[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26175-26176]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11612]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80828; File No. SR-BOX-2017-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7260 by Extending the Penny Pilot Program Through December
31, 2017

May 31, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 23, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') 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 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 Rule 7260 by extending the Penny
Pilot Program through December 31, 2017. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.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
    The Exchange proposes to extend the effective time period of the
Penny Pilot Program that is currently scheduled to expire on June 30,
2017, until December 31, 2017.\3\ The Penny Pilot Program permits
certain classes to be quoted in penny increments. The minimum price
variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except
for PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange
Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''),
will continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are
quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in
options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ,
SPY, and IWM will continue to be quoted in $0.01 increments for all
options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot Program has been in effect on the Exchange
since its inception in May 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 66871 (April 27, 2012), 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (File No.10-
206, In the Matter of the Application of BOX Options Exchange LLC
for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Findings,
Opinion, and Order of the Commission), 67328 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR
40123 (July 6, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-007), 68425 (December 13, 2012),
77 FR 75234 (December 19, 2013) (SR-BOX-2012-021), 69789 (June 18,
2013), 78 FR 37854 (June 24, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-31), 71056 (December
12, 2013), 78 FR 76691 (December 18, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-56), 72348
(June 9, 2014), 79 FR 33976 (June 13, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-17), 73822
(December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75606 (December 18, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-
29), 75295 (June 25, 2015), 80 FR 37690 (July 1, 2015)(SR-BOX-2015-
23), 78172 (June 28, 2016), 81 FR 43325 (July 1, 2016)(SR-BOX-2016-
24) and 79429 (November 30, 2016), 81 FR 87991 (December 6,
2016)(SR-BOX-2016-55). The extension of the effective date and the
revision of the date to replace issues that have been delisted are
the only changes to the Penny Pilot Program being proposed at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may replace, on a semi-annual basis, any Pilot Program
classes

that have been delisted on the second trading day following July 1,
2017. The Exchange notes that the replacement classes will be selected
based on trading activity for the six month period beginning December
1, 2016 and ending May 31, 2017 for the July 2017 replacements. The
Exchange will employ the same parameters to prospective replacement
classes as approved and applicable under the Pilot Program, including
excluding high-priced underlying securities. The Exchange will
distribute a Regulatory Circular notifying Participants which
replacement classes shall be included in the Penny Pilot Program.
    BOX is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot until December 31, 2017 and changes the dates for replacing Penny
Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day following
July 1, 2017, will enable public customers and other market
participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for
the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent with the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a
determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and
will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby
reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. The Pilot is an industry wide initiative supported by all
other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot
will allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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

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

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

    (a) This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-18 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-BOX-2017-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-
2017-18 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11612 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 206 (Friday, October 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67538-67540]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23504]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-10015-68]

Pesticide Registration Review; Interim Decisions for Several
Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim and
final registration review decisions for the following chemicals:
Bacillus thuringiensis plant-incorporated protectants in cotton--
Lepidopteran pests, bifenthrin, boscalid, chlorine gas, Coniothyrium
species, cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin, cyphenothrin, cyproconazole,
deltamethrin,

esfenvalerate, ethoxyquin, etoxazole, fenpropathrin, flower oils,
fluazifop-P-butyl, Fluopicolide (ID Amendment), Gliocladium species,
gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), imiprothrin, MCPA, mecoprop-p,
methyl bromide, permethrin, phenol and salt, phenothrin, pinoxaden,
prallethrin, pymetrozine, pyraclostrobin, pyraflufen-ethyl, tau-
fluvalinate, tefluthrin, terbuthylazine, tetramethrin, thiabendazole
and salts, vegetable oils.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I access the decision documents and other related
information?

    The docket for this action, identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest as provided in the
Table in Unit IV., is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the
Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in
the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West
William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim and final registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in the following table. The interim registration
review decisions are supported by rationales included in the docket
established for each chemical.

                       Table--Registration Review Interim and Final Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager and
Registration review case name and No.                 Docket ID No.                     contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacillus thuringiensis, Plant-         EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0475                        Michael Glikes,
 incorporated Protectants in Cotton--<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Lepidopteran Pests, Case Number 6504.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bifenthrin, Case Number 7402.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0384                        Andrew Muench,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8263.
Boscalid, Case Number 7039...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0199                        Lauren Weissenborn,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Chlorine gas, Case Number 4022.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0242                        Daniel Halpert,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Coniothyrium species, Case Number      EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0259                        Daniel Schoeff,
 6022<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin, Case   EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0684                        Michelle Nolan,
 Number 7405<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyphenothrin, Case Number 7412.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0842                        Theodore Varns,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyproconazole, Case Number 7011......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0462                        Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Deltamethrin, Case Number 7414.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0637                        Samantha Thomas,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Esfenvalerate, Case Number 7406......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0301                        Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Ethoxyquin, Case Number 0003.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0780                        Matthew B. Khan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8613.
Etoxazole, Case 7616.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0133                        Rachel Fletcher,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fenpropathrin, Case Number 7601......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0422                        Robert Little,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8156.
Flower Oils, Case Number 8202........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0628                        Cody Kendrick,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0468.
Fluazifop-P-butyl, Case Number 2285..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0779                        Jonathan Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fluopicolide (Amendment), Case Number  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0037                        Matthew B. Khan,
 7055<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8613.
Gliocladium species, Case Number 6020  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0439                        Joseph Mabon,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0177.

