[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68659-68660]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28182]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63227; File No. SR-EDGA-2010-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

November 2, 2010.
    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 October 29, 2010, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been 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 fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c) by
making an amendment to its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, for Non-Displayed Orders, Members are charged $0.0010
per share. However, this rate is contingent upon a Member adding
greater than 1,000,000 shares on a daily basis, measured monthly.
Members not meeting this minimum are currently charged $0.0030 per
share.
    First, the Exchange proposes to add clarifying language in footnote
2 to state that a Flag H would be yielded in this situation. Next, the
Exchange proposes to add an additional way for Members to be charged
the reduced rate of $0.0010 per share. This additional method would
allow Members to qualify for the reduced rate if they post on EDGA
greater than 8,000,000 shares on a daily basis, measured monthly
(yielding Flags B, V, Y, 3 or 4). The Exchange proposes to make a
conforming amendment to change the word ``this'' to ``either'' in
footnote 2 to clarify that a Member can receive the rate of $0.0010 per
share by satisfying either condition.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide a reduced rate for non-
displayed (``Flag H'') executions for a non-aggregated MPID
representing the volume of a Member and meeting certain criteria. For
executions in stocks priced $1.00 and over, if the average daily volume
(``ADV'') of Flag H executions for a non-aggregated MPID is increased
such that its ADV is 1,000,000 greater than its ADV of Flag H
executions averaged across the month of October 2010, then the non-
aggregated MPID would qualify for a rate of $0.00025 per share. For
executions in stocks priced below $1.00, if the ADV of Flag H
executions for a non-aggregated MPID is increased such that its ADV is
1,000,000 greater than its ADV of Flag H executions averaged across the
month of October 2010, then the non-aggregated MPID would qualify for a
rate of .025% of the total dollar volume of the Flag H executions. The
Exchange believes that these reduced rates for Flag H executions will
incent Members to add liquidity to EDGA.
    The Exchange believes that the above pricing is appropriate since
lower rates for Flag H executions are directly correlated with more
stringent criteria. The lowest rate of $0.00025 per share for Flag H
executions has the most stringent criteria associated with it and is a
lower rate than the next best rate of $0.0010 per share, which in turn
is a better rate than the default rate of $0.0030 per share for Flag H
executions. For example, assuming an average ADV for the month of
October 2010 of 500,000, a non-aggregated MPID would need 1.5 million
in Flag H executions to qualify for the rate of $0.00025 per share. In
order to qualify for the next best rate of $0.0010, a Member would have
to add greater than 1 million shares or post greater than 8 million
shares on a daily basis, measured monthly. If none of these criteria
are met, the Member would receive the highest rate of $0.0030 per share
for Flag H executions. In addition, these lower rates for Flag H
executions also result, in part, from lower administrative costs
associated with higher volume.
    EDGA Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on November 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\5\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. In addition, the lower rates for Flag H
executions also result, in part, from lower administrative costs
associated with higher volume. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2010-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\8\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-17 and should be
submitted on or before November 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-28182 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71864-71865]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, and 64

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0634]
RIN 1625-AC72

Updates to Marine Engineering Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the comment period by 45 days for
the notice of proposed rulemaking, ``Updates to Marine Engineering
Standards,'' published on October 19, 2021, which proposes to
incorporate by reference updated marine engineering standards and
eliminate outdated or unnecessarily prescriptive regulations. We are
extending the comment period to allow the public more time to comment
on the proposed rulemaking. The comment period is now open through
February 3, 2022.

DATES: The deadline for the comment period for the proposed rule
published October 19, 2021 (86 FR 57896) is extended. Comments and
related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before
February 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0634 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
document call or email Thane Gilman, Systems Engineering Division (CG-
ENG-3), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20593.
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your material by
using www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Background and Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, ``Updates to Marine
Engineering Standards,'' on October 19, 2021 (86 FR 57896). In it we
proposed to incorporate by reference updated marine engineering
standards and eliminate outdated or unnecessarily prescriptive
regulations in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
subchapter F. This proposed rule is part of a continuing effort for
regulatory reform that increases compliance options for the regulated
public while providing a cost savings to the regulated public and the
U.S. government.

