October 11, 2005 Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: TSCA Section 5( a)( 2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals EPA ICR No.: 1188.08 OMB Control No.: 2070 0038 1( b) Short Characterization Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA), 15 U. S. C. 2604 ( see Attachment 1), authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a " significant new use." EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5( a)( 2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5( a)( 1)( B) requires persons to submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import or process the substance for that use. Regulations implementing significant new uses appear at 40 CFR part 721 ( see Attachment 2).

Once EPA receives a significant new use rule ( SNUR) notice, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA sections 5( e), 5( f), 6 or 7 to control the activities for which it has received a SNUR notice. If EPA does not take action, TSCA section 5( g) requires EPA to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12( b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12( b) appear at 40 CFR part 707.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection TSCA section 5( a)( 2) provides the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) with the authority to monitor and control significant new uses of existing chemical substances. The factors considered by the Administrator in determining a significant new use are:

1) The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance; 2) The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; 1TSCA section 5( e) allows the Administrator to prohibit or limit the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the substance when the substance may present an unreasonable risk. TSCA section 5( f) allows the Administrator to use a TSCA section 6 regulation to prohibit or limit the manufacture of the substance when the substance will present an unreasonable risk.

 2 3) The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; and 4) The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

Once the Administrator makes such a designation, the Agency proposes a Significant New Use Rule ( SNUR). If a final rule is promulgated, a person who intends to engage in a significant new use of a chemical covered by a SNUR must notify EPA of his/ her intentions. This notification, made via the Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN), must occur at least 90 days prior to commencing the new use of the identified substance. The required notice must be submitted on EPA's Premanufacture Notice ( PMN) form. The PMN form provides data on the identity and use of, and possible exposures to, the chemical substance. In addition, the PMN form provides test data plus descriptions of health and environmental effects data based on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical.

The Agency has 90 days to evaluate a SNUN once it has been received. This evaluation focuses on the health and environmental effects of the substance's significant new use. Should EPA find cause for concern, the Agency can take regulatory action as per TSCA sections 5( e) and 5( f) 1. Likewise, the Agency may extend the evaluation period by up to 90 days with good cause. If EPA takes no action at the end of the review period, the submitter can engage in the intended new use without any restrictions.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA uses this information to evaluate the health and environmental effects of the significant new use. During the evaluation period EPA can take further regulatory action pursuant to TSCA sections 5( e) and 5( f). Under TSCA section 5( e), the Administrator may issue an order to prohibit or limit the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such substance. TSCA section 5( f) allows the Administrator to, among other things, prohibit or limit the manufacture of the chemical substance, if the substance presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

To date EPA has promulgated SNURs on 156 existing chemicals. Presented in Attachment 7 are selected case history abstracts for some of these substances. These abstracts highlight the needs of a particular office and the facts surrounding a substance. This information when applied to the Regulatory Selection Criteria has resulted in final SNURs.  3 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication EPA is the only Federal Agency that collects information on significant new uses of chemical substances. A notification of an intent to engage in a significant new use serves two functions: as a notice, and as a document that contains information about a chemical substance and potential exposures to that substance. The notification element is unique to SNURs and therefore not obtainable elsewhere. The chemical information aspect will also contain unique information. Only the person who intends to commence a significant new use of a chemical substance will know the potential for human and environmental exposures to that substance, the quantity intended to be produced, imported, or processed, and the manner in which the person will engage in the significant new use.

A person submitting a significant new use notice is not required to develop test data. However, the person must submit data that are known to or reasonably ascertainable by that person. For published data the submitter need only provide a literature citation ( 40 CFR 720.50( d)( 3)( ii)). For existing chemicals that are related to the chemical substance that is the subject of the SNUR ( e. g., impurities, byproducts), neither the published data nor a literature citation need be submitted. Also, notices need not include information previously submitted to EPA ( unless the previously submitted information was claimed confidential, in which case it must be resubmitted).

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA provided a 60 day public notice and comment period that ended on May 23, 2005 ( 70 FR 14674, March 23, 2005). EPA received two comments during the comment period. The comments are addressed in Attachment 8, below.

3( c) Consultations EPA received comments in response to several individual proposed SNURs. All comments were considered in developing the final rules. It is EPA policy to consider all comments received in response to proposed SNURs.

Under 5 CFR 1320.8( d)( 1) OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA submitted questions to nine parties via e mail. The individuals contacted were:  4 David L. Schutt, Director, Legislative and Governmental Affairs American Chemical Society 1155 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 d_ schutt@ acs. org Howard Feldman, Regulators Affairs American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 2005 feldman@ api. org D. Christopher Cathcart, President and Chief Operating Officer Consumer Specialty Products Association 900 17th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 ccathcart@ cspa. org Gary L. Yingling Enzyme Technical Association Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 gyingling@ kl. com Lee Fuller, Vice President of Government Relations Independent Petroleum Association of America 1201 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 lfuller@ ipaa. org William Allmond, Director of Regulatory and Public Affairs The National Association of Chemical Distributors 1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 12250 Arlington, VA 22209 ballmond@ nacd. com Stephen R. Sides, Vice President, EHIA National Paint and Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 ssides@ paint. org  5 Donald K. Duncan, President Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 1801 K Street, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 dduncan@ socplas. org Jim Cooper, Manager, Government Relations Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 cooperj@ socma. com EPA received no responses to its solicitation for consultations. A copy of EPA's consultation e mail to the above nine potential is included in this ICR as Attachment 9.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Whenever a person intends to engage in a significant new use, they must notify EPA. This is an explicit requirement of TSCA. TSCA section 5( a)( 1)( B) states, "... no person may ... manufacture or process any chemical substance for a use which the Administrator has determined ... is a significant new use ... unless such person submits to the Administrator ... a notice ..." The consequence of less frequent collection of information ( i. e., requiring only the first person who intends to engage in a significant new use to submit notice) is a violation of TSCA and would allow manufacturers, importers and processors to use a substance in a manner that EPA has determined may cause significant adverse exposures to the substance without prior notification to EPA.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection activity is necessary to implement the statutory requirements of TSCA section 5( a)( 2) and is consistent with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality Information provided in a significant new use notice may receive confidential treatment. TSCA section 14 allows a manufacturer, importer or processor to designate submitted information as confidential business information ( CBI). The Agency has developed a comprehensive system to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of CBI. This system includes procedures for logging CBI in and out of designated locked file cabinets, for photocopying and transmitting CBI, and for restricting confidential information only to personnel with CBI security clearance. No one is allowed access to CBI until they have received instructions for handling CBI.  6 Special procedures also restrict access to computerized CBI. These security measures apply to CBI submitted by manufacturers as well as CBI generated by EPA staff in the course of their review. A wrongful disclosure of CBI may result in either a fine or imprisonment.