Gonadotropin Releasing Hormones        EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0798                        Jaclyn Pyne,
 (GnRH), Case Number 7800<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0455.
Imiprothrin, Case Number 7426........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0692                        Robert Little,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8156.
MCPA, Case Number 0017...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0180                        Steven R. Peterson,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Mecoprop-p, Case Number 0377.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0361                        Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Methyl Bromide, Case Number 0335.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0269                        Tiffany Green,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0314.
Permethrin, Case Number 2510.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0039                        Ana Pinto<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Phenol and Salt, Case Number 4074....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0810                        Peter Bergquist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Phenothrin, Case Number 0426.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0539                        Alexandra Feitel,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pinoxaden, Case Number 7266..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0603                        Christina Scheltema,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Prallethrin, Case Number 7418........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1009                        Marisa Wright,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0463.
Pymetrozine, Case Number 7474........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0368                        Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Pyraclostrobin, Case Number 7034.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0051                        Rachel Eberius,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pyraflufen-ethyl, Case Number 7259...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0415                        Ana Pinto<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tau-fluvalinate, Case Number 2295....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0915                        Alexander Hazlehurst,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                ,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tefluthrin, Case Number 7409.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0501                        Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Terbuthylazine, Case Number 2645.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0453                        Rame Cromwell,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                308-9068.
Tetramethrin, Case Number 2660.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0907                        Anna Romanovsky,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thiabendazole and Salts, Case Number   EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0175                        Kent Fothergill,
 2670<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Vegetable Oils, Case Number 8201.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0904                        Bibiana Oe,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8162.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed
the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period
for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for
the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions
required in the interim decision have been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 7, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-23504 Filed 10-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Technical Support Document: Calculating Benefit Per-Ton estimates

Overview

The full attainment PM2.5 benefits in this RIA are a composite of
benefits from the modeled partial attainment scenario and extrapolated
benefits based on benefit per-ton metrics. This technical support
document (TSD) documents the steps we took to calculate the benefit
per-ton metrics that were used as the basis for the extrapolated
benefits. This document focuses specifically on the steps followed to
calculate the metrics and makes extensive reference to previous
documents that describe the air quality modeling data that provided the
inputs to these benefit estimates.

Summary of Calculation Steps

The basic calculation steps were as follows:

Model the changes in ambient PM2.5 associated with 25%, 50% and 75%
reductions in PM2.5 precursors from various classes of industrial
sources

Input the changes in air quality to the Environmental Benefits Mapping
and Analysis Program (BenMAP) and estimate monetized benefit estimates
of these air quality improvements

Divide the total monetized benefit by the total emission reduction

Below we provide an expanded discussion of each of these three steps.

Generating Modeled PM2.5 Concentrations

EPA employed a Response Surface Model (RSM) to generate estimated PM2.5
concentrations. The RSM uses advanced statistical techniques to
characterize the relationship between a very complex air quality model
such as CMAQ and input parameters in a highly economical manner.  The
RSM is simply a reduced-form prediction model that uses statistical
correlation structures to approximate model functions through the design
of complex multi-dimensional experiments. Additional technical detail
regarding the model may be found in the technical support document for
the PM2.5 RIA.

In this version of the PM2.5 RSM, EPA selected 12 emission control
factors based on precursor emission type and source category.  The
selection of factors was based on three fundamental areas:

type of precursor emission (NOx, SOx, NH3, POC, PEC, or VOC),

emission source category (EGU point sources, NonEGU point sources, area
sources, agricultural sources, nonroad sources, and mobile sources)

location of urban areas contributing to residual PM2.5 after
implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2015 and
geographically distinct in contribution to sources of PM2.5
concentrations.

This version of the PM2.5 RSM uses the 2015 CAIR inventory and included
the following 12 source pollutant factors:

NOx EGU = NOx IPM EGU point source emissions

NOx NonEGU Point and Area = NOx IPM Non-EGU point source, area source,
and agricultural source emissions

NOx Mobile = NOx nonroad source and mobile source emissions

SOx EGU = SOx IPM EGU point source emissions

SOx NonEGU Point = SOx IPM Non-EGU point source emissions

SOx Area = SOx area source and agricultural source emissions

NH3 Area = Ammonia area source and agricultural source emissions

NH3 Mobile = Ammonia non-road source and mobile source sources

POC/PEC Point (EGU and NonEGU) = Elemental carbon and organic carbon IPM
EGU point source and IPM Non-EGU point source emissions

POC/PEC Mobile = Elemental carbon and organic carbon nonroad source and
mobile source emissions

POC/PEC Area = Elemental carbon and organic carbon area source and
agricultural source emissions

VOC All = Volatile organic carbon IPM EGU point source, IPM Non-EGU
point source, area source, agricultural source, nonroad source, and
mobile source emissions

One of the chief analytical benefits of the RSM is that it can model the
change in air quality resulting from a change in emissions from any
given source/pollutant factor while holding all other factors constant.
For, example, the RSM can estimate the improvement in PM2.5 air quality
resulting from a 50% reduction in area source NH3 while holding other
emissions constant. This ability to hold other emissions constant is
essential to the process of creating benefit per ton estimates that are
specific to each source/pollutant combination.

To generate estimates of changes in air quality associated with emission
reductions in each source/pollutant combination, we simulated a 25%, 50%
and 75% reduction in each of the 12 factors, each time holding all other
factors constant; this step generated 36 different air quality modeling
runs. For each modeling run, the RSM produces 36 km CMAQ air quality
grids suitable for input to the BenMAP model for subsequent generation
of benefits estimates.

Estimating Monetary Value of Human Health Benefits

We used the BenMAP model to estimate changes in human health resulting
from each of these modeling scenarios. The benefits assessment used
techniques, health impact functions and valuation functions that were
consistent with the Regulatory Impact Analysis that supported the PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Readers interested in a
comprehensive discussion of these methods and functions may refer to
chapter 5 of this document.

The BenMAP model produced estimates of the change in the incidence of
health effects and estimated a monetary value for the modeled air
quality change in each of the 12 source/pollutant combinations.
Consistent with the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA, we estimated total benefits for
each modeling scenario using two different PM2.5 mortality functions:
Pope et. al (2002) and Laden et. al (2006). For analytical simplicity we
estimated benefits using a 3% discount rate only.

Calculating the benefit per ton estimates

Having modeled the PM2.5 air quality change and estimated the total
valuation for each scenario, the final step was to estimate the benefit
per ton of PM2.5 precursor abated. This calculation step involved simply
dividing each valuation estimate by its corresponding reduction in PM2.5
precursor tons abated. For example, in a given scenario we reduced
emissions by 1,000 tons and benefits were $2,000,000 then the benefit
per ton would be $2,000.