    We set a 60-day comment period for the proposed rule and received a
request to extend the comment period by an additional 90 days. The
requester cited the scope of the changes in the proposed rule requiring
analysis, the overlap with the upcoming holiday season, and the
reduction in workforce availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic as
reasons for the requested extension.
    Since the proposed rule is primarily updating standards
incorporated by reference in the CFR to current editions already used
by industry, we do not believe public comment will require substantial
technical or economic analysis. However, inconsideration of the
commenter's other concerns, we have decided to extend the public
comment period by 45 days. The comment period is now open through
February 3, 2022.
    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: December 15, 2021.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-27567 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 30346]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-14, OMB Control No. 3235-0336, SEC File No. 270-297.

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    Form N-14 (17 CFR 239.23) is the form for registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities Act'') of
securities issued by management investment companies registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.)
(``Investment Company Act'') and business development companies as
defined by Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act in: (1) A
transaction of the type specified in rule 145(a) under the Securities
Act (17 CFR 230.145(a)); (2) a merger in which a vote or consent of the
security holders of the company being acquired is not required pursuant
to applicable state law; (3) an exchange offer for securities of the
issuer or another person; (4) a public reoffering or resale of any
securities acquired in an offering registered on Form N-14; or (5) two
or more of the transactions listed in (1) through (4) registered on one
registration statement. The principal purpose of Form N-14 is to make
material information regarding securities to be issued in connection
with business combination transactions available to investors. The
information required to be filed with the Commission permits
verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures
the public availability and dissemination of such information. Without
the registration statement requirement, material information may not
necessarily be available to investors.
    We estimate that approximately 139 funds each file one new
registration statement on Form N-14 annually, and that 58 funds each
file one amendment to a registration statement on Form N-14 annually.
Based on conversations with fund representatives, we estimate that the
reporting burden is approximately 620 hours per respondent for a new
Form N-14 registration statement and 300 hours per respondent for
amending the Form N-14 registration statement. This time is spent, for
example, preparing and reviewing the registration statements.
Accordingly, we calculate the total estimated annual internal burden of
responding to Form N-14 to be approximately 103,580 hours. In addition
to the burden hours, based on conversations with fund representatives,
we estimate that the total cost burden of compliance with the
information collection requirements of Form N-14 is approximately
$27,500 for preparing and filing an initial registration statement on
Form N-14 and approximately $16,000 for preparing and filing an
amendment to a registration statement on Form N-14. This includes, for
example, the cost of goods and services purchased to prepare and update
registration statements on Form N-14, such as for the services of
outside counsel. Accordingly, we calculate the total estimated annual
cost burden of responding to Form N-14 to be approximately $4,750,500.
    Estimates of the average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under Form N-
14 is mandatory. The information provided under Form N-14 will not be
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo,gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12147 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63107-63110]
[DOCID:fr08no07-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013, FRL-8489-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing full approval of revisions to the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also finalizing full
disapproval of a revision to the KCAPCD portion of the California SIP.
These actions were proposed in the Federal Register on December 19,
2006 and concern permitting requirements. Under authority of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action directs
California to replace the SIP rules with the approved rules and to
retain in the SIP the present SIP version of the disapproved rule.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013
for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket
are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

    On December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75916), EPA proposed to approve the
rules in Table 1 that were submitted for incorporation into the
California SIP. We proposed to approve these rules, because they met
all requirements.

                              Table 1.--Submitted Rules Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                 Rule No.               Rule title               Amended    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD...................................       201    Permits Required.................    05/02/96    07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................       202.1  Experimental Research Operations.    05/02/96    07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................       209.1  Permit Conditions................    05/02/96    07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................       210.2  Standards for Permits to Operate.    05/02/96    07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................       210.5  Visibility Protection............    05/02/96    07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75916), EPA proposed to disapprove the
following rule in Table 2 that was submitted for incorporation into the
California SIP.