3( g) Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable. The information requested is not sensitive in nature.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondent NAICS Codes Respondents affected by this collection activity are mainly NAICS categories 325  Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacturers and 32411 Petroleum Refining.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements Information submitted under this collection must include, insofar as it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the submitter, information described in TSCA section 8( a)( 2) ( i. e., chemical identity, use, and exposure data), as well as test data, and descriptions of other data related to the effects on health and the environment of the manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical substance ( TSCA section 5( d)). After a notice has been received, EPA has 90 days ( extendable to 180 days) to evaluate the notice's content.

Respondents will provide the EPA with the following data items required on the PMN form in order to submit a SNUN:

° Chemical Identity ° Trade Name ID ° Byproducts/ impurities identification ° Production & Marketing data ° Production volume ° Category of use ° Hazard information ° Human exposure and environmental release ° Occupational exposure ° Environmental release/ disposal ° Sites controlled by others ° List of attachments  7 ° Certification ° Data submissions The cost and burden for submitting each of these data items can be found on Table 2.

( ii) Respondent Activities A completed response to this information collection requires completion of the following activities by the respondent: ° Chemical Verification When a SNUR is published, companies must review the rule to verify if their chemical is subject to the rule.

° Submit a SNUN Only companies who intend to engage in a significant new use of a chemical subject to the rule must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import or process the substance for that use. Submitters are required to use the Premanufacture Notice ( PMN) form ( EPA Form 7710 25; see Attachment 3), which was developed to facilitate the information collection process for new chemical substances.

° SNUN Recordkeeping When submitting a SNUN, manufacturers must maintain records associated with the SNUN for five years.

° Notification of Customers Because it is not expected that all customers and/ or recipients of a company's chemical will have complete knowledge of all uses of any product subject to a SNUR, it is assumed that manufacturers, processors, and importers will most often choose to notify their customers/ recipients of SNUR regulatory activities.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities A significant new use rule ( SNUR) on an existing chemical substance is the product of a process that is designed to develop the appropriate information gathering collection for a substance. This process has three major steps: Chemical Referral, Regulatory Selection, and Regulation Development.

Step 1. Chemical Referral: EPA offices that have identified information gathering or follow up monitoring needs for a particular chemical may refer the substance to OPPT. A systematic process has been developed for receiving and handling chemical referrals. Offices referring substances are asked to prepare concise summaries of relevant data. This information is used to select a regulatory approach and for rulemaking activities.  8 Step 2. The Regulatory Selection Process  Referral and Review: Once an office has detailed its need for information, an information collection approach is determined that best satisfies that office's needs. The rulemaking options are: a TSCA section 8( a) reporting rule, a TSCA section 8( c) call in, a TSCA section 8( d) health and safety data reporting rule, a TSCA section 5( a)( 2) SNUR, or any combination of the above. It may also be determined that an alternative approach is more appropriate ( e. g., use of existing data sources, no data gathering at the present time, TSCA section 4 or 6 action, or referral to another office for informationgathering under a different statutory authority).

Step 3. Regulatory Development: Prior to the development of a rule, the recommended rulemaking approach must be reviewed by the referring office and approved by the Office Director of OPPT. If the recommendation is approved, then the rulemaking process begins.

A SNUR is drafted only if it is an appropriate approach for a particular substance that has received approval prior to the development of the rule. The proposal then undergoes intra agency review, OMB review and public comment. Once a decision has been made to promulgate an information collection rule, the next decision is to determine whether a TSCA section 8( a) rule or a TSCA section 5 SNUR is most appropriate. Attachment 6 identifies the selection criteria that are applied in determining whether a TSCA section 8( a) rule or SNUR is proposed.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA's current collection methodology and information management system is based on the current requirements ( 40 CFR 716.30 and 716.35) for the submission of hard copies. EPA is continuing to explore alternative reporting procedures involving electronic submission.

To aid persons subject to this information collection, OPPT has set up a TSCA Hotline that provides information regarding TSCA section 5( a)( 2) reporting as well as other regulatory information. When Hotline staff are unable to answer questions regarding TSCA section 5( a)( 2), the questions are referred to the OPPT Chemical Control Division ( CCD) staff for resolution.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility All business, regardless of size, must comply with the requirements of TSCA section 5. However, OPPT has taken a number of steps intended to minimize the burden placed on small business. For instance, TSCA section 26( d) established an Assistance Office to provide technical and other nonfinancial assistance to manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances and mixtures. This office has established a toll free hotline, performs on site field visits and consultations, and has hired a contractor to assist small businesses, free of charge, in complying with TSCA requirements.  9 5( d) Collection Schedule Whenever any person intends to engage in a significant new use of a chemical substance, they are required to submit a notice of their intentions to EPA not less than 90 days before beginning to manufacture, import or process the substance for the intended use.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION This section presents estimates of the cost and burden associated with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for significant new use rules for existing chemicals under TSCA section 5( a)( 2). The methodology used to estimate the recordkeeping costs, reporting costs, and burden for this ICR renewal is largely based on previous experience with SNURs, and is largely consistent with the analysis presented in the supporting statement prepared for the previous ICR. A summary of the steps employed in this analysis is shown below:

Step 1: The total number of SNURs promulgated and SNUNs to be submitted, on an annual basis and for the three year period during which this ICR will be in effect, was projected. The estimate is based on the Agency's experience with SNURs and submission of SNUNs from data covering 2001 2004 fiscal year time frame.

