVISN projects: Core and Expanded. To be eligible for funding
of Core CVISN deployment project(s), a State must have its most current
Core CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design approved by FMCSA and the
proposed project(s) should be consistent with its approved Core CVISN
Program Plan and Top-Level Design. If a State does not have a Core
CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design, it may apply for up to
$100,000 in funds to either compile or update a Core CVISN Program Plan
and Top-Level Design. A State may also apply for funds to prepare an
Expanded CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design if FMCSA acknowledged
the State as having completed Core CVISN deployment. In

order to be eligible for funding of any Expanded CVISN deployment
project(s), a State must have its most current Expanded CVISN Program
Plan and Top-Level Design approved by FMCSA and any proposed Expanded
CVISN project(s) should be consistent with its Expanded CVISN Program
Plan and Top-Level Design. If a State does not have an existing or up-
to-date Expanded CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design, it may apply
for up to $100,000 in funds to either compile or update an Expanded
CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design. CVISN grant applications must
be submitted electronically through grants.gov. Awards for approved
CVISN grant applications are made to all Core CVISN applicants first
and then to Expanded CVISN applicants. States must provide a match of
50 percent.

Application Information for FY 2012 Grants

    General information about the FMCSA grant programs is available in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) which can be found on
the Internet at http://www.cfda.gov. To apply for funding, applicants
must register with grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp and submit an application in accordance with
instructions provided.
    Evaluation Factors: The following evaluation factors will be used
in reviewing the applications for all FMCSA discretionary grants:
    (1) Prior performance--Completion of identified programs and goals
per the project plan.
    (2) Effective Use of Prior Grants--Demonstrated timely use and
expensing of available funds.
    (3) Cost Effectiveness--Applications will be evaluated and
prioritized on the basis of expected impact on safety relative to the
investment of grant funds. Where appropriate, costs per unit will be
calculated and compared with national averages to determine
effectiveness. In other areas, proposed costs will be compared with
historical information to confirm reasonableness.
    (4) Applicability to announced priorities--If national priorities
are included in the grants.gov notice, those grants that specifically
address these issues will be given priority consideration.
    (5) Ability of the applicant to support the strategies and
activities in the proposal for the entire project period of
performance.
    (6) Use of innovative approaches in executing a project plan to
address identified safety issues.
    (7) Feasibility of overall program coordination and implementation
based upon the project plan.
    (8) Any grant-specific evaluation factors, such as program balance
or geographic diversity, will be included in the grants.gov application
information.
    Estimated Application Due Dates: For the following grant programs,
FMCSA will consider funding complete applications or plans submitted by
the following anticipated dates (final due dates will be indicated in
the grants.gov funding opportunity notice):

MCSAP Basic and Incentive Grants--August 1, 2011.
Border Enforcement Grants--September 12, 2011.
MCSAP High Priority Grants--October 17, 2011.
New Entrant Safety Audit Grants--October 17, 2011.
SaDIP Grants--October 31, 2011.
CDLPI Grants--November 14, 2011.
CMV Operator Safety Training Grants--December 5, 2011.
CVISN Grants--December 5, 2011.
PRISM Grants--December 12, 2012.

Applications submitted after due dates may be considered on a case-by-
case basis and are subject to availability of funds.

    Issued on: August 8, 2011.
Anna J. Amos,
Director, Office of Safety Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-20557 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 167 (Thursday, August 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53041-53045]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18831]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89640; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