Results

Table 1 below summarizes the benefit per ton estimates for each of the
36 scenarios.

PM2.5 Mortality Estimate	Percent Emission Reduction	Source/Pollutant
Combination

CarbonArea	CarbonMobile	CarbonEGU/

Non-EGU	NH3Area	NH3Mobile	NOxEGU	NOxMobile	NOxNEGU	SOxArea	SOxEGU
SOxNEGU	VOC

Pope et al. (2002)	25%	$240,548	$174,152	$147,210	$12,276	$27,895	$2,570
$4,176	$2,491	$12,651	$24,166	$15,203	$325

	50%	$234,903	$172,105	$147,298	$12,364	$30,713	$3,106	$4,556	$2,833
$13,163	$22,344	$15,020	$408

	75%	$229,860	$169,523	$146,567	$12,421	$33,529	$3,644	$4,919	$3,173
$13,581	$20,226	$14,858	$491

	Laden et al. (2006)	25%	$514,082	$372,797	$316,484	$26,293	$59,780
$5,494	$8,961	$5,346	$27,088	$51,740	$32,532	$695

	50%	$500,528	$368,015	$316,292	$26,431	$65,775	$6,643	$9,766	$6,078
$28,183	$47,609	$32,084	$874

	75%	$488,309	$362,045	$314,310	$26,500	$71,757	$7,796	$10,531	$6,804
$29,065	$42,856	$31,681	$1,051

Discussion

There is some variability among the benefit per ton estimates. The first
source of variability is attributable to the PM2.5 mortality estimate
used to calculate total benefits. Consistent with the results of the
PM2.5 RIA, benefit estimates derived using the Laden et al. (2006)
mortality estimate are roughly double those estimates based on Pope et
al. (2002).

The second source of variability among the estimates is due to the
different potential for a given ton of each of the 12 source/sector
combinations to form PM2.5 in the atmosphere. For example, carbonaceous
particles emitted directly from mobile sources tend to have a great
potential to form PM2.5 in the atmosphere than do volatile organic
compounds. As such, the monetized benefits of abating a ton of mobile
source carbonaceous particles is significantly greater than that of
reducing a ton of volatile organic compounds.

 Abt Associates, Incorporated. Environmental Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program (Version 2.4). Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Benefits and
Cost group. Research Triangle Park, NC.  2005.

  "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2006.  Technical
Support Document for the Proposed PM NAAQS Rule, Response Surface
Modeling, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC (Docket # OAR_2001_0017_0770).

 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 2006.

 Benefits estimated using a 7% discount rate would be somewhat smaller.
The partial attainment valuation estimates in the Ozone RIA derived
using a 7% discount rate are approximately 15% lower than those using a
3% discount rate.

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53356]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2018-76]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bombardier
Inc.; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA published a document in the Federal Register on
October 5, 2018, requesting comments on a petition for exemption
seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation
Regulations. The document contained one incorrect reference to the
petitioner.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected]; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, phone
202-267-4713, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In Summary Notice No. PE-2018-76, published in the Federal Register
on October 5, 2018 (83 FR 50435), in FR Doc. 2018-21656, on page 50435,
in the second column, correct the ``Subject Heading'' as follows:

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bombardier Inc.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 10, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.
[FR Doc. 2018-22927 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70264-70265]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-22]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs
describe the information collections and their expected burden. On
October 7, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On October 7, 2019, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public
comment on the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR
53556. FRA has received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment.
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to
file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest
public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:

    Title: Remotely Controlled Switch Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0516.
    Abstract: Sections 49 CFR 218.30 and 218.77 require remotely
controlled switches be properly lined to protect workers who are
vulnerable to being struck by moving cars as they inspect or service
rolling equipment on track or occupy camp cars. Creating required
notifications promotes safety by minimizing the mental lapses of
workers who are simultaneously handling several tasks. These sections
require the operator of remotely controlled switches to maintain a
record of each blue signal protection request for 15 days. Operators of
remotely controlled switches use the information as a record
documenting blue signal protection of workers or camp cars. This record
also serves as a valuable resource for railroad supervisors and FRA and
State inspectors monitoring regulatory compliance.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 53 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1,934,650.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 24,183 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$1,378,431.

    Title: Bad Order, Home Shop Card, and Stenciling Reporting Mark.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0519.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 215, railroads are required to inspect
freight cars placed in service and take remedial action when defects
are identified. A railroad freight car with a part 215 defect may be
moved to another location for repair only after the railroad has
complied with the process under 49 CFR 215.9. Section 215.9 requires
railroads to affix a ``bad order'' tag describing each defect to each
side of the freight car. It is imperative that a defective freight car
be tagged ``bad order'' so it can be readily identified and moved to
another location for repair purposes only, and so that the maximum
speed and other restrictions necessary for safely conducting the
movement are known. At the repair location, the ``bad order'' tag
serves as a notification of the defective condition of the freight car.
Railroads must retain each tag for 90 days to verify that proper
repairs were made at the designated location. When inspecting a freight
car, FRA and State inspectors review all pertinent records to determine
railroads' compliance with the movement restrictions of 49 CFR 215.9.
    Additionally, section 215.301 \1\ requires railroads and private
car owners to stencil or otherwise display identification marks on
freight cars. FRA uses the identification marks to determine the
railroads affected, the number and type of cars involved, the
commodities being carried, and the territorial and speed limits within
which the cars will be operated. FRA reviews this information to
determine if the freight car is safe to operate and if the operation
qualifies for dedicated

service and is excluded from the requirements of part 215. Railroads
use the required information to provide identification and control so
that dedicated cars remain in the prescribed service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burdens associated with section 215.301 were formerly
covered under OMB Control Number 2130-0520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 752 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 300,000.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 38,250 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$2,187,900.