Step 2: The average industry burden associated with recordkeeping, reporting, and customer notification was estimated. The reporting burden estimates used here are taken from an analysis performed in connection with OPPT's amendments to its PMN program.

Step 3: The unit costs for the different activities associated with TSCA section 5( a)( 2) were estimated next ( e. g., submitting a SNUN). The costs were derived by multiplying current estimates of unit labor costs by the burden estimates presented in Step 2.

Step 4: Total industry costs and burden were computed by multiplying the average burden and cost per activity by the expected number of activities.

Step 5: The final step estimates the cost to EPA.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden During the years 2001  2004, EPA promulgated two SNURs for existing chemicals and received two existing chemical SNUNs ( US EPA, 2004). The average number of chemicals per existing chemical SNUR during this time period was 41. Based upon the historic information and projected SNUR activity by the Agency, EPA maintains its estimate of three SNURs promulgated and five SNUNs submitted per year consistent with the previous ICR. Furthermore, it is  10 estimated that a total of nine SNURs will be promulgated and 15 SNUNs will be received over the three year time period during which this ICR is effective. These estimates are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF SNURs AND SNUNs Year Anticipated Number of SNURs Anticipated Number of SNUNS First Year 3 5 Second Year 3 5 Third Year 3 5 Three Year Totals 9 15 Given the uncertainty in projecting possible new uses for existing chemicals, it is not possible to determine if a large or small number of firms would be affected by any given SNUR, or whether any one firm might engage in more than one new use. Thus, this analysis makes the assumption that no firm submits more than one SNUN. The total number of firms engaging in new uses cannot be estimated.

Alternative Responses The burden associated with a SNUR could involve a number of possible industry responses. That is, when a SNUR is promulgated, a firm seeking to engage in a new use for a subject chemical has 5 options regarding possible courses of action that may generate reporting burden:

1) The company could submit a SNUN. This option would be chosen by any company not intending to abide by the provisions of the SNUR.

2) A company can request an equivalency determination. This option would be chosen if a manufacturer/ importer had reason to believe that there may be alternative methods not considered by EPA that provide equivalent or superior protection from exposure or release of the subject chemical.

3) The company can comply with the SNUR, ensuring that all provisions of the SNUR are implemented in connection with the planned use of the subject chemical. 2Unless manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs have either notified recipients of such chemicals and all significant new uses, verified that knowledge of the SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recipients, or verified that recipients are unable to engage in significant new uses, manufacturers, processors, and importers must file a SNUN.

 11 4) The company can request review of the SNUR for possible modification or revocation.

5) The company may simply decide to forgo the new use, avoiding regulatory compliance activities altogether.

Additionally, under current regulations at 40 CFR 721.5( a)( 2), all manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs are subject to certain requirements regardless of whether they engage in a significant new use unless certain information can be documented. 2 However, without prior knowledge of chemicals that would be the subject of future SNURs, estimating the number of potentially affected entities subject to 40 CFR 721.5( a)( 2) is not possible.

The following section estimates the cost of submitting a SNUN ( option 1) and then discusses the other options.

Burden Estimates TSCA section 5( a)( 2) imposes two requirements on industry. First, manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals must choose among the options mentioned above. This section presents estimates of submitting SNUNs ( i. e., the first option) and then briefly discusses the other four options. Second, manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals covered by SNURs will incur burden and costs to notify customers of the hazards posed by the covered chemical. Therefore, they must first determine if their chemical is subject to the SNUR and then must determine how to notify their customers.

Burden Estimates  Chemical Verification When a SNUR is published, companies must review the rule to verify if their chemical is subject to the rule. During the 2001 2004 time frame, the majority of SNURs promulgated by the Agency under TSCA section 5( a) applied to new chemicals submitted to the Agency under the Premanufacture Notice Program. Only two SNURs applying to existing chemicals were promulgated during the same time period. The Agency typically notifies the manufacturer( s) of chemicals subject to a SNUR prior to its issuance. Therefore it is estimated that no more than 0.167 hours ( 10 minutes) or of technical time per chemical is used to verify if a chemical is subject to the rule. This is equivalent to 6.8 hours ( 0.167 hours/ chemical x 41 chemicals) per SNUR.

Burden Estimates  Submitting a SNUN 3The burden estimates presented in Table 2 differ from the PMN Amendments analysis, which were based on a Chemical Manufacturers Association survey, only in that burden for researching synonyms and generic chemical names was not included in this analysis. This is because subject chemicals would be existing chemicals, and such information would already be known.

 12 In submitting a SNUN, individuals at different occupational levels must spend time on the required recordkeeping and reporting activities. In estimating the burden required to prepare a SNUN, the analysis uses the breakdown of activities and activity estimates as developed for the premanufacture notification ( PMN) baseline model in the Agency's " Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications" ( OPPT, 1994). The PMN reporting cost estimates were used because SNUNs would be filed on the standard PMN form. Table 2 presents EPA's estimate of respondent reporting burden associated with the filing of a SNUN. 3 When submitting an SNUN, manufacturers must maintain records associated with the SNUN for five years. In keeping with the conservative assumptions already employed, the high end of the range of reporting burden hours ( i. e., 113.25 hours) will be used in subsequent cost calculations. The recordkeeping associated with preparing and filing a SNUN is assumed to require five percent of the time spent on reporting. Thus, 5.67 recordkeeping hours ([ 113.25 hours]*[ 5 percent]) will be spent in preparation of a SNUN. The average industry burden per notice, then, is 118.92 hours ( 113.25 + 5.67).