August 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 12, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``Exchange'') 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\ 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 its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to (1) eliminate the fee currently charged for non-
tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00; (2) modify the Adding Tiers; and (3) modify the Removing Tiers.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 its Fee Schedule to: (1) Eliminate
the fee currently charged for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in
securities priced at or above $1.00; (2) modify the Adding Tiers; and
(3) modify the Removing Tiers.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing and liquidity-removing orders by offering further incentives
for ETP Holders to send additional displayed and non-displayed
liquidity to the Exchange. The proposed changes also respond to the
current volatile market environment that has resulted in unprecedented
average daily volumes, which is related to the ongoing spread of the
novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'').
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on August 12,
2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
August 3, 2020 (SR-NYSENat-2020-25). SR-NYSENat-2020-25 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Market and Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (S7-10-04) (Final Rule) (``Regulation
NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading

systems,\7\ and numerous broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 20% of the market share of executed volume of equity trades
(whether excluding or including auction volume).\8\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume
of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 2%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. Although 54
alternative trading systems were registered with the Commission as
of July 29, 2019, only 31 are currently trading. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in
response to fee changes. While it is not possible to know a firm's
reason for moving order flow, the Exchange believes that one such
reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or
non-exchange trading venues to which a firm routes order flow. These
fees vary month to month, and not all are publicly available. With
respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an
exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 13 currently
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly,
competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and
market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem
pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices.
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking (or removing)
liquidity increases the likelihood that market participants will send
orders to the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This
increased taker order flow provides an incentive for market
participants to send orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange
generally charges fees for order flow that provides liquidity. These
fees are reasonable due to the additional marketable interest (in part
attracted by the Exchange's rebate to remove liquidity) with which
those order flow providers can trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
the following changes to its Fee Schedule designed to provide order
flow providers with incentives to route liquidity-providing order flow
to the Exchange. As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-
providing order flow have a choice of where to send that order flow.
Elimination of Fee for Non-Tiered Orders Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $0.0005 per share fee
currently charged for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in
securities priced at or above $1.00.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted, the Exchange previously charged a small fee as
opposed to offering a rebate for non-tiered orders removing
liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 but is now
proposing not to charge for non-tiered orders that remove liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the per share charge for
orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange will incentivize ETP
Holders to send liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange, thereby
enhancing order execution opportunities to the benefit of all market
participants. In addition, by eliminating this charge in its General
Rates, the Exchange believes that ETP Holders may be more likely to
submit liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange even if they do not
qualify for a Removing Tier.
Proposed Changes to Adding Tiers
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Adding Tiers by (1) creating a
new Adding Tier 1 for adding displayed and non-displayed liquidity in
Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C securities; (2) increasing the current
Adding Rates for the current Adding Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2; (3)
modifying the requirements to qualify for current Adding Tier 2; and
(4) and renumbering the Adding Tiers, as follows (proposed additions
underlined, deletions bracketed):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Tier requirement                        Adding rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding Tier 1:
    At least 0.25% or more Adding ADV as  Displayed liquidity: Tapes A,
     a % of US CADV.                       B and C: $0.0020 Non-
                                           Displayed liquidity: Tapes A,
                                           B and C: $0.0024
Adding Tier 2 [1]:
    At least 0.15% or more Adding ADV as  Displayed liquidity: Tapes A,
     a % of US CADV.                       B and C: $0.0022 [20]
Adding Tier 3 [2]:
    At least 0.075% [0.10%] or more       Displayed liquidity: Tapes A,
     Adding ADV as a % of US CADV and at   B and C: $0.0025 [24]
     least 0.15% or more Adding ADV and
     Removing ADV combined as a % of US
     CADV.
Adding Tier 4 [3]:
    At least 0.05% or more Adding ADV as  Displayed liquidity: Tapes A,
     a % of US CADV.                       B and C: $0.0026
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the Adding MPL Rate
for the Adding Tiers, and the proposed rate for MPL Orders under the
new Adding Tier 1 would also be no charge.
    The Exchange believes that the addition of new proposed Adding Tier
1 with a higher ADV requirement than the current Adding Tier 1 will
incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity to the Exchange
to qualify for the Exchange's lowest fees for adding displayed
liquidity and non-displayed liquidity. This in turn would support the
quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional price
improvement opportunities for incoming orders. The Exchange believes
that by correlating the amount of the fee to the level of orders sent
by an ETP Holder that add liquidity, the Exchange's fee structure would
incentivize ETP Holders to submit more orders that add liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby increasing the potential for price improvement to
incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that increasing the current Adding
Rates for current Adding Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2 while lowering the
Adding ADV requirement to qualify for current Adding Tier 2 and adding
a second requirement of at least 0.15% or more Adding ADV and Removing
ADV