    Title: Bridge Worker Safety Rules.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0535.
    Abstract: Subpart B of 49 CFR part 214 establishes minimum
workplace safety standards for railroad employees as they apply to
railroad bridges. Specifically, 49 CFR 214.105(c) establishes standards
and practices for safety net systems. Safety nets and net installations
must be drop-tested at the job site after initial installation and
before being used as a fall-protection system, after major repairs, and
at 6-month intervals if left at one site. If a drop-test is not
feasible and is not performed, then the railroad or railroad
contractor, or a designated certified person, must provide written
certification the net complies with the safety standards of 49 CFR
214.105. FRA and State inspectors use the information to enforce
Federal regulations. The information maintained at the job site
promotes safe bridge worker practices.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 746 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 3.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 15 minutes.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $19.

    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-27462 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48376-48381]
[DOCID:fr23se09-3]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 270

[Release No. IC-28903; File No. S7-20-09]
RIN 3235-AK33

Disclosure of Certain Money Market Fund Portfolio Holdings

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interim final temporary rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or
``SEC'') is adopting an interim final temporary rule under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 to require a money market fund to report
its portfolio holdings and valuation information to the Commission
under certain circumstances. The new reporting requirement is designed
to provide information substantially similar to that submitted by
certain money market funds under the Temporary Guarantee Program for
Money Market Funds established by the Department of the Treasury
(``Treasury Department''), which will expire on September 18, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: September 18, 2009 through September 17, 2010.
    Comment Date: Comments should be received on or before October 26,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/final.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-20-09 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

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 S7-20-09. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/final.shtml). Comments are
also available for public inspection and copying 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. All
comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the rule,
please contact one of the following members of the staff in the
Division of Investment Management, at the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549: Adam B.
Glazer, Senior Counsel, or Hunter Jones, Assistant Director at (202)
551-6792; for technical questions related to the submission of
portfolio information to the Commission, in the Office of Information
Technology, Rick Heroux, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is adopting new rule 30b1-6T
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'' or
``Act'') \1\ as an interim final temporary rule. We are soliciting
comments on all aspects of the interim final temporary rule. We will
carefully consider the comments that we receive and intend to respond
to them in a subsequent release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a. Unless otherwise noted, all references to
statutory sections are to the Investment Company Act, and all
references to rules under the Investment Company Act, including rule
2a-7, will be to Title 17, Part 270 of the Code of Federal
Regulations [17 CFR 270].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    Money market funds are open-end management investment companies
that invest in short-term obligations and have a principal investment
objective of maintaining a net asset value of $1.00 per share.\2\ Since
October 2008, most money market funds have participated in the Treasury
Department's Temporary Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds
(``Guarantee Program''), which has guaranteed the $1.00 share value of
accounts held by investors as of September 19, 2008 in participating
money market funds.\3\ The Guarantee Program was established to help
stabilize money market funds following a period of substantial
redemptions that threatened the ability of some money market funds to
maintain the $1.00 share value.\4\ The program will expire on September
18, 2009.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See generally Valuation of Debt Instruments and Computation
of Current Price Per Share by Certain Open-End Investment Companies
(Money Market Funds), Investment Company Act Release No. 13380 (July
11, 1983) [48 FR 32555 (July 18, 1983)]. Most money market funds
seek to maintain a stable net asset value per share of $1.00, but a
few seek to maintain a stable net asset value per share of a
different amount, e.g., $10.00. For convenience, throughout this
release, the discussion will simply refer to the stable net asset
value of $1.00 per share.
    \3\ Our staff estimates that approximately 79 percent of money
market funds participated in the Guarantee Program, and that the
money market funds that did not participate in the program were
mostly funds that invest predominately in U.S. Treasury and U.S.
Government securities.
    \4\ See Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury
Announces Guaranty Program for Money Market Funds (Sept. 19, 2008),
available at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1147.htm.
    \5\ See Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury
Announces Extension of Temporary Guarantee Program for Money Market
Funds (Nov. 24, 2008), available at http://www.treas.gov/press/
releases/hp1290.htm; Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Treasury Announces Extension of Temporary Guarantee Program for
Money Market Funds (Mar. 31, 2009), available at http://
www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg76.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Money market funds participating in the Guarantee Program have been
required, in certain circumstances, to submit their portfolio schedules
and related information each week to the Treasury Department and the
Commission.\6\ The Commission has