The estimates shown in Table 2 are average burden levels. Thus, it is entirely possible that certain respondents may incur burden above or below the estimates shown above; nevertheless, EPA believes the upper bound of the range of average burden hours to be an appropriate estimate for the calculations performed in this analysis.

Burden Estimates  Alternative Options Should a company choose to request an equivalency determination ( i. e., the second option), or review for modification/ revocation ( i. e., the fourth option), EPA estimates that a data collection and preparation effort similar to that of a SNUN would be required, and thus the burden is estimated to range up to 118.92 hours for these alternatives, the same as for submitting a SNUN.

In complying with a SNUR, a company would incur costs to ensure all provisions of the SNUR were implemented at the subject facility ( i. e., the third option). Since the nature of such provisions will vary depending on the significant new uses identified in each respective SNUR, estimating burden at this time is not possible.

The final alternative for a company considering a significant new use of a chemical that is the subject of a SNUR is to forgo the new use ( i. e., the fifth option). In carrying out such a  13 response, no direct regulatory burden or costs, would be incurred.

Burden Estimates  Customer Notification As noted above, unless manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs have either notified recipients of such chemicals and all significant new uses, verified that knowledge of the SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recipients, or verified that recipients are unable to engage in significant new uses, manufacturers, processors, and importers must file a SNUN. Since it is not expected that all such entities will have complete knowledge of all uses of any products subject to a SNUR, and because filing a SNUN could require significantly more burden, it is assumed that manufacturers, processors, and importers will most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by simply annotating a Material Safety Data Sheet ( MSDS), EPA estimates the associated burden to be about one hour of a technical employee's time per manufacturer, processor, or importer per chemical.  14 TABLE 2 UNIT REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH FILING A SNUN, BY LABOR CATEGORY Activity Secretarial Hours Technical Hours Managerial Hours Total Hours General information/ instructions 2  2.5 1.5  2 3  4 6.5  8.5 Chemical identity 1.5  2 3  6 1 5.5  9 Trade name ID 0 .25 0 .25 Byproducts/ impurities identification 0 1 0 1 Production & marketing data 1.5 2  3 3.5  4.5 Production volume 0 1 0 1 Category of use 0 3 0 3 Hazard information 0 3  4 0 3  4 Human exposure and environmental release 2.5  3.5 0 6  7 8.5 10.5 Site information 0 14  16 0 14  16 Occupational exposure 0 13  14 0 13  14 Environmental release/ disposal 0 9  10 0 9  10 Sites controlled by others 2 10  12 2  2.5 14  16.5 List of attachments 2 6  8 1  1.5 9  11.5 Certification 0 0 .5 .5 Data submissions .5 1.5  2 .5 2.5  3 Totals 12  14 66.25  79.25 16  20 94.25  113.25 Source: OPPT, 1994.  15 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The unit costs of filing a SNUN are estimated by monetizing the labor time spent preparing the SNUN and then adding any fixed costs associated with filing a SNUN. This section derives these unit costs.

Estimating Labor Costs The basic methodology for estimating the industry wage rates used in this analysis is presented in Attachment 4. Wage data used to develop the basic industry wage rates are derived from the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for all goods producing private industries. The annual salary estimates were adjusted to final quarter ( December) 2003 dollars using the BLS Employment Cost Index ( ECI) for white collar occupations for all private industries.

An overhead rate of 17 percent was applied to all wages based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations. Benefit rates were applied to wages as follows: managerial, 46.6 percent; technical, 45.5 percent; and secretarial, 45.1 percent. Thus, total load factors are 63.6 percent for managerial labor, 62.5 percent for technical labor, and 62.1 percent for secretarial labor. The estimated hourly wage rates are presented in Table 3. Details on the calculation of the wage rates can be found in Attachment 4.

TABLE 3 HOURLY WAGE AND LOAD RATES FOR INDUSTRY Labor Category Wage Rate Managerial $ 53.82 Technical $ 46.08 Secretarial $ 24.47 Note: Details on the calculation of these wages can be found in Attachment 4.

Labor Costs  Chemical Verification The Agency estimates that chemical verification will require 6.8 hours per SNUR. The total estimated cost per SNUR is estimated to be $ 313 ( 6.8 hours per SNUR x $ 46.08).

Labor Costs  Submitting a SNUN Using these labor wage rates and the burden estimates presented above, EPA estimates that the labor cost associated with filing a SNUN ranges from $ 4,208 to $ 5,071. In addition,  16 SNUN filers must pay a $ 2,500 user fee to EPA. Thus, the total cost of filing a SNUN ranges from $ 6,708 to $ 7,571.

TABLE 4 UNIT REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH FILING A SNUN, BY LABOR CATEGORY Hours Wage Rate Total Cost Secretarial 12 14 $ 24.47 $ 294$ 343 Technical 66.25 79.25 $ 46.08 $ 3,053$ 3,652 Managerial 16 20 $ 53.82 $ 861$ 1,076 Totals 94.25 113.25  $ 4,208$ 5071 Labor Costs  Recordkeeping Recordkeeping requires 5.67 hours per SNUN. Assuming that the recordkeeping is performed by clerical staff, the costs for recordkeeping are $ 139 [ 5.67 hours * $ 24.47 ( clerical labor)].

Labor Costs  Alternative Responses As noted above, five alternative responses to any particular SNUR could be chosen by firms planning to engage in significant new uses of subject chemicals. Although EPA has not projected or quantified how frequently these alternatives might be selected, the unit costs associated with each option are discussed briefly below.

The estimated burden of requesting an equivalency determination ( the second option) or review for modification/ revocation ( the fourth option) was judged to be similar to filing the SNUN; thus, total costs including the EPA user fee were estimated to range from between $ 6,708 and $ 7,751. However, the firm may incur additional costs in developing the data necessary to justify the alternative. This option will be preferable to compliance with the SNUR if the total cost of obtaining EPA approval of a request is less than the costs of SNUR compliance.

