[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57641-57642]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20065]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78605; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Correct a Typographical Error in Rules IM-5910-1 and IM-5920-1

August 17, 2016.
    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 11, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify Exchange Rules IM-5910-1 and IM-
5920-1 to correct a typographical error.
    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
    Effective January 1, 2015, Nasdaq adopted an all-inclusive annual
listing fee, which simplifies billing and provides transparency and
certainty to companies as to the annual cost of listing.\3\ This new
fee structure was designed, primarily, to address customer complaints
about the number and, in some cases, the variable nature of certain of
Nasdaq's listing fees. In SR-NASDAQ-2016-085,\4\ Nasdaq made changes to
the rules governing the all-inclusive annual listing fee to allow
currently listed companies that did not previously opt in to the all-
inclusive annual fee program to do so effective January 1, 2017. This
rule change, however, contained a typographical error, which appears in
two rules, that Nasdaq is now proposing to correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73647 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 70232 (November 25, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-087).
    \4\ Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 78149 (June 24,
2016), 81 FR 42388 (June 29, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Exchange Rules IM-5910-1(b)(3)(B) and IM-5920-
1(b)(3)(B), now contain the extra word ``be'' in their description of
the benefits for the listing of additional shares, which should have
been deleted. Nasdaq proposes to correct this error and remove the word
from both rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq asserts that the
proposed correction to Rules IM-5910-1(b)(3)(B) and IM-5920-1(b)(3)(B)
will serve the Act's goals by ensuring that the Exchange's rules use
accurate terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq 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, as amended. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed correction does not impact
competition in any respect, since it is designed to correct a
typographical error.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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 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-2016-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-118. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-118 and should
be submitted on or before September 13, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20065 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1108; Special Conditions No. 25-456-SC]

Special Conditions: Learjet Inc., Model LJ-200-1A10 Airplane,
Pilot-Compartment View Through Hydrophobic Windshield Coatings in Lieu
of Windshield Wipers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Learjet Model LJ-
200-1A10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with hydrophobic windshield coatings in lieu of
windshield wipers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Bernado, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 11, 2008, Learjet Inc. applied for a type certificate
for a new Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane. This airplane is 68 feet long
with a 65-foot wing span and accommodates up to 10 passengers. The LJ-
200-1A10 airplane uses a hydrophobic windshield coating, in lieu of
windshield wipers, for an unobstructed outside view from the pilot
compartment.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Learjet Inc. must show that the Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane
meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments
25-1 through 25-123.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane because
of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane must comply with the fuel-
vent and exhaust-emission requirements of part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding
of regulatory adequacy pursuant to Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574, the
``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Learjet Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features:
    The Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane flight deck design incorporates a
hydrophobic windshield coating to provide, during precipitation, an
adequate outside view from the pilot compartment. Sole reliance on such
a coating, without windshield wipers, constitutes a novel or unusual
design feature for which the applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards. Therefore, a
special condition is required to provide a level of safety equivalent
to that established by the regulations.

Discussion

    Section 25.773(b)(1) requires a means to maintain a clear portion
of the windshield for both pilots to have a sufficiently extensive view
along the flight path during precipitation conditions. The regulations
require this means to maintain such an area during heavy-rain
precipitation at airplane speeds up to 1.5 VSR1. Hydrophobic
windshield coatings may depend to some degree on airflow to maintain a
clear-vision area. The heavy rain and high speed conditions specified
in the current rule do not necessarily represent the limiting condition
for this new technology. For example, airflow over the windshield,
which may be necessary to remove moisture from the windshield, may not
be adequate to maintain a sufficiently clear area of the windshield in
low-speed flight or during surface operations. Alternatively, airflow
over the windshield may be disturbed during such critical times as the
approach to land, where the airplane is at a higher-than-normal pitch
attitude. In these cases, areas of airflow disturbance or separation on
the windshield could cause failure to maintain a clear-vision area on
the windshield.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-11-16-SC for the
Learjet Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane was published in the Federal
Register on October 14, 2011 (76 FR 63851). No comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane. Should Learjet Inc. apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include other type designs
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10
airplanes.
    The airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the
windshield, during precipitation conditions, enough for both pilots to
have a sufficiently extensive view along the ground or flight path in
normal taxi and flight attitudes of the airplane. This means must be
designed to function, without continuous attention on the part of the
crew, in conditions from light misting precipitation to heavy rain, at
speeds from fully stopped in still air, to 1. 5 VSR1 with
lift and drag devices retracted.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2012.
K.C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2672 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23060-23064]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09498]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74767; File No. SR-BATS-2015-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