                             Table 2.--Submitted Rule Proposed for Full Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title               Amended    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD....................................        203  Transfer.........................    05/02/96    07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to disapprove this rule because a rule provision
conflicts with section 110 and part D of the Act. This provision is as
follows:
     The revision to Rule 203 that allows the transfer of a
permit from one location to another is prohibited, because permitting
requirements may be different at different locations. A New Source
Review must be performed upon changing location. See 40 CFR part 51,
sections 165-166.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a full approval of
submitted KCAPCD Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5.
    We are also finalizing a full disapproval of submitted KCAPCD Rule
203. This action will retain the present SIP-approved rule in the SIP.
Sanctions will not be imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40
CFR 52.30-52.32, because the present SIP-approved rule fulfills CAA
requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State relationship, under the Clean Air
Act preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 10(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(239)(i)(C)(3 )
and (4 ) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (239) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3 ) Rule 201, adopted on April 18, 1972 and amended on May 2,
1996.
    (4 ) Rules 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5, adopted on December 15,
1980, April 5, 1982, December 28, 1976, and November 18, 1985,
respectively, and amended on May 2, 1996.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.242 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.242  Disapproved rules and regulations.

    (a) * * *
* * * * *
    (5) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Rule 203, Transfer, submitted on July 23, 1996 and amended on
May 2, 1996. Rule 203, submitted on June 30, 1972, is retained.

 [FR Doc. E7-21815 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 52074-52075]
[DOCID:fr08se08-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances; Proposed
Modifications and Opportunity To Comment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. DOT.

ACTION: Notice of modification of Airport Improvement Program grant
application requirements and of the opportunity to comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to modify the standard grant application
requirements that are required of a sponsor of a nonprimary airport
before receiving a grant under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
The FAA is providing an opportunity for public comment on proposals to
modify the grant application requirements.
    Sponsors of nonprimary airports are now required to provide a
variety of information when submitting an AIP grant application. This
modification would require that a sponsor of a nonprimary airport
submit a list of the aircraft (fixed wing and rotary wing) that are
based on the airport.

DATES: Comments are invited. Comments must be submitted on or before
October 8, 2008. Any necessary or appropriate revision to the
application requirements resulting from the comments received will be
adopted as of the date of a subsequent publication in the Federal
Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be delivered or mailed to the FAA, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, Room 619, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Heibeck, Airports Planning
and Programming Division, APP 2, Room 620, FAA, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to be considered for AIP grant
funds, a sponsor (the grant applicant) must meet certain requirements
and provide certain information regarding the project for which grant
funds are being sought. The Secretary must receive this information
from a sponsor (applicant) seeking financial assistance for airport
planning, airport development, noise compatibility planning or noise
mitigation under Title 49, U.S.C., as amended. Decisions to award
discretionary grants are made on the basis of a number of factors.
Nonprimary airports that have not provided verifiable data regarding
the number of aircraft that are based at the airport hinder FAA from
determining whether a project at that airport is justified. Therefore,
if a nonprimary airport has not provided the verifiable based aircraft
information, FAA will consider the failure to provide the information
as a factor when considering a request from that airport for
discretionary funding.

Discussion of Modifications

    FAA prescribes the information that must be contained in a grant
application. For nonprimary airport grant applications, FAA has
determined that accurate information on based aircraft is an important
element of justification for many proposed AIP projects at nonprimary
airports. In addition, based aircraft data supports the airport's
importance in the biennial Report to Congress--the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and in the Airport Master Record
(the Form 5010). A based aircraft is an operational aircraft that is
registered in the FAA Aircraft Registry that is at the airport the
majority of the year. Registered aircraft are defined in Chapter 14
Code of Federal Regulations Part 47. An operational aircraft is an
aircraft that is in a condition for safe operation.
    FAA may require a sponsor for a nonprimary airport to include a
list of the based aircraft at the airport, including the ``N-number''
for each aircraft when submitting a grant application or may require
the sponsor to update the list of based aircraft submitted with the
most recent Form 5010 inspection.
    The FAA manages the AIP in accordance with statutory direction and
agency policies and criteria. Decisions