Labor Costs  Customer Notification EPA assumes that the customer notification requirement will be handled by technical labor. This analysis assumed that one hour of labor per chemical would be required to perform the notification, thus the unit cost of notification is estimated to be $ 46.08 ( i. e., the hourly wage for technical labor). EPA estimates that each SNUR will cover approximately 41 chemicals. Furthermore, EPA assumes that there are two manufacturers, processors, or importers per 4The assumption that there are two manufacturers, processors, or importers per chemical follows from previous ICRs for these requirements.

5This percentage increase is composed of three annual increases: a 4.77 percent increase in 2002, and a 4.27 percent increase in 2003. ( Office of Personnel Management, 2005).

 17 chemical4. Therefore, the burden per SNUR is estimated to be 82 hours per SNUR ([ 41 chemicals per SNUR]*[ 1 hour per manufacturer, processor, or importer]*[ 2 manufacturers, processors, or importers per chemical]), and the cost per SNUR is equal to $ 3,779 [($ 46.08 per hour)*( 82 hours per SNUR)].

Labor Costs  Summary Table 5 summarizes the unit costs estimated in this section. Reviewing a SNUR to verify that a chemical is included is estimated to cost $ 313 per SNUR. Submitting a SNUN is estimated to cost between $ 6,708 to $ 7,751 per SNUN and notifying customers is estimated to cost $ 3,779 per SNUR. As noted above, the upper bound cost for filing a SNUN ($ 7,751) will be used in subsequent calculations.

TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS Unit Cost Estimated Cost Chemical Verification $ 313 per SNUR Submitting a SNUN Between $ 6,708 and $ 7,751 per SNUN SNUN Recordkeeping $ 139 per SNUN Notifying Customers $ 3,779 per SNUR 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA will incur costs associated with the promulgation of SNURs and the processing of SNUNs. The previous ICR estimated that the cost for issuing a SNUR can be as high as $ 33,207 in 2001 dollars. The Office of Personnel Management reports that federal salaries increased by 9.04 percent ( Washington, D. C. salary including locality adjustment) from 2001 to 2003 ( Office of Personnel Management, 2005) 5. The annual salary for EPA staff used for calculations of Agency costs is an average of the OPM year 2003 annual salaries for GS 12 Steps 1 and 10   $ 58,070 and $ 75,492, respectively, or $ 66,781. Multiplying by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits and overhead ( Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, 1992), the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $ 106,850. Dividing the wage by a 12 person months/ year results in $ 8,904/ person month. Consistent with the previous ICR, it is 6The 3.94 person months estimate is from a memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Economics and Technology Division, to Susan Hazen, Office of Toxic Substances ( Shapiro, 1984).

 18 estimated that it will take 3.94 person months of EPA staff time to develop a final SNUR. Therefore, the wage per person month ($ 8,904) multiplied by a 3.94 person months/ SNUR yields an EPA cost per SNUR of $ 35,0826.

EPA's costs to review and process SNUNs are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. These costs are estimated at $ 4,203 per case. The Agency actions required, fulltime equivalent ( FTE) staff needs, and extramural costs such as for contractor support are derived in Attachment 5 from EPA's analysis of the Agency costs of processing PMN submissions ( RIB, 1994), with updates to 2003 dollars. The original EPA analysis used a range of salaries, but this analysis uses only the average salary.

Using the estimates of annual SNUR promulgation and SNUR notice submissions presented above, EPA's estimated costs are presented in Table 6. Promulgating SNURs and processing SNUNs are estimated to cost the Agency $ 126,261 annually, and $ 378,783 for three years. The Agency may also incur a cost for modifying a SNUR if submitted data indicate a need for such an action. Costs to perform such a modification have not been estimated.

TABLE 6 AGENCY COSTS Activity Number Per Year Cost Per Action Annual Cost Three Year Cost SNURs 3 $ 35,082 $ 105,246 $ 315,738 SNUNs 5 $ 4,203 $ 21,015 $ 63,045 Totals 8 $ 39,285 $ 126,261 $ 378,783 Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

6( d) Total Burden and Cost to Industry This section provides estimates of the total burden and costs imposed by the TSCA section 5( a) requirements. These estimates can be divided into three categories: chemical verification, submitting SNUNs and notifying customers.

Total Burden and Cost to Industry  Verifying Chemicals The total cost and burden imposed on industry by TSCA section 5( a)( 2) requirements can be calculated by multiplying the unit burden and cost estimates by the expected number of SNURs. As noted above, this analysis assumes that EPA will promulgate three SNURs per year. 7In deriving the totals for this analysis, EPA uses the upper bound estimates for the number of hours and the cost of submitting SNUNs.

 19 Total burden and costs for chemical verification are presented in Tables 7 and 8.

TABLE 7 TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMICAL VERIFICATION Activity Hours Per SNUR SNURs per Year Total hours Chemical Verification 6.8 3 20.4 TABLE 8 TOTAL INDUSTRY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMICAL VERIFICATION SNURs Per Year Cost Per SNUR Total Annual Cost Three Year Cost 3 $ 313 $ 939 $ 2,817 Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

Total Burden and Cost to Industry  Submitting SNUNs The total cost and burden imposed on industry by TSCA section 5( a)( 2) requirements can be calculated by multiplying the unit burden and cost estimates by the expected number of SNURs and SNUNs. As noted above, this analysis assumes that EPA will promulgate three SNURs and receive five SNUNs per year.