April 20, 2015.
    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 April 16, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change
as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to: (1)
Adopt a Cross-Asset Tape B Tier; and (2) amend the fees charged for and
description of the logical ports \6\ offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A logical port is commonly referred to as a TCP/IP port, and
represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's
system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port
established is specific to a Member or non-member and grants that
Member or non-member the ability to operate a specific application,
such as FIX order entry or Multicast PITCH data receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Asset Tape B Tier
    Currently, the Exchange offers a rebate of $0.0020 per share as the
standard rebate for orders with fee code B, which applies to orders
that add liquidity to the Exchange in Tape B securities. The Exchange
also offers various tiers that provide Members with the opportunity to
earn higher rebates by meeting certain volume metrics. The Exchange is
proposing to adopt a new tier in footnote 12 titled ``Cross-Asset Tape
B Tier.'' Under the Cross-Asset Tape B Tier, the Exchange is proposing
to provide a $0.0031 per share rebate to a Member's orders with a fee
code of B for which the Member: (1) Has a Tape B Step-Up Add TCV \7\
from February 2015 that is equal to or greater than 0.06%; and (2) has
an Options Market Maker Add TCV \8\ that is equal to or greater than
0.75% on the Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options''). As such,
where a Member increases their ADAV \9\ in Tape B securities as a
percentage of TCV by at least .06% as compared to February 2015 and has
at least 0.75% ADAV \10\ of Market Maker \11\ orders as a percentage of
TCV \12\ on BATS Options, the Member will be eligible to receive the
$0.0031 per share rebate associated with the Cross-Asset Tape B Tier.
As is the case with any other rebates on the fee schedule, to the
extent that a Member qualifies for higher rebates than those provided
under the proposed Cross-Asset Tape B Tier, the higher rebates shall
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange is proposing that ``Tape B Step-Up Add TCV''
means ADAV in Tape B securities as a percentage of TCV in the
relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV in Tape B
securities as a percentage of TCV.
    \8\ The Exchange is proposing that ``Options Market Maker Add
TCV'' for purposes of equities pricing means ADAV resulting from
Market Maker orders as a percentage of TCV, using the definitions of
ADAV, Market Maker and TCV as provided under the Exchange's fee
schedule for BATS Options.
    \9\ ``ADAV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added per day.
    \10\ As defined in the BATS Options fee schedule, ``ADAV'' means
average daily added volume calculated as the number of contracts
added per day.
    \11\ As defined in the BATS Options fee schedule, ``Market
Maker'' applies to any transaction identified by a Member for
clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC.
    \12\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical Port Fees
    Currently, the Exchange maintains logical ports for order entry,
drop copies and the receipt of market data for which it currently
charges $400 per month per port with the exception of Multicast PITCH
Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports.\13\ Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports
and GRP Ports are used to request and receive a retransmission of data
from the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed. The Exchange does charge
$400 per month for such ports, however, the Exchange separately
delineates such fees because of various details related to the use of
such ports. Specifically, Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports are offered
as a complete set, including one logical port for each channel of the
Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed, and can be taken for either of
the Exchange's primary Multicast PITCH data feeds.\14\ Similarly,
Multicast PITCH GRP Ports can be taken for either of the Exchange's
primary Multicast PITCH data feeds. The Exchange offers Multicast PITCH
Spin Server Ports for a fee of $400 per month for a set of primary
ports (A or C feed) and Multicast PITCH GRP Ports for a fee of $400 per
month per primary port (A or C feed). The Exchange offers and will
continue to offer for free the ports necessary to receive the
Exchange's redundant Multicast ``B feed'' and ``D feed'', as well as
all ports made available in the Exchange's secondary data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FIX and BOE ports are the only ports that may be used to
send orders and related instructions to the Exchange. All other port
types, including the Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port and GRP Port,
permit Members and non-members to receive information from the
Exchange.
    \14\ The Exchange's primary Multicast PITCH data feeds are
identified as the ``A feed'' and the ``C feed'' and contain the same
information. The A feed and the C feed differ only in the way such
feeds are received. The Exchange also offers two redundant feeds,
identified as the ``B feed'' and the ``D feed''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX''), received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'')
of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with
Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA
(together with the Exchange, BYX and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated

Exchanges'').\15\ In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align certain system and regulatory
functionality, retaining only intended differences between the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges. This includes migrating the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges, which are currently located in different data centers, into
a single data center. As part of the data center migration and the
integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange is proposing
to increase the fees charged from $400 per month to $500 per month for
all categories of logical ports, including sets of Multicast PITCH Spin
Server Ports for the A feed and the C feed, individual GRP Ports for
the A feed and the C feed, and all other logical ports. The Exchange
notes that EDGA and EDGX currently charge $500 per month for most
logical ports.\16\ The Exchange communicated to Members and non-Members
regarding these changes via a trading notice issued on October 7,
2014.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \16\ The Exchange notes that BYX intends to file a proposal very
similar to this proposal that will align its logical port fees
across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange also notes
that EDGA and EDGX also intend to file a proposal to charge $500 per
month for all types of logical ports as well as to change the
descriptions used for logical port fees to mirror the descriptions
used by the Exchange and BYX.
    \17\ See BATS Global Markets Access Fee Changes for 2015,
available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2015/BATS-Global-Markets-Access-Services-Fee-Changes-for-2015.pdf (issued
October 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to increasing the port fees charged by the Exchange,
the Exchange proposes to add the words ``Multicast PITCH'' before GRP
Ports to mirror the description of fees for Multicast PITCH Spin Server
Ports. As noted above, the separate fees for Spin Server Ports and GRP
Ports both relate to the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee
schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\19\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates
are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Asset Tape B Tier
    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained
on BATS Options have been widely adopted by equities and options
exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an
equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of
higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to add a Cross-Asset Tape B
Tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide
Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on
both the Exchange in Tape B securities and BATS Options. The increased
liquidity from this proposal also benefits all investors by deepening
the Exchange and BATS Options liquidity pools, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the
quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection. Such pricing programs thereby reward a Member's
growth pattern in Tape B securities and such increased volume increases
potential revenue to the Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to
continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs
operated by the Exchange. To the extent a Member participates on the
Exchange but not on BATS Options, the Exchange does believe that the
proposal is still reasonable, equitably allocated and non-
discriminatory with respect to such Member based on the overall benefit
to the Exchange resulting from the success of BATS Options. As noted
above, such success allows the Exchange to continue to provide and
potentially expand its existing incentive programs to the benefit of
all participants on the Exchange, whether they participate on BATS
Options or not. The proposed pricing program is also fair and equitable
in that membership in BATS Options is available to all members which
would provide them with access to the benefits on BATS Options provided
by the proposed changes, as described above, even where a member of
BATS Options is not necessarily eligible for the proposed increased
rebates on the Exchange. Further, the proposed changes will result in
Members receiving either the same or an increased rebate than they
would currently receive. The Exchange also notes that the proposed
cross-asset step up tiers are similar to pricing tiers already employed
by the Exchange as well as on other exchanges, including EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX''), which maintains a Tape B Step Up tier to incentivize
added liquidity in Tape B securities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See EDGX fee schedule, footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical Port Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\21\ in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that its proposed
changes, combined with the planned filings for EDGA, EDGX and BZX
[sic],\22\ would allow the BGM Affiliated Exchanges to provide
consistent logical port offerings across each of the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges. Consistent offerings, in turn, will simplify the
connectivity requirements for Members of the Exchange that are also
participants on EDGA, BZX [sic] and/or BYX. The proposed rule change
would result in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more
efficient understanding of Exchange connectivity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \22\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increase of fees for logical ports
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the
trading activities of members and other participants. Accordingly, fees
charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for
the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data
from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for
connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity
arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange
through another

participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly.
Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose
not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the
execution of orders routed to it by affected members, and, to the
extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that
this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of
any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity. Lastly, the
Exchange believe [sic] its proposed fees are reasonable because the
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') charge comparable rates for logical ports to access such
markets.\23\ As noted above, EDGA and EDGX also charge the same rate
for access to most logical ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Nasdaq Rule 7015 (providing no FIX or non-Trading FIX
ports free of charge) and the NYSE Arca fee schedule available at
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf (dated February 26, 2015). The
Exchange recognizes that some participants may be charged the lower
rate of $200 per month to the extent such participants maintain a
low number of ports with NYSE Arca. The Exchange nonetheless
believes that its proposed fees are comparable despite the fact that
it does not propose a lower fee for such participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to logical port
fees are reasonable in light of the benefits to Exchange participants
of direct market access and receipt of data. In addition, the Exchange
believes that its fees are equitably allocated among Exchange
constituents based upon the number of access ports that they require to
access and receive data from the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
that its fees for access services will enable it to better cover its
infrastructure costs and to improve its market technology and services.
    Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to
its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all Members. All Members that voluntarily select various
service options will be charged the same amount for the same services.
All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and
there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees
charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendments to its fee
schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Cross-Asset Tape B Tier
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to add a new cross-
asset step-up tier would burden competition, but instead, enhance
competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and
draw additional volume to both the Exchange and BATS Options. As stated
above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or
excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the
rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw
additional liquidity to the Exchange. As such, the proposal is a
competitive proposal that is intended to add additional liquidity to
the Exchange, which will, in turn, benefit the Exchange and all
Exchange participants.
Logical Port Fees
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to logical
port fees represents a significant departure from previous pricing
offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's
competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's
pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\25\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-BATS-2015-33,
and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09498 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32069-32071]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0215]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lorain Independence Day Fireworks, Black River,
Lorain, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone at the
mouth of the Black River, Lorain, OH for the Lorain Independence Day
Fireworks. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from the Black
River in Lorain, OH, during the Lorain Independence Day Fireworks on
July 3, 2011. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a firework
display.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 3,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-2015 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-2015 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail MST3 Rory Boyle, Marine Events
Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment
period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest in that it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays on
navigable waters.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impractical
and contrary to the public interest.