found these reports very useful in monitoring money market funds, and
we believe that continuing to receive this information will further our
mission to protect investors. When the program expires, however, money
market funds will no longer be required to submit such portfolio
information, and we will not receive current information about money
market fund holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See section 5(b) of the Guarantee Agreement that money
market funds participating in the Treasury's Guarantee Program were
required to sign (``Guarantee Agreement''), available at http://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/key-initiatives/money-market-
docs/Guarantee-Agreement_form.pdf (requiring a fund to submit
reports when their market-based net asset value is less than
$.9975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2009, the Commission proposed new rules and rule amendments
to reform the regulation of money market funds.\7\ The proposal
included a new rule and a new form N-MFP, on which money market funds
would report to the Commission detailed information about their
portfolio holdings, which we would use to monitor the funds.\8\ We
proposed to require that all money market funds submit more detailed
information than we currently receive under the Guarantee Program, and
we proposed that the information be filed in a format that would permit
us to create a searchable database of money market fund information.\9\
The proposed requirement that money market funds report detailed
portfolio information to the Commission was designed to improve our
ability to oversee those funds.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Money Market Fund Reform, Investment Company Act Release No.
28807 (June 30, 2009) [74 FR 32688 (July 8, 2009)] (``2009 Proposing
Release''). The 2009 Proposing Release includes an extensive
discussion of the market developments leading to the Commission's
proposals. See id. at Section I.
    \8\ Id. (proposing new rule 30b1-6 and Form N-MFP).
    \9\ Id. at Section II.F.2.
    \10\ Id. at text preceding n.81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received more than 125 comments on the money market fund
amendments we proposed in June 2009. Of the approximately 40 commenters
who addressed the proposals to require the reporting of portfolio
holdings to the Commission, 33 generally supported such reporting.\11\
Some commenters, however, expressed concerns about the specific
information required,\12\ the timing of the disclosure,\13\ and our
intent to make the information publicly available.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009); Bankers Trust Company,
N.A. Comment Letter (Aug. 28, 2009); BlackRock Inc. Comment Letter
(Sept. 4, 2009). Five commenters who addressed the reporting of
portfolio holdings to the Commission did not generally support or
oppose the proposal. One commenter expressed strong support for the
Commission's efforts and offered specific comments on the proposed
reporting of portfolio securities to the Commission. See Data
Communiqu[eacute] Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009). Two commenters
opposed the reporting of portfolio holdings to the Commission. See
The Dreyfus Corporation Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009); Vera B.
Lichtenberger Comment Letter (Sept. 3, 2009). See also American
Benefits Council Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009) (expressing general
support for the Commission's proposals); AARP Comment Letter (Sept.
8, 2009) (expressing general support for Commission's efforts to
step up oversight of money market funds).
    \12\ See, e.g., Federated Investors, Inc. Comment Letter (Sept.
8, 2009); Fidelity Investments Comment Letter (Aug. 24, 2009); Fifth
Third Asset Management, Inc. Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009);
Investment Company Institute Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009).
    \13\ See, e.g., Investment Company Institute Comment Letter
(Sept. 8, 2009); T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. Comment Letter
(Sept. 8, 2009); The Vanguard Group, Inc. Comment Letter (Aug. 19,
2009).
    \14\ See, e.g., BlackRock Inc. Comment Letter (Sept. 4, 2009);
Federated Investors, Inc. Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009); T. Rowe
Price Associates, Inc. Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will continue to review these comment letters, and any
additional comments we receive in response to our additional request
for comment in this Release below. These comments will help us to
determine whether, and if so how, to construct a permanent reporting
regime that best meets our regulatory needs in protecting investors,
while imposing no more regulatory burdens than are necessary. In the
meantime, however, because of the importance of the information about
money market fund portfolios, we are adopting an interim final
temporary rule, rule 30b1-6T, that requires the reporting of basic
securities portfolio information to the Commission in certain limited
circumstances, as described below. The interim final temporary rule is
designed to maintain our ability, as it currently exists under the
Guarantee Program, to monitor money market funds while we consider
whether to adopt the amendments we proposed in June 2009.

II. Discussion

A. Rule 30b1-6T

    Rule 30(b)1-6T requires money market funds to provide the
Commission weekly portfolio and valuation information substantially
similar to what money market funds participating in the Guarantee
Program provided to us and the Treasury Department under the program,
if their market-based net asset value per share was below $.9975. Each
money market fund that is required to report must provide a portfolio
schedule as of the last business day of each week that includes, with
respect to the fund: (A) The name of the money market fund; (B) the
fund's SEC file number; (C) the net asset value per share used to
effect shareholder transactions; (D) the most recent market-based net
asset value (including the value of any capital support agreement); (E)
the most recent market-based net asset value (excluding the value of
any capital support agreement); (F) the date as of which the most
recent market-based net asset value was calculated; (G) the total
assets of the fund; (H) the total net assets of the fund; and (I) the
number of shares outstanding. The portfolio schedule also must include,
with respect to each security held: (A) The name of the security; (B)
CUSIP number (if any); (C) principal amount; (D) maturity date; (E)
final maturity date, if different from the maturity date as determined
under rule 2a-7; (F) categorization of the security's status as a
``First Tier Security,'' ``Second Tier Security'' or a security that is
no longer an ``Eligible Security'' under rule 2a-7; (G) the most recent
market-based price (including the value of any capital support
agreement), or appropriate substitute for such price, in which case the
portfolio schedule or an exhibit to it must describe with reasonable
specificity the appropriate substitute; (H) the most recent market-
based price (excluding the value of any capital support agreement), or
appropriate substitute for such price, in which case the portfolio
schedule or an exhibit to it must describe with reasonable specificity
the appropriate substitute; (I) the amortized cost value of the
security; and (J) in the case of a tax-exempt security, whether there
is a demand feature.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See rule 30b1-6T(b)(3). Some items of information that
money market funds report under the Guarantee Program are not
included in rule 30b1-6T. These items, such as the identity of the
fund's subadviser, are items to which we have access through other
means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was the case under the Guarantee Program, only a money market
fund with market-based net asset value per share (``market-based NAV'')
below $.9975 must report information under the rule.\16\ Such a fund
must notify the Commission by electronic mail and provide a portfolio
schedule to the Commission promptly, but in no event later than the
next business day.\17\ Subsequently, the fund must report its portfolio
schedule as of the last business day of the week, and submit it no
later than the second day of the following week, until the fund's
market-based NAV at the end of the week is $.9975 or greater.\18\ This
information will

enable us to identify funds that present a greater risk that they will
be unable to maintain their primary investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Rule 30b1-6T(a). In the Proposing Release, we requested
comment on whether we should also require funds to provide us
market-based portfolio value information on a nonpublic basis. In
addition, we asked for comment on whether a certain price level of
NAV (e.g., $.9975) should trigger such disclosure, and how
frequently money market funds should be required to provide this
information (e.g., weekly or daily). See 2009 Proposing Release,
supra note 7, at text accompanying and following n.253.
    \17\ Rule 30b1-6T(a)(1).
    \18\ Rule 30b1-6T(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The portfolio information would be provided to the Commission as an
attachment in Microsoft Excel format.\19\ Excel format is the format
that money market funds have been required to use for submissions under
the Guarantee Program.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Rule 30b1-6T(b)(3).
    \20\ Section 1(q) of the Guarantee Agreement, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Nonpublic Nature of Information Reported