to award discretionary grants are made on the basis of a number of
factors, including project evaluation under the National Priority
System and the current operations and number of aircraft that are based
at an airport. Nonprimary airports that have not provided verifiable
data on the number of based aircraft at the airport deprive FAA of a
tool for reviewing discretionary requests. Therefore, if a nonprimary
airport has not provided a list of based aircraft at the airport,
including ``N-number'', FAA will consider the failure to provide the
information as a factor when considering a request from the airport for
discretionary funding.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 27, 2008.
Wayne Heibeck,
Deputy Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. E8-20459 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48697-48698]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0034; OMB No. 1660-0125]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on revision of a currently approved collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the collection of information to administer the
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0034. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Vernetti, Program Analyst, FEMA,
Grant Programs Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) is an important part of the Administration's larger, coordinated
effort--known as the Federal Investment Strategy--to strengthen
homeland security preparedness. The HSGP implements objectives
addressed in a series of post-9/11 laws, strategy documents, plans, and
Homeland Security Presidential Directives. FEMA management requirements
are incorporated into the Homeland Security Grant Program and reflect
changes mandated in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.), as amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-053). Additional statutory
requirements are outlined in the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113-6).

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP).
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0125.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 089-1, HSGP Investment Justification; FEMA
Form 089-16, OPSG Operations Order Report; FEMA Form 089-20, OPSG
Inventory of Operation Orders.
    Abstract: The HSGP is an important tool among a comprehensive set
of measures to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. DHS/FEMA uses the information to evaluate
applicants' familiarity with the national preparedness architecture and
identify how elements of this architecture have been incorporated into
regional/state/local planning, operations, and investments. The
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) is a primary funding mechanism
for building and sustaining national preparedness capabilities. HSGP is
comprised of three separate grant programs: The State Homeland Security
Program (SHPS), the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), and the
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). Together, these grants fund a range of
preparedness activities, including planning, organization, equipment
purchase, training, exercises, and management and administration costs.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 322.
    Number of Responses: 532.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 333,502 hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                  Average       Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    Responses      Total      burden per     annual      Average       annual
         Type of respondent              Form name/form No.    respondents      per       Number of     response   burden  (in  hourly wage   respondent
                                                                             Respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)        rate         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government...  HSGP/SHSP/UASI                    56            1           56       1488.5       83,356       $38.14   $3,179,197
                                       Investment
                                       Justification, FEMA
                                       Form 089-1.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Documentation from SAA            10            2           20            4           80        38.14        3,051
                                       on how operational
                                       overtime UASI funds
                                       held by State would
                                       support urban area.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Multi-year Training &             56            1           56           42        2,352        38.14       89,705
                                       Exercise Plan.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Urban Area Working                62            2          124         1354      167,896        38.14    6,403,553
                                       Group Structure,
                                       including Points of
                                       Contact.

State, Local or Tribal Government...  UASI Governance Charter           33            2           66          250       16,500        38.14      629,310
State, Local or Tribal Government...  UASI Strategy..........           33            2           66          500       33,000        38.14    1,258,620
State, Local or Tribal Government...  UAWG spending consensus           33            2           66           80        5,280        38.14      201,379
State, Local or Tribal Government...  OPSG Operations Order/            39            1           39          570       22,230        38.14      847,852
                                       FEMA Form 089-16.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  OPSG Inventory of                 39            1           39           72        2,808        38.14      107,097
                                       Operation Orders/FEMA
                                       Form 089-20.
    Total...........................  .......................          322  ...........          532  ...........      333,502  ...........   12,719,764
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $12,719,764. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$2,617,570.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: August 5, 2013.
Loretta Cassatt,
Chief, Records Branch, Records Management Division, Mission Support
Bureau, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-19326 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P