Background and Purpose

    The Lorain Independence Day Fireworks is an event established to
celebrate United States Independence. The fireworks display will occur
on July 3, 2011 from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to watercraft
pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Thus, this
temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and
spectators from the hazards associated with the aforesaid fireworks
display. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around
the location of the launch area will help ensure the safety of persons
and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching the
fireworks during the Lorain Independence Day Fireworks. It will
encompass a 1,400 ft radius at the end of the break wall at the Spitzer
Lakeside Marina in Lorain, OH. This temporary safety zone will be
effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 3, 2011.

    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The 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 may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of Spitzer Lakeside Marina in Lorain, OH on July
03, 2011 from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because of the minimal amount of
time in which the safety zone will be enforced. This safety zone will
only be enforced for 90 minutes in a low vessel traffic area. Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period,
we will issue maritime advisories, which include a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
An environmental analysis checklist and a 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
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    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. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
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. Add Sec.  165.T09-0215 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0215  Safety zone; Lorain Independence Day Fireworks,
Black River, Lorain, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: 1,400
ft radius at the end of the break wall at the Spitzer Lakeside Marina
in Lorain, OH from position +41[deg]28' 35.68'' N. -82[deg]10' 51.59''
W.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This zone will be effective
and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 3, 2011.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone 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 aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
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.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 11, 2011.
R.S. Burchell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2011-13756 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 81 (Friday, April 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19648-19651]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0514; FRL-9961-39-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program
Regulations and Reference to CAIR, and Amendments to Continuous
Emission Monitor (CEM) Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a

July 7, 2016 state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. The revision includes revised regulations which
repealed Maryland's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program in its
entirety, and which removed references to CAIR from other Maryland
regulations that relate to general air quality definitions and to the
control of emissions from pulp mills in Maryland. Additionally, the
revision includes an amendment to a Maryland regulation regarding the
use of continuous emission monitoring (CEM) systems at Kraft pulp mill
boilers and combustion units in order to clarify that CEM systems must
meet requirements beyond those only related to certification. The July
7, 2016 SIP submittal satisfies Maryland's obligation pursuant to an
earlier rulemaking in which EPA granted final conditional approval of
amendments regarding the control of emissions from Kraft pulp mills
contingent upon Maryland addressing the monitoring issue. Final
approval of the July 7, 2016 SIP revision will convert the prior
conditional approval of the pulp mill regulations to a full approval.
EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the Maryland SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0514 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 7, 2016, EPA received from the State
of Maryland a formal submittal (#16-07) seeking a revision to its SIP.