combined as a percentage of US CADV, more ETP Holders will choose to
route their liquidity-providing order flow to the Exchange in order to
qualify for those tiers. The Exchange also believes that adding the
proposed second requirement to current Adding Tier 2 of a combination
of Adding and Removing ADV will expand the ADV eligible to qualify for
the tier, thereby allowing greater number of ETP Holders to potentially
qualify for the tier.
    For example, in a month where US CADV was 10 billion shares, assume
ETP Holder A has an Adding ADV of 12 million shares for an Adding ADV
of 0.12% of US CADV. On that basis alone, ETP Holder A would qualify
for the proposed Adding Tier 4, which has an Adding ADV requirement of
0.05% of US CADV. Further assume in that same billing month, ETP Holder
A has Removing ADV of 5 million shares, for a Removing ADV of 0.05% of
US CADV. ETP Holder A would have an Adding and Removing ADV combined of
0.17% (12 million Adding shares plus 5 million Removing shares
combined, divided by US CADV of 10 billion shares). ETP Holder A would
thereby qualify for proposed Adding Tier 3, which has requirements of
0.075% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of US CADV and 0.15% Adding
ADV and Removing ADV combined as a percentage of US CADV.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment,
particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which
add liquidity to the Exchange. Since the proposed Adding Tier 1 would
be new, no member organization currently qualifies for it. Also,
currently five ETP Holders qualify for current Adding Tiers 1 and 2
(revised Adding Tiers 2 and 3). The Exchange does not know how much
order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-
exchange venues. There are approximately five additional ETP Holders
that could qualify for the revised Adding Tiers 2 and 3 based on their
current trading profile on the Exchange if they so choose. However,
without having a view of ETP Holder's activity on other exchanges and
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any member organization directing
orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the new tier credits.
Proposed Changes to Removing Tiers
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Removing Tiers by (1) revising
the requirements for the current removing tier fees (for current
Removing Tier 1 and Removing Tier 2); (2) creating a new Removing Tier
3; (3) decreasing the removing rate for current Removing Tier 3; and
(4) renumbering the Removing Tiers, as follows (proposed additions
underlined, deletions in brackets):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tier requirement                       Removing rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing Tier 1:
    At least 0.20% [0.10%] Adding ADV and Removing ADV         ($0.0030)
     combined as a % of US CADV and 250,000 Adding ADV..
Removing Tier 2:
    At least 0.10% [0.04%] Removing ADV as a % of US          ($0.00275)
     CADV and 100,000 Adding ADV........................
Removing Tier 3:
    At least 0.02% Removing ADV as a % of US CADV and          ($0.0023)
     50,000 Adding ADV..................................
Removing Tier 4 [3]:
    At least 50,000 Adding ADV..........................  ($0.0015 [25])
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the Removing Rate for
Orders that Execute at a Price Better than Contra-Side NBBO for the
Removing Tiers, and the proposed rate for such orders under the new
Removing Tier 3 would also be no charge.
    The Exchange believes that these changes to the Removing Tiers will
incentivize ETP Holders to remove additional liquidity from the
Exchange to qualify for the Exchange's lowest fees for removing
liquidity. This is turn would support the quality of price discovery on
the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that requiring a higher Adding
ADV and Removing ADV combined for Removing Tier 1, increasing the
Removing ADV requirement for Removing Tier 2, introducing a new
Removing Tier 3, and lowering the corresponding credit for current
Removing Tier 3 (now Removing Tier 4) will incentivize more ETP Holders
to route liquidity removing order flow to the Exchange to meet the
higher requirements. Further, the Exchange also believes that adding
the proposed second requirement to current Removing Tier 1 of a
combination of Adding and Removing ADV will expand the ADV eligible to
qualify for the tier, thereby allowing greater number of ETP Holders to
potentially qualify for it by giving them the flexibility of meeting
the requirement using Adding ADV, Removing ADV, or both. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed new Removing Tier 3 will encourage
additional removing order flow to the Exchange by offering an
intermediate credit for half the amount of Removing ADV as current
Removing Tier 2 and 50,000 Adding ADV requirement. The Exchange
believes that the combination of removing and adding requirements for
the proposed new tier will allow greater number of ETP Holders to
potentially qualify for the tier.
    As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-removing order flow
have a choice of where to send that order flow. The Exchange believes
that as a result of the proposed changes to the removing tiers, more
ETP Holders will choose to route their liquidity-removing order flow to
the Exchange in order to interact with the increased liquidity-
providing order flow the Exchange anticipates from its proposed changes
to the Adding Tiers.
    The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose
to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. There are
currently 25 ETP Holders that qualify for the current fees for current
Removing Tiers 1, 2, and 3 for removing liquidity based on their
current trading profile on the Exchange. Since the proposed Removing
Tier 3 would be new, no ETP Holder currently qualifies for it. The
Exchange believes that many ETP Holders could qualify for proposed
modified Removing Tiers if they so choose. However, without having a
view of ETP Holder's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would result in any ETP Holders directing orders to the Exchange
in order to qualify for the modified Removing Tiers.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).