    The information provided to the Commission may be sent by secure
encrypted electronic mail \21\ to the address we have established for
this purpose.\22\ In light of the nature of the information that will
be provided to the Commission under rule 30b1-6T and the purposes for
which the Commission is requiring the information, we have determined
to maintain the confidentiality of the information submitted to the
Commission,\23\ and the rule states that the information will be
nonpublic to the extent permitted by law.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The reports may be sent through secure encrypted electronic
mail by registering for an account at the following URL: https://
web1.zixmail.net/s/login?b=sec. The Guarantee Program similarly
allows for submission of encrypted information by electronic mail.
    \22\ The address we have established is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A money market fund providing information
under rule 30b1-6T should not submit a confidential treatment
request to the Commission, but must label its submission to the
Commission as non-public.
    \23\ In the 2009 Proposing Release, we requested comment on
whether portfolio holdings information filed with the Commission on
proposed Form N-MFP should be submitted in nonpublic reports to the
Commission, and we continue to consider comments on that rulemaking.
See 2009 Proposing Release, supra note 7, at paragraph following
n.251 and at text accompanying and following n.253.
    \24\ See rule 30b1-6T(c). The Freedom of Information Act
(``FOIA'') provides at least two pertinent exemptions under which
the Commission has authority to withhold certain information. FOIA
Exemption 4 provides an exemption for ``trade secrets and commercial
or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or
confidential.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). FOIA Exemption 8 provides an
exemption for matters that are ``contained in or related to
examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf
of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or
supervision of financial institutions.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Effective Date and Expiration of the Rule

    Rule 30b1-6T will be effective as of September 18, 2009, so that
the Commission will continue to receive the information that it has
received in the past year under the Guarantee Program. The rule, by its
terms, will expire on September 17, 2010.\25\ Setting a termination
date of one year for the rule will necessitate further Commission
action no later than the end of that period if the Commission
determines to continue the same, or similar, requirements contained in
the temporary rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Rule 30b1-6T(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on interim final temporary rule
30b1-6T. We will carefully consider the comments that we receive and
intend to respond to them in a subsequent release. We may revise the
rule in a number of ways, including (i) making the rule permanent, (ii)
revising the circumstances that trigger a reporting obligation, (iii)
revising the information that a fund must report under the rule, and
(iv) revising the method of reporting the information to the
Commission.
    We seek comment generally on all aspects of the temporary rule,
including the following:
    Expiration. Rule 30b1-6T is a temporary rule and is set to expire
on September 17, 2010. Should we remove the expiration provision of the
rule and make the rule permanent? Should we extend the expiration date
of the rule? If so, for how long? Should we allow the rule to expire?
    Timing. The rule requires the submission of portfolio and valuation
information to the Commission on a weekly basis. Should funds be
required to provide the information more frequently (e.g., daily) or
less frequently (e.g., monthly or biweekly)? The information must be
provided within two business days after the end of the week, and we
understand that funds that have submitted this information under the
Guarantee Program have not encountered difficulties meeting the two-day
deadline. Has the deadline imposed hardships in the past? Do money
market funds anticipate future difficulties in meeting this deadline if
they become subject to the reporting requirement? Should the rule allow
a longer delay in submitting the information (e.g., three days or five
days)? Should it require a shorter delay in submitting the information
(e.g., one day)?
    Reporting Threshold. The rule requires a money market fund to
submit portfolio and valuation information to the Commission if its
market-based NAV declines below $.9975. Is this an appropriate
threshold to trigger reporting? Should the threshold be lower (e.g.,
$.9970) or higher (e.g., $.9980 or $.9985)?
    Reporting Items. Should we omit any of the disclosure requirements
of rule 30b1-6T? If so, what information should be omitted from the
proposed requirement, and why? Should we require additional or
alternative information, such as the money market fund's client
concentration levels, the percentage of the issue held by the fund, or
last trade price and trade volume for each security?
    Regulatory Alternatives. We request comment on feasible
alternatives that would minimize the reporting burdens on money market
funds.\26\ We also request comment on the utility of the reports to the
Commission in relation to the costs to money market funds of providing
the reports.\27\ In addition, we request comment on whether funds
should be permitted to submit a hard copy of their portfolio schedule
information to satisfy the initial or weekly reporting requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See section 30(c)(2)(A) of the Investment Company Act
(requiring Commission to consider and seek public comment on
feasible alternatives to the required filing of information that
minimize reporting burdens on funds).
    \27\ See section 30(c)(2)(B) of the Investment Company Act
(requiring Commission to consider and seek public comment on the
utility of information, documents and reports to the Commission in
relation to the associated costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Matters

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires an
agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register.\28\ This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency
``for good cause finds * * * that notice and public procedure thereon
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
\29\ The APA also generally requires that an agency publish an adopted
rule in the Federal Register 30 days before it becomes effective.\30\
This requirement also does not apply, however, if the agency finds good
cause for making the rule effective sooner.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
    \31\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed in this release, we believe that we have
good cause to act immediately to adopt this rule on an interim final
temporary basis. We believe it is important for the Commission to
continue to receive information from money market funds in certain
circumstances so that we can monitor these funds. Adoption of the rule
with an immediate effectiveness will minimize any disruption to the
normal reporting schedule of money