Table 9 presents the total burden of submitting SNUNs. This analysis estimated that the reporting requirements for submitting SNUNs would impose 113.25 hours for each SNUN. An additional 5.67 hours are assumed to be required to satisfy recordkeeping requirements. Thus, a total of 118.92 hours are required for each SNUN7. Also in this analysis, EPA estimates that it will receive five SNUNs per year. Thus, the total burden imposed on industry is estimated to be 594.6 hours annually, or 1,783.6 hours over a three year period.  20 TABLE 9 TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING SNUNs Activity Hours Per SNUN SNUNs per Year Total hours Reporting 113.25 5 566.25 Recordkeeping 5.67 5 28.35 Total Annual Burden 118.92 5 594.6 Three Year Burden   1,783.6 The total cost of submitting SNUNs is presented in Table 10. This analysis estimated that submitting SNUNs will cost affected parties $ 7,751 per SNUN. Assuming five SNUNs per year ( see above) implies a total annual cost of $ 38,755 ([ 5 SNUNs]*[$ 7,710 per SNUN]) and a threeyear cost of $ 116,265 ([$ 38,755 per year]*[ 3 years]).

TABLE 10 TOTAL INDUSTRY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING SNUNs SNUNs Per Year Cost Per SNUN Total Annual Cost Three Year Cost 5 $ 7,710 $ 38,755 $ 116,265 Note: Estimates may contain some rounding error caused by rounding dollar values to the nearest whole dollar.

Total Burden and Cost to Industry  Customer Notification Table 11 presents estimates of the customer notification burden and costs. EPA estimates that burden for customer notification is 82 hours per SNUR. EPA estimates that three SNURs will be promulgated per year. The annual burden associated with customer notification is estimated to be 246 hours ( 82 hours/ SNUR * 3 SNURs/ year). The three year burden is estimated to be 738 hours.

The cost of customer notification is estimated by multiplying the burden hours by the unit cost of notification. This analysis assumed that notification would be accomplished using technical labor, valued at $ 46.08 per hour. Thus, the total annual cost of customer notification is $ 11,336 and the three year cost is $ 34,008.  21 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED BURDEN AND COST FOR CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION Cost Element Value/ Estimate Burden Chemicals per SNUR [ a] 41 Hours per manufacturers/ processors/ importers [ b] 1.0 Manufacturers/ processors/ importers per chemical [ c] 2 SNURs per year [ d] 3 Total annual burden [ e] = [ a]*[ b]*[ c]*[ d] 246 Three year burden [ f] = 3*[ e] 738 Cost Cost per hour [ g] $ 46.08 Total annual cost [ h] = [ e]*[ g] $ 11,336 Three year cost [ j] = 3*[ h] $ 34,008 Total Burden and Cost to Industry  Summary of Industry Costs The total estimated industry burden associated with SNURs is equal to the total of chemical verification burden ( 20.4 hours annually), reporting and recordkeeping burden ( 594.6 hours annually) plus the total customer notification burden ( 246 hours annually), which is equal to 861 hours annually. The associated cost is estimated to be $ 51,030 annually. Over a three year period, the burden is estimated to be 2,583 hours and costs are estimated to be $ 153,090.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) General Tally Annual Number of SNURS: 3 Annual Number of SNUNS/ Responses: 5 Annual Number of Respondents: 5 ( ii) Respondent Tally Annual Respondent Burden: 861 hours.  22 Annual Respondent Costs: $ 51,030.

( iii) The Agency Tally Annual Agency Costs: $ 126,261.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is a decrease of 159 hours ( from 1,020 hours to 861 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the information collection request most recently approved by OMB. This change results from updating estimates based upon historical information on the number of chemicals per SNUR. Based upon revised estimates, the number of chemicals per SNUR has decreased from 65.5 to 41. The change is an adjustment.

6( f) Regulatory Flexibility TSCA section 5( a)( c) affects new uses of chemicals and requires those interested in engaging in such a use to notify the Agency of his/ her intentions. Because the rule only covers uses that a small business does not currently undertake, a small business is not expected to immediately be affected by the SNUR unless it is considering such a use in the future. Although there may be some small businesses that may decide to engage in significant new uses associated with certain chemicals, it is impossible to estimate the number at this time. Additionally, the Agency has only received two SNUNs related to existing chemical SNURs in the past three years, suggesting that few, if any small business would be affected. This, coupled with the low unit costs associated with filing a SNUN suggest that the overall impact will be low for any business that may choose to file a SNUN or notify customers of SNUR activity. These costs are not differentiated between small and large businesses.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0038, is estimated to be 118.9 hours per response. According to the Paperwork reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information ; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 OMB control number  23 for this information collection appears above. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT 2005 0009, which is available for public viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1544 and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is ( 202) 566 0280. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OPPT 2005 0009 and OMB control number 2070 0038 in any correspondence.  24 REFERENCES BLS, 2004a. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index, Total Compensation: White Collar Occupations ( Series ID: ECS11102I), http:// data. bls. gov/ cgi bin/ srgate, extracted June 21, 2004.

BLS, 2004b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation  December 2003: Private industry, goods producing workers by occupational group, wages and total benefits ( Series IDs CCU420000112000D, CCU420000111000D, CCU420000114000D, CCU430000112000D, CCU430000111000D, CCU430000114000D), http:// data. bls. gov/ cgi bin/ srgate, extracted June 21, 2004.

EPAB, 1999. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 41 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, July 20, 1999. EPA Docket.

Office of Personnel Management ( OPM), 2005. Salary Tables 2002 DCB, 2003 DCB. www. opm. gov.

Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation ( OPPE), 1992. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests ( ICRs). Washington, DC: U. S. EPA, June 1, 1992.

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT), 1994. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications.

RIB, 1994. Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ RIB, September 9, 1994.

Rice, 2002. Cody Rice. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, June 10, 2002.

Shapiro, Michael, 1984. " Review of Agency SNUR Costs", Memorandum to Susan Hazen, Office of Toxic Substances, November 16.

US EPA, 2004. MITS report on SNUNs received, Years 2001  2004. Management Information Tracking System Module of Confidential Business Information Tracking System. December 21.