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

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting
market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that
market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use
of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. While it
is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the
Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any
one of the registered exchanges or non-exchange trading venues that a
firm routes order flow to, which vary month to month, and not all of
which are publicly known. With respect to non-marketable order flow
that would provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide
liquidity on an exchange.
    Given the current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, eliminating the fee currently
charged for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced
at or above $1.00, as described above, is reasonable because ETP
Holders will have an incentive to route additional liquidity-removing
orders to the Exchange without incurring any transaction fees, thereby
increasing the opportunity for contra-side order flow to receive price
improvement. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes to the Adding Tiers and Removing Tiers are reasonable because
they would promote execution opportunities for ETP Holders routing
order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal as a whole represents a
reasonable effort to promote price improvement and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposed change equitably allocates its
fees among its market participants. The proposed change would continue
to encourage ETP Holders to both submit additional liquidity to the
Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the fee currently charged
for non-tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or
above $1.00 and modifying the Adding Tiers and Removing Tiers would
encourage the submission and removal of additional liquidity from the
Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders
from the substantial amounts of liquidity present on the Exchange. All
ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that
would be present on the Exchange, which would provide greater execution
opportunities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also improve
market quality for all market participants seeking to remove liquidity
on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality. The proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes
an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly situated ETP
Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the same
general and tiered rates and would be eligible for the same fees and
credits. Moreover, the proposed change is equitable because the revised
fees would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same modified
Adding Tiers and Removing Tiers. Similarly, all ETP Holders would
benefit from the elimination of the fee currently charged for non-
tiered orders removing liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange
would be disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the general and
tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described
above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order flow, and the
Exchange believes there are additional ETP Holders that could qualify
if they chose to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \14\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes would provide additional incentives
for market participants to route liquidity providing and liquidity
removing orders to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity. The proposed revised fees would be
available to all similarly-situated market participants, and thus, the
proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly

competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading in Tapes A, B
and C securities is less than 2%. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and off-exchange venues. Because competitors are free
to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden
on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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-NYSENAT-2020-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-27. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-27 and should be submitted
on or before September 17, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18831 Filed 8-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105

December 17, 2009

MEMORANDUM

Subject: 	Communications Related to the Proposed Emission Standards for
Category 3 Marine Engines and Vessels Prior to the Final Rule

From:		Byron Bunker, Assessment and Standards Division

To:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The following table documents several phone calls
and meetings with individuals outside of EPA after the NPRM and prior to
the final rule.  The NPRM was signed on June 26, 2009.