market funds that meet the reporting threshold. Avoiding such
disruption should obviate the need for those funds to stop and restart
their reporting procedures, and will allow us uninterrupted access to
the information in the reports. This information will permit us to
identify funds that present a greater risk that they will be unable to
maintain their primary investment objectives.
    The temporary rule takes effect on September 18, 2009 and will
expire on September 17, 2010. For the reasons discussed above, we have
acted on an interim final basis. We emphasize that we are requesting
comment on the temporary rule. We will carefully consider the comments
we receive, and we intend to respond to them in a subsequent release.
    We find that there is good cause to have the temporary rule take
effect on September 18, 2009, and that notice and public procedure in
advance of effectiveness of the rule are impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to the public interest.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    Interim final rule 30b1-6T under the Investment Company Act
contains a ``collection of information'' within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\32\ The title for the new
collection of information is ``Rule 30b1-6T under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, Weekly portfolio report for certain money market
funds.'' We submitted burden estimates to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for review and approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13. Separately, we submitted the burden
estimates to OMB for review and approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. OMB has approved the burden estimates
related to our adoption of rule 30b1-6T on an emergency basis. Our new
rule is designed to improve our ability to oversee money market funds
with a greater risk that they will be unable to maintain their primary
investment objectives. 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 control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 30b1-6T requires a money market fund whose market-based net
asset value is less than $.9975 to electronically (i) notify the
Commission promptly and submit a portfolio schedule within one business
day, and (ii) submit a portfolio schedule within two business days
after the end of each week until such time as the fund's market-based
net asset value equals or exceeds $.9975. The rule is intended to
facilitate our oversight of money market funds. The respondents to rule
30b1-6T are investment companies that are regulated as money market
funds under rule 2a-7. Compliance with the rule is mandatory for any
money market fund whose market-based NAV is less than $.9975. Responses
to the disclosure requirements will be kept confidential.
    We estimate, based on past experience under the Guarantee Program,
that at any given time 10 money market funds will be required by rule
30b1-6T to provide weekly reports disclosing certain information
regarding the fund's portfolio holdings. We estimate that money market
funds would require an average of approximately 6 burden hours to
compile and electronically submit the initial required portfolio
holdings information, and an average of approximately 4 burden hours in
subsequent reports.\33\ Based on these estimates, we estimate the
annual burden will be 210 hours per money market fund that is required
to provide the information.\34\ Based on an estimate of 10 money market
funds submitting information under the rule, we estimate that, in the
aggregate, rule 30b1-6T would result in 2100 hours, for all money
market funds required to submit portfolio schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ We understand that the required information is currently
maintained by money market funds pursuant to other regulatory
requirements or in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, for
the purposes of our analysis, we do not ascribe any time to
gathering the required information.
    \34\ Because one report is required each week, a fund would
submit 52 reports in one year. The first report would require 6
hours and subsequent reports would require 4 hours each. The
difference between the hours is due to the fact that funds generally
would not incur the additional start-up time applicable to the first
report. The annual burden of the reporting requirement would be 210
hours (1 report x 6 hours = 6 hours, 51 reports x 4 hours = 204
hours, and 6 hours + 204 hours = 210 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Cost Benefit Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits imposed by
its rules. We have identified certain costs and benefits of rule 30b1-
6T and request comment on all aspects of this cost benefit analysis,
including identification and assessment of any costs and benefits not
discussed in this analysis. Where possible, we request that commenters
provide empirical data to support any positions advanced.

A. Benefits

    We are adopting rule 30b1-6T to enable the Commission staff to
continue to have effective oversight of money market funds. The rule
would also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission's
oversight by providing useful information about money market funds that
report under the rule, and by enabling the staff to manage and analyze
money market fund portfolio information more quickly and at a lower
cost than is possible without electronic submissions of portfolio
schedules.

B. Costs

    Rule 30b1-6T will impose some costs on funds. For the purposes of
the PRA, we estimated that the rule will result in an increase of 2100
burden hours per year. We estimate that these burden hours will cost a
total of $590,100.\35\ We do not believe that rule 30b1-6T will impose
other significant costs, especially given the nonpublic nature of the
reports required under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 2100
hours x $281/hour (senior database administrator) = $590,100. This
hourly wage estimate is from the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association Report on Management & Professional Salaries
Data (Sept. 2008), modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2009 Proposing Release, we requested comment on the costs
and benefits of requiring money market funds to report certain
portfolio holdings information to the Commission.\36\ Commenters
generally supported the proposed reporting obligation, but some
expressed concerns about the costs associated with specific disclosure
items, the timing and frequency of the reports (particularly in view of
the amount of disclosure required), and the public availability of the
reports.\37\ We believe that these concerns are not applicable to rule
30b1-6T because the rule's reporting requirement will be triggered only
on the relatively rare occasion that a fund's net asset value fell
below $.9975. In addition, the reports themselves will require less
information and will remain nonpublic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 2009 Proposing Release, supra note 7, at Section V.
    \37\ See, e.g., Committee of Annuity Insurers Comment Letter
(Sept. 8, 2009); Data Communiqu[eacute] Comment Letter (Sept. 8,
2009); The Dreyfus Corporation Comment Letter (Sept. 8, 2009);
Fidelity Investments Comment Letter (Aug. 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comment

    We request comment on all aspects of this cost-benefit analysis.
Commenters should address in particular whether rule 30b1-6T will
generate the anticipated benefits or impose any other costs on money
market funds or other market participants. We also request

comment as to any costs or benefits associated with rule 30b1-6T that
we may not have considered here, including whether the rule will have a
disproportionate effect on any particular types of fund complexes.
Commenters are specifically invited to share quantified costs and
benefits.