US EPA, 1985. Response times and Labor Costs Final Data Element List Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, April 30, pp. 94 106. ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT Attachment 1 Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 5 ( 15 USC 2604) This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 2 40 CFR Part 721 ( Subpart A through Subpart D) This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 3 Premanufacture Notice ( PMN) Form and Instructions EPA Form 7710 25 For an electronic copy of the PMN Form and Instructions, you can also see http:// www. epa. gov/ oppt/ newchems/ pubs/ pmnforms. htm and follow the appropriate links.

Attachment 4 Inflators and Wage Rates This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 5 Agency Costs This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 6 Selection Criteria   TSCA Section 8( a) Rule vs. SNUR This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 7 Selected SNUR Case History Abstracts This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).

Attachment 8 Copies of Public Comments Received and EPA's Response to the Comments  Copies of the comments are available electronically in Portable Document Format via the Internet at http:// idocket. rtpnc. epa. gov/ edkreg/ do/ EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF? obj ectId= 090007d48086510b and http:// idocket. rtpnc. epa. gov/ edkreg/ do/ EDKStaffAttachDownloadPDF? obj ectId= 090007d48089edf3 Attachment 9 Copy of EPA's Consultation Request to Potential Respondents This attachment is available as a document in the electronic docket for this ICR ( OPPT 2005 0009).


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23351-23353]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2008-0329]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Cleveland Harbor, Dock 32, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in
the eastern basin section of Lake Erie adjacent to Dock 32 in
Cleveland, OH. This zone is intended to restrict vessels during the
Ninth Coast Guard District Change of Command Ceremony on May 22, 2008.
This security zone is necessary to provide for the security and safety
of life for event participants. Entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Buffalo, NY, or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12 noon until 5 p.m. on May 22,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2008-0329 are part of this docket are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays and at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055
East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Nicole Starr, U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions about viewing the online docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the security of event
participants.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard will conduct a Change of Command ceremony along
Lake Erie at dock 32 in Cleveland, OH, on May 22, 2008. A security zone
is needed from 12 noon through 5 p.m. on that date to protect
dignitaries taking part in this high-level military ceremony and
spectators from potential threats posed by waterborne acts of sabotage
or other subversive acts.
    The event will consist of a background comprised of two U.S. Coast
Guard vessels anchored perpendicular to the stern of the SS MATHER on
the waters of Cleveland Harbor at dock 32. U.S. Coast Guard patrol
vessels will be provided to prevent the movement of persons and
vessels.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the
Ninth Coast Guard District Change of Command on May 22, 2008. The zone
encompasses all waters of Lake Erie adjacent to Dock 32 in Cleveland,
OH, within a 200-yard radius originating from the north east corner of
Dock 32.
    Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representative. This security zone will
be in effect from 12 noon through 5 p.m. on May 22, 2008 to safeguard
event participants and spectators. All persons other than those
approved by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative, are prohibited from entering or moving within this
security zone. In addition to today's publication of this temporary

final rule, the Coast Guard will provide notice of this security zone
and its restrictions involved via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed this rule under that Order.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the
security zone within the water. Commercial vessels will not be hindered
by the security zone. Recreational vessels will be allowed to transit
through the designated security zone during the specified times if
approved by the Captain of the Port, Buffalo or his designated
representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels
intending to transit a portion of the security zone from 12 noon until
5 p.m. on May 22, 2008. The zone will only encompass a limited area.
Shallow water vessel traffic not constrained by draft can pass safely
around the security zone. A lack of commercial vessel traffic exists in
the area during the effective period. Maritime advisories on the Change
of Command ceremony have been advertised and made widely available to
users of the waterway and will continue until the ceremony is complete.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Lieutenant Nicole Starr, U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH
44114; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and
fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also
determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the
provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encourage to
contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management
system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction from further
environmental documentation. This rule establishes a security zone and
as such is covered by this paragraph. A final ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-004 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-004  Security Zone; Cleveland Harbor, Dock 32.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary security zone: all
waters of Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH, within a 200 yard radius
originating from the north east corner of dock 32.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 12 noon until
5 p.m. on May 22, 2008.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
    (2) The security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is
closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be onboard either
a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
security zone shall comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: April 14, 2008.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. E8-9479 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 31198]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4541-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4541-DR), dated April 24,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued April 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 24, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Tennessee resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding during the period of April 12 to April 13, 2020,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Tennessee.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent
of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Myra M. Shird, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Tennessee have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bradley and Hamilton Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Bradley, Campbell, Hamilton, Marion, Monroe, Polk, Scott, and
Washington Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Tennessee are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-11107 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72564-72566]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-033-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pacific Aerospace Limited (PAL) Model 750XL airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as PAL Model 750XL airplanes manufactured with
only one attitude indicator. A second attitude indicator is required
for flights under instrument flight rules. We are issuing this proposed
AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 22,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton
3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.aerospace.co.nz/.
You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
1002; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4146; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-1002;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-033-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/17A, dated November
6, 2014 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes and was
based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by
an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    This AD with effective date 10 November 2014 is prompted by a
recent determination that certain PAL750XL aircraft were
inadvertently manufactured with instrument panels with only one
Attitude Indicator (AI). A second AI is required for PAL750XL
operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
    The AD mandates the installation of either a second AI, or the
enablement of Reversionary Attitude mode in the Sandel Electronic
Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI), if fitted, when operating
under IFR.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002.