Date	Participants	Subject

7/2	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	General
questions on proposed ECA, Applicability of SOx scrubbers and shore
power as equivalent technologies

7/29	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	Applicability
of SOx scrubbers and shore power as equivalent technologies, fuel
switching, CO2 tradeoffs with NOx

8/27	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	Applicability
of SOx scrubbers as equivalent technology

9/3	Peter Greenwald, South Coast Air Quality Management District	EPA
concept for a voluntary vessel verification program showing compliance
with Tier 2 & 3 NOx standards, SCAQMD’s concerns with in-use vessels

9/3	Coralie Cooper, NESCAUM	General questions re: proposal, lack of PM
standard, why does EPA expect PM reductions, expectations for ECA
adoption by IMO

9/10	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	200nm ECA size,
average global sulfur for 2020, EPA cost estimates, potential for a
fleet average program, potential for biofuels

9/29	David Podrantz, Amanda Sunderland, Murphy Oil	Murphy’s comments
on the proposal, confirm that Murphy will be able to produce 1.0%
residual fuel at all viscosity grades, Murphy can supply almost any fuel
spec but has concerns about the appropriateness/cost effectiveness of
the standards

10/5	Noel Basset, American Steamship	American Steamships expectation
that they will repower their steamships because they are self unloaders
and therefore cost effective operators, diesel power is much more fuel
efficient that steam vessels, value of any ship is based on the demand
for its services

10/7	Jim Weakley, Mark Ruge, Lake Carriers Association	Concerns re:
steamship economics and potential to repower, need for additional time
for steamships to comply, difficulty in getting financing to repower a
steamship, concerns about mode shift to rail or truck, limited shipyard
availability for steamship repower

10/23	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	Desire for
national wastewater discharge standard, concerns over inclusion of
Hawaii and Alaska in the ECA, ECA process at IMO

10/28	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	Different
processes for the ECA at IMO and the internal waters under APPS,
potential for credit for shore power, solar, gas turbines, sulfur
trading

11/2	Sue Maurmann, Director Environmental Programs Port of Tacoma
Concerns about the impact of the ECA on Jones Act shippers operating
between Tacoma and Alaska, RO-RO and Container traffic, mode shift to
AlCan highway

11/2	Jim Weakley, Lake Carriers Association	Approaches to address fuel
availability, economic hardship, ability for shippers to recover capital
investments

11/2	Mark Barker, Interlake Steamship	Recognizing significant capital
investments to repower steamships, recognizing benefit of early Tier 2
compliance for C3 engines

11/2	Rich Berkowitz, Transportation Institute	Concerns about the impact
of the ECA on Jones Act vessels, primarily those from Washington State
to Alaska but also Hawaii, concerns about mode shift, interest in
promoting marine highways

11/4	Jim Weakley, Lake Carriers Association	Addressing mode shift
concerns for C3 diesel vessels on Great Lakes, potential for incentives
to encourage repower of steamships

11/10	Paul Billings, American Lung Association	Is EPA aware of any
studies that look at direct exposure of marine crews on OGVs or
passengers on cruise ships?

11/10	Michael Crye, Cruise Line International Association	General
concerns re: equivalencies under MARPOL Annex VI

11/12	Jim Weakley, Lake Carriers Association	Discussed how lake carriers
bunker fuel and the viability of a reporting requirement when shippers
availed themselves of a potential fuel availability provision.  Believed
quarterly reporting would be reasonable.  Discussed potential hardship
provision for 2015 0.1% fuel standard and need for hardship applications
to come well before the standard date.