VII. Consideration of Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital
Formation

    Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act requires the Commission,
when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine
whether an action is consistent with the public interest, to consider,
in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will
promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\38\ We
requested comment on whether the proposed reporting requirement, if
adopted, would promote efficiency, competition, or capital formation.
One commenter on the 2009 Proposing Release asserted that the extensive
reporting requirements under proposed rule 30b1-6 would have an adverse
effect on competition for sub-advised funds.\39\ As noted above,
however, rule 30b1-6T requires less disclosure than rule 30b1-6, which
we are continuing to consider. In addition, although rule 30b1-6T
requires more frequent (i.e., weekly) disclosure, it applies to far
fewer funds, because only funds whose market-based net asset value is
less than $.9975 would be required to submit reports. Thus, we believe
that the concerns expressed by the commenter are less applicable to
rule 30b1-6T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c).
    \39\ Committee of Annuity Insurers Comment Letter (Sept. 8,
2009) (``Some of these Committee members believe that preparation of
Form N-MFP on a monthly basis would place an undue burden on sub-
advised underlying money market funds. This is because a number of
the information items required by proposed Form N-MFP require
information that typically is in the possession of the sub-adviser
that actually manages the portfolio.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 30b1-6T is intended to facilitate oversight of money market
funds that present a greater risk that they will be unable to maintain
their primary investment objectives. As noted above, the nonpublic
reports are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Commission's oversight of such money market funds, which may also
provide reassurance to investors, which may in turn promote capital
formation. We do not believe that the rule will have any effect on
competition.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (``RFA'')
\40\ requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis of the effect of its rules on small entities
unless the Commission certifies that the rules do not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\41\ Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission
hereby certifies that Investment Company Act rule 30b1-6T does not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \41\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \42\ Although the requirements of the RFA do not apply to rules
adopted under the APA's ``good cause'' exception, see 5 U.S.C.
601(2) (defining ``rule'' and notice requirement under the APA), we
have nevertheless provided this certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 0-10 of the Investment Company Act defines a ``small entity''
for purposes of the Act as an investment company that, together with
other investment companies in the same group of related investment
companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its
most recent fiscal year. Rule 30b1-6T applies only to money market
funds, and none of these funds meet the definition of a small entity
under the Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ We note that we included a certification under the RFA in
the 2009 Proposing Release on the grounds that none of the money
market funds met the definition of a small entity under the Act, and
we encouraged written comment regarding this certification. See 2009
Proposing Release, supra note 7, at Section VII. No commenters on
that rulemaking have addressed the Regulatory Flexibility Act
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicit comment on the certification. Commenters are asked to
describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide any
empirical data.

IX. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is adopting new rule 30b1-6T pursuant to authority
set forth in Sections 8(b), 30(b), 31(a), and 38(a) of the Investment
Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b), 80a-29(b), 80a-30(a), and 80a-37(a)].

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 270

    Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Rule

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 270--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

0
1. The authority citation for Part 270 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, and 80a-
39, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 270.30b1-6T is added to read as follows:

Sec.  270.30b1-6T  Weekly portfolio report for certain money market
funds.

    (a) Notice and portfolio reports. If the market-based NAV of a
money market fund on any business day (``report date'') is less than
99.75 percent of the fund's stable net asset value per share or stable
price per share pursuant to Sec.  270.2a-7(c)(1) (``stable NAV''), the
fund must, by electronic mail sent to the electronic address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) Notify the Commission that its NAV is less than 99.75 percent
of its stable NAV, and provide the Commission with a portfolio schedule
as of the report date, promptly but in no event later than the next
business day after the report date (unless the fund is currently
submitting reports pursuant to this section); and
    (2) Provide the Commission a portfolio schedule as of the last
business day of each week, no later than the second business day of the
following week, until the fund's market-based NAV as of such day is
99.75 percent of its stable NAV or greater.
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Market-based NAV means a money market fund's net asset value
per share calculated using available market quotations or an
appropriate substitute approved by the fund's board of directors as
specified in the procedures that the fund has adopted in accordance
with Sec.  270.2a-7(c)(7) or, if the fund does not value securities
using the amortized cost method, the fund's current net asset value per
share calculated in accordance with Sec.  270.2a-4 (without regard to
Sec.  270.2a-7).
    (2) Money market fund means an open-end management investment
company or series thereof that is registered under the Investment
Company Act and is regulated as a money market fund under Sec.  270.2a-
7.
    (3) Portfolio schedule means a document prepared in Microsoft Excel
format that contains the following information:
    (i) With respect to each money market fund and class thereof,

    (A) Name of the money market fund and class;
    (B) SEC file number of the money market fund;
    (C) Net asset value per share used to effect shareholder
transactions;
    (D) Most recent market-based net asset value (including the value
of any capital support agreement);
    (E) Most recent market-based net asset value (excluding the value
of any capital support agreement);
    (F) Date as of which the most recent market-based net asset value
was calculated;
    (G) Total assets of the fund;
    (H) Total net assets of the fund; and
    (I) Number of shares outstanding; and
    (ii) With respect to each security held by the money market fund:
    (A) Name of the security;
    (B) CUSIP number (if any);
    (C) Principal amount;
    (D) Maturity date as determined under Sec.  270.2a-7;
    (E) Final maturity date, if different from the maturity date as
determined under Sec.  270.2a-7;
    (F) Categorization of the security's status as a ``First Tier
Security,'' ``Second Tier Security'' or a security that is no longer an
``Eligible Security'' under Sec.  270.2a-7;
    (G) The most recent market-based price (including the value of any
capital support agreement), or appropriate substitute for such price,
in which case the portfolio schedule or an exhibit to it must describe
with reasonable specificity the appropriate substitute;
    (H) The most recent market-based price (excluding the value of any
capital support agreement), or appropriate substitute for such price,
in which case the portfolio schedule or an exhibit to it must describe
with reasonable specificity the appropriate substitute;
    (I) The amortized cost value; and
    (J) In the case of a tax-exempt security, whether there is a demand
feature, as defined in Sec.  270.2a-7(a)(8).
    (c) Nonpublic information. Information provided to the Commission
pursuant to this section shall be nonpublic to the extent permitted by
law.
    (d) Expiration. This section will expire on September 17, 2010.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 18, 2009
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22900 Filed 9-18-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11320]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2013-1055]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across the Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at
Jones Beach, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate public
safety during the annual Jones Beach Air Show over Memorial Day
weekend. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed
position for an hour and a half on Saturday and Sunday afternoon.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 2:30 p.m. on May 24, 2014
through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-1055] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (212) 668-
7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water
and 20 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
    The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels and fishing vessels
of various sizes. We contacted the New York Marine Trades Association
and no objections were received.
    The New York Department of Transportation requested a temporary
deviation to facilitate public safety by allowing the anticipated large
volume of vehicular traffic to safely evacuate the area following the
annual Jones Beach Air Show on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May
25, 2014, over Memorial Day weekend.
    Under this temporary deviation the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge at
mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, may remain in the closed position
between 2:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May
25, 2014.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge during the closed periods
without a bridge opening may do so at all times. There are no alternate
routes for vessel traffic.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 10, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-04357 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P