Relevant Service Information

    Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Limited
Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/074, Issue 2, dated November 4,
2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 17 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $3,500 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $68,170, or $4,010 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2014-1002; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-033-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 22, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34: Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as Pacific
Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes manufactured with instrument
panels with only one attitude indicator. A second attitude indicator
is required to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR). A
reversionary attitude indicator reduces the probability of a single
point failure, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing
this proposed AD to install a reversionary attitude indicator before
operating in IFR conditions.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, before the next flight requiring instrument
flight rules (IFR) after the effective date of this AD, install a
second attitude indicator into the right hand instrument panel or
enable the reversionary mode on a Sandel SN3500 electronic
horizontal situation indicator (EHSI), if installed, whichever is
applicable, following the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific
Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/074, Issue 2,
dated November 4, 2014.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901
Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-
4146; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/750XL/17A,
dated November 6, 2014, for related information. You may examine the
MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1002. For service information
related to this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road,
Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843
6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.aerospace.co.nz/. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 2, 2014.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28699 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54336-54338]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21297]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70269; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Rule 7026

August 27, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 16, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a rule change to NASDAQ Rule 7026
(Distribution Models) regarding Managed Data Solutions (``MDS''), to
indicate that this option is available for non-display use only. This
would conform non-display MDS in Rule 7026(b) with non-display MDS on
PSX, the equity market of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and on NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 7026(b) to indicate
that NASDAQ MDS is available for non-display use only. This would
conform non-display MDS on NASDAQ with recent immediately effective
proposals establishing non-display MDS on PSX and on BX.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 69182 (March 19, 2013),
78 FR 18378 (March 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-28) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness implementing MDS on PSX) (the ``PSX MDS
filing''); and 69041 (March 5, 2013), 78 FR 15791 (March 12, 2013)
(SR-BX-2013-018) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
implementing MDS on BX) (the ``BX MDS filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other changes to Rule 7026 are proposed or made by this filing.
    MDS has been available on NASDAQ since 2010,\4\ and is, in all
material respects, similar to MDS on PSX and on BX, except that MDS is
currently available for display on NASDAQ. This proposal aligns and
conforms the non-display nature of MDS for all three Self-Regulatory
Organization (``SRO'') exchanges under the umbrella of the NASDAQ OMX
Group Inc., (``NASDAQ OMX Group''), namely NASDAQ, PSX, and BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 63276 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 69717 (November 15, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-138) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness implementing MDS on NASDAQ)
(the ``NASDAQ MDS filing''). Other markets have also implemented a
managed data solution. See, for example, Securities Exchange Release
No. 65678 (November 3, 2011), 76 FR 70178 (November 10, 2011) (SR-
ISE-2011-67) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
implementing a managed data solution on ISE).

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

    MDS is a pricing and administrative option available on NASDAQ to
firms seeking simplified market data administration for MDS products
containing TotalView, Level 2, and Open View (known as ``Depth
Data'').\5\ The MDS pricing and administrative option is reflected in
the established NASDAQ fee schedule in Rule 7026(b) for Distributors,
non-professional, and professional subscribers \6\ of NASDAQ Depth Data
that provide datafeed solutions such as an Application Programming
Interface (API) or similar automated delivery solutions to recipients
with limited entitlement controls (e.g., usernames and/or passwords)
(``Managed Data Recipients''). A Distributor must, however, first agree
to reformat, redisplay and/or alter the NASDAQ Depth Data prior to
retransmission, but not to affect the integrity of the NASDAQ Depth
Data and not to render it inaccurate, unfair, uninformative,
fictitious, misleading, or discriminatory. MDS is an optional
distribution model for any retransmission datafeed product containing
NASDAQ Depth Data offered by a Distributor where the Distributor
manages and monitors, but does not necessarily control, the
information. However, the Distributor does maintain contracts with the
Managed Data Recipients and is liable for any unauthorized use by the
Managed Data Recipients. The Managed Data Recipients may not distribute
the information outside of their organization and may only use the
information for internal, non-display use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MDS on PSX and on BX includes TotalView only, and as such,
MDS on NASDAQ is priced higher than on PSX and on BX. As noted in
this proposal, there is no change to the fee structure, or any other
aspect of MDS, on NASDAQ.
    \6\ The term ``Distributor'' shall have the same meaning as set
forth in NASDAQ Rule 7019(c). The term ``non-professional'' shall
have the same meaning as set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7011(b). MDS fees
do not change, and remain the same: An administrative fee of $1,500/
month per Distributor; a professional subscriber fee of $300/month
per subscriber; and a non-professional fee of $60/month per
subscriber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is reasonable, proper, and
desirable. First, it aligns and conforms the equities exchanges market
data products on NASDAQ, PSX, and BX. Second, NASDAQ is not aware of
Managed Data Recipients using MDS in display; rather they use the
Enhanced Display Solution (``EDS'') for the ability to display data.
Separation of MDS and EDS makes it easier for users to understand and
control the use of these functionalities. Third, MDS continues to give
Managed Data Recipients a reduction in fees for a specific non-display
use scenario. And fourth, MDS provides Distributors and Subscribers a
new unit of count option; smaller firms receive a value added service
at a reduced cost to help lower even further the potential barriers to
entry.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Moreover, MDS may ease the administrative burden on
Subscribers by refocusing administrative costs from smaller
recipients to larger Distributors that are better able to absorb the
cost through economies of scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, in addition to being consistent with
the Act, this proposal is beneficial for market participants. First,
the proposal aligns and conforms Market Data Recipients on NASDAQ with
recipients of similar data on PSX and BX, so that Recipients of MDS on
all three exchanges are treated similarly. Second, NASDAQ is not aware
of Managed Data Recipients using MDS in display; rather they use EDS
for the ability to display data. Separation of MDS and EDS makes it
easier for users to understand and control the use of these
functionalities. Third, MDS continues to give Managed Data Recipients a
reduction in fees for a specific non-display use scenario. And fourth,
MDS provides Distributors and Subscribers a new unit of count option;
smaller firms receive a value added service at a reduced cost to help
lower even further the potential barriers to entry.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
MDS has been available on NASDAQ for more than two years as a display
option, and has, as proposed herein, been available on PSX and BX as a
non-display option. Thus, combined with the very limited scope of this
proposal, the Exchange believes that there is no burden on inter- or
intra-exchange competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \11\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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, as amended, 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-NASDAQ-2013-106 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-NASDAQ-2013-106. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-NASDAQ-2013-106, and
should be submitted on or before September 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21297 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P