11/12	Mark Barker, Interlake Steamship	Recommended that any hardship
provision reflect both operating and capital costs for vessels

11/12	Dennis McLerran, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency	Ensure that EPA was
aware of the progress that Krystallon and Wartsila are making in SOx
scrubbing technology, encourage EPA to work with marine community on
wide range of technologies to meet environmental goals

11/13	Jim Weakley, Lake Carriers Association	Encouraged EPA to look at
potential for mode shift from DTE Monroe, MI powerplant (ship to rail),
recommend that in evaluating fuel availability EPA consider economics
(i.e., trucking fuel from Gulf Coast would not be considered available
in Jim’s opinion), recommend economic hardship reflect all cost for
shippers, expressed LCA’s commitment to work with EPA on the 6 month
study described in the Conference Report language

11/13	Valerie Devlin, Transport Canada	General questions on EPA’s
responsibilities coming from the appropriations bill and the associated
report language

11/16	Mark Barker, Interlake Steamship	Encouraged EPA to look at capital
recovery plans in considering economic hardship waiver provisions

11/17	Bruce Buie, Canadian Shipowners Association	General questions on
EPA’s responsibilities coming from the appropriations bill and the
associated report language.  How will EPA/Coast Guard work with
Environment Canada/Transport Canada as Transport Canada moves forward to
regulate the Canadian side of the Great Lakes

11/17	Tim Smith, Warner Petroleum	General discussion of how fuel is
bunkered on the Great Lakes.  Fuel in Chicago is supplied by truck from
Detroit.  Current price difference between Chicago and Detroit is about
15 cents based primarily on trucking costs.  Fuel tankers don’t cross
lake Superior due to OPA spill regulations.

11/19	Dennis McLerran, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency	General discussion
of IMO equivalency provisions and merits of SOx scrubber technologies,
capital constraints on shippers

11/20	Kathy Metcalfe, Chamber of Shipping of America	Raised concerns re:
coastal steamvessels and the need to address technical issues on those
vessels

11/20	Sue Mauermann, Port of Tacoma, Margo Oge, OTAQ, Dennis McLerran,
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency	Discussion of the technical challenges
facing steamships under the ECA program, ability of SOx scrubber
technology to lower compliance costs, opportunity for shorepower to
lower emissions, concerns of Jones Act Vessels shipping between
Washington State and Alaska, primary issue is compliance with fuel
program in 2015

11/23	Jacques Bellavance

Manager - Industry and Government Affairs, Shell Canada Products
Bunkering characteristics on the Great Lakes

11/24	Jim Weakley, Lake Carriers Association and Jim Priem, Interlake
Steamships	Discussed Bunkering practices in ports, discussed method to
define a port area, recommendation to use US Army Corp of Engineers
descriptions

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41969-41970]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD16-18-000]

Competitive Transmission Development Technical Conference;
Further Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on March
17, 2016, and the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference and
Request for Speakers issued on May 10, 2016, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission will hold a Commissioner-led technical conference
on June 27, 2016, from approximately 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on June 28,
2016, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Commission's
headquarters at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
purpose of the technical conference is to discuss issues related to
competitive transmission development processes, including, but not
limited to, the use of cost containment provisions, the relationship of
competitive transmission development to transmission incentives, and
other ratemaking issues.\1\ In addition, participants will have the
opportunity to discuss issues relating to interregional transmission
coordination and regional transmission planning as well as other
transmission development issues.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to,
those that the Commission described in NextEra Energy Transmission
West, LLC, 154 FERC ] 61,009, at PP 76-78 (2015) and ITC Grid
Development, LLC, 154 FERC ] 61,206, at P 49 (2016).
    \2\ See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection L.L.C.,
155 FERC ] 61,058, at P 54 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An updated Agenda for the technical conference, including speakers,
is attached.
    The conference will be open for the public to attend. Information
on the technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the
event. Advance registration is not required but is encouraged.
Attendees may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-27-16-form.asp.
    This event will be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with internet
access can navigate to the ``FERC Calendar'' at www.ferc.gov, and
locate the technical conference in the Calendar of Events. Opening the
technical conference in the Calendar of Events will reveal a link to
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.capitolconnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The webcast will be
available on the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference. Transcripts of the conference will be immediately
available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Interested parties may submit post-technical conference comments
for consideration in Docket No. AD16-18-000.
    While this conference is not for the purpose of discussing specific
cases, we note that the discussions at the conference may address
matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings that are
either pending or within their rehearing period:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO New England Inc...................  RT04-2 & ER09-1532
Midwest Independent Transmission        ER11-1844
 System Operator, Inc.
Northern Indiana Public Service         EL13-88
 Company v. Midcontinent Independent
 System Operator, Inc. and PJM
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
New York Independent System Operator,   ER13-102
 Inc.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER13-1924
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER13-1942
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER13-1944
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER13-1945
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER14-972
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER14-1485
Xcel Energy Southwest Transmission      ER14-2751
 Co., LLC.
Consolidate Edison Company of New       EL15-18
 York, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection,
 L.L.C.
Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM                  EL15-67
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
TranSource, LLC v. PJM                  EL15-79
 Interconnection, L.L.C.

Delaware Public Service Commission and  EL15-95
 Maryland Public Service Commission v.
 PJM and Certain Transmission Owners
 Designated Under Attachment A to the
 Consolidated Transmission Owners
 Agreement.
San Diego Gas & Electric Company......  EL15-103
New York Transco, LLC.................  ER15-572
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER15-1344
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER15-1387
New York Independent System Operator,   ER15-2059
 Inc.
NextEra Energy Transmission West, LLC.  ER15-2239
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER15-2562
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER15-2563
Southwestern Public Service Co. and     EC16-64
 Xcel Energy Southwest Transmission
 Co., LLC.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company......  EL16-47
DesertLink, LLC.......................  EL16-68
Boundless Energy NE., LLC v. New York   EL16-84
 Independent System Operator, Inc.
New York Independent System Operator,   ER16-120
 Inc.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER16-453
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER16-736
New York Independent System Operator,   ER16-835
 Inc.
New York Independent System Operator,   ER16-966
 Inc.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER16-1232
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER16-1335
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............  ER16-1499
Midcontinent Independent System         ER16-1534
 Operator, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Tobenkin (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Zeny Magos (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
(202) 502-8244<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Erica Siegmund Hough (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel,
(202) 502-8251<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 20, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15197 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71782-71785]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0674; Product Identifier 2019-NM-079-AD; Amendment
39-21003; AD 2019-24-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support Services GmbH (Type
Certificate Previously Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild
Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-100 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of missing rivets on landing flap support arm 2.
This AD requires an inspection of the landing flap support arms for
missing rivets and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 3, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0674.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0674; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0096, dated April 30, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0096'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-100
airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain 328 Support
Services GmbH Model 328-100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on September 9, 2019 (84 FR 47173). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of missing rivets on landing flap support arm 2.
The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the landing flap support
arms for missing rivets and corrective actions if necessary.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing rivets, which could
lead to the loss of one of two load paths, reducing the fatigue life of
the affected flap arms and leading to fatigue cracking of the support
arms of the flaps, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The agency received no comments on the NPRM
or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0096 describes procedures for an inspection of the
landing flap support arms for missing rivets, which includes a special
detailed inspection (eddy current) of the landing flap support 2 arm
along the edges and around the rivets for cracks, and corrective
actions. Corrective actions include installing rivets and repairing
cracks. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510...........................              $0             $510          $11,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition installation that would be required based on the results of
any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition installation:

              Estimated Costs of On-Condition Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340....             $27             $367
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA
to provide cost estimates for the on-condition crack repairs specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-24-14 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate previously
held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier
Luftfahrt GmbH): Amendment 39-21003; Docket No. FAA-2019-0674;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-079-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-100
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 3032 through
3063 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of missing rivets on landing
flap support arm 2. The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing
rivets, which could lead to the loss of one of two load paths,
reducing the fatigue life of the affected flap arms and leading to
fatigue cracking of the support arms of the flaps, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0096, dated April 30, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0096'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0096

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0096 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0096 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Corrective Action for Cracking

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0096: Before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or 328 Support
Services GmbH's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0096
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or 328 Support
Services GmbH's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0096,
dated April 30, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0096, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990
6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0674.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 9, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-28067 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20267-20269]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-520-000; FERC-520]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

April 8, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: An example of this collection of information may be obtained
from the Commission's Documents & Filing Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/elibrary.asp) or by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED-34 Rm. 42-39, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
parties filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filing, the original and 14 copies of such comments should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to
Docket No. IC08-520-000.

Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at (http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp). To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's website and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-520 ``Application for Authority to Hold
Interlocking Directorate Positions'' (OMB No. 1902-0083) is used by the
Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 305 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by Title II, section 211 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (16 U.S.C.
825d). Section 305(b) makes the holding of certain defined interlocking
corporate positions unlawful unless the Commission has authorized the
interlocks to be held and, requires the applicant to show in a form and
manner as prescribed by the Commission, that neither public nor private
interests will be adversely affected by the holding of the position.
    The Commission implements these provisions through its filing
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 18 CFR part 45.
The information required under part 45 generally identifies the
applicant, describes the various interlocking positions the applicant
seeks authorization to hold, provides information on the applicant's
financial interests, other officers and directors of the firms
involved, and the nature of the business relationships among the firms.
    Two types of FERC-520 applications are provided for, that which is
described in 18 CFR 45.8 as a ``full'' application and that which is
described in 18 CFR 45.9 as an ``informational'' application for
automatic authorization. Section 45.8 ``full'' applications are made by
(1) An officer or director of more than one public utility; (2) an
officer or director of a public utility and of a public utility
securities underwriter; or (3) an officer or director of a public
utility and of an electrical equipment supplier to that utility.
Section 45.9 ``informational applications'' are made by (1) An officer
or director of two or more public utilities where the same holding
company owns, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, the other
public utility; (2) an officer or director of two public utilities, if
one utility is owned, wholly or in part, by the other; or (3) an
officer or director of more than one public utility, if such person is
already authorized under Part 45 to hold different positions where the
interlock involves affiliated public utilities.
    Without this information collection, the Commission and the public
would not be able to inquire into and determine whether public or
private interests will be adversely affected by the holding of such
positions.
    Under the current OMB authorization, the Commission was allowing
the filing of FERC-520 in hardcopy and/or diskette/CD. However, through
RM07-16-000, implemented March 1, 2008, the electronic filing of FERC-
520 filings is also accepted through the Commission's eFiling system.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date.
    Burden Statement: The two types of interlocking directorate
applications, a ``full application'' pursuant to 18 CFR 45.8 and the
much more abbreviated ``informational application'' pursuant to 18 CFR
45.9 are represented separately here. Public reporting burden for each
is estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of         Number of      Average  burden
   Type of application filed annually        respondents      responses per      hours  per       Total annual
                                              annually         respondent         response        burden hours
                                                       (1)               (2)               (3)       (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full....................................                17                 1              51.8               881
Informational...........................               911                 1              29.5            23,595
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ................  ................  ................            24,476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total cost to respondents is $1,487,199 [24,476 hours
divided by 2080 hours \1\ per year, times $126,384 \2\ which equals
$1,487,199]. The cost per respondent is $1,603. The increase in the
estimated total cost over what was reported in 2005 is due to the
informational filings not being included in earlier estimates. The
reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, using technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing
and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable filing instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Number of hours an employee works each year.
    \2\ Average annual salary per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed information
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of

the agency's burden estimate of the proposed information collection,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
calculate the reporting burden; and (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-7919 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P