I. Background

    To help reduce interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) pollution in the eastern half of the United
States, EPA finalized CAIR in May 2005.\1\ CAIR addressed both the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and required 28 states, including Maryland, to limit emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2).\2\ For CAIR, EPA developed three separate cap and
trade programs that could be used to achieve the required reductions:
The CAIR NOX ozone season trading program, the CAIR annual
NOX trading program, and the CAIR SO2 trading
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005).
    \2\ SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5 formation,
and NOX is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5
formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on
reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. The December 2008 D.C. Circuit ruling allowed
CAIR to remain in effect until a new interstate transport rule
consistent with the Court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on
developing a new rule to address the interstate transport of air
pollution, the CAIR program continued as planned with the
NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and
the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.
    In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the Cross State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011.\3\ CSAPR, which reduces
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), addresses the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule also contained provisions that
would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with
the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. CSAPR was to
become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's
implementation was impacted by a number of court actions. On December
30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its implementation,
and EPA was ordered to continue administering CAIR on an interim
basis.\4\ In a subsequent decision on the merits, the Court vacated
CSAPR based on a subset of petitioners' claims.\5\ However, on April
29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded
the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.\6\ Throughout the
initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court
proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to
implement CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \4\ Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
    \5\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013).
    \6\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion
asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to
replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C.
Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from
petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three
years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the
approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an
interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as
January 1, 2015 and tolled the implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 2015
and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule,
the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ At the present time, CSAPR is implemented in Maryland via a
federal implementation plan (FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 7, 2016, EPA received from the State of Maryland a formal
submittal (#16-07) seeking a revision to its SIP. As a result of CSAPR
replacing CAIR, Maryland, in its July 7, 2016 submittal, requested that
EPA remove from the Maryland SIP the CAIR program in its entirety, and
references to CAIR located in other sections of the Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR). Maryland's submittal seeks to remove the CAIR
program by removing, in its entirety, COMAR 26.11.28 from Maryland's
SIP because the CAIR program is now moot and has been replaced entirely
by CSAPR. The July 7, 2016 SIP submittal also includes an amended
definition of ``NOX Ozone Season Allowance'' in COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B(24-1) which removed reference to CAIR, thereby directing

affected sources to the ``NOX ozone season emission trading
program,'' which is currently CSAPR. The SIP revision also includes a
revised version of COMAR 26.11.14. In COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>C(1), there was
a specific reference to COMAR 26.11.28, Maryland's CAIR program, which
is now moot and which Maryland requested EPA remove from the SIP.
Maryland revised COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>C(1) to remove reference to COMAR
26.11.28, while permitting the continued practice of allowing certain
sources to use NOX ozone season allowances as an alternative
compliance method. Maryland has included revised COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and
<IP_ADDRESS>, which includes <IP_ADDRESS>B(24-1) and <IP_ADDRESS>C(1),
respectively, for incorporation by reference into the Maryland SIP.
    Finally, the July 7, 2016 SIP submission includes an amended COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>D(1) which removes the word ``certified'' in order to
clarify that for Kraft pulp mill combustion units and boilers to meet
the monitoring and reporting requirements, CEM systems must meet all
the requirements of 40 CFR 75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.

III. Summary of EPA Analysis

    In this action, EPA proposes to approve the removal of COMAR
26.11.28, which incorporated the CAIR program, from the Maryland SIP.
EPA also proposes to approve the removal of references to CAIR from
other Maryland regulations located in the Maryland SIP that relate to
general air quality definitions and to the control of emissions from
pulp mills in Maryland. As mentioned previously in this preamble, the
D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA in 2008; however, the Court left CAIR
in place while EPA worked to develop a new interstate transport rule.
CSAPR was promulgated to respond to the court's concerns and to replace
CAIR. The implementation of CSAPR was delayed for several years beyond
its originally expected implementation timeframe of 2012 and therefore
the sunsetting of CAIR was also deferred. CAIR was implemented through
the 2014 compliance periods and was sunset and replaced by CSAPR on
January 1, 2015, thereby making CAIR moot and any reference to CAIR
inconsequential. Additionally, as a result of CSAPR replacing CAIR and
the removal of Maryland's CAIR program under COMAR 26.11.28, reference
to CAIR in other Maryland regulations is inaccurate and misleading.
Thus, removing reference to CAIR or COMAR 26.11.28 from the other
Maryland regulations mentioned in this action does not affect the
sources impacted by the federal cap and trade program. Additionally,
although EPA's proposed action here removes the CAIR program from the
Maryland SIP, this action is overall SIP strengthening as it removes a
moot program no longer in operation. EPA has already replaced CAIR with
CSAPR which operates through FIPs, and which yields overall
NOX and ozone reductions that are at least equal to or
better than reductions from CAIR.8 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \9\ According to section 110(l) of the CAA, the Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress), or any other applicable requirement of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Maryland's amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and COMAR
26.11.14 (to remove references to CAIR) are in response to EPA's
conditional approval of a previous Maryland SIP submittal. Maryland SIP
#14-04 was submitted on October 8, 2014 for inclusion in the Maryland
SIP and included amendments to COMAR 26.11.14--Control of Kraft Pulp
Mills.\10\ In a letter dated September 18, 2015, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) committed to removing references to
CAIR, which sunset on December 31, 2014, through a SIP revision. The
amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and COMAR 26.11.14, provided by
Maryland's SIP submittal #16-07, complete the actions required by EPA's
conditional approval of Maryland SIP submittal #14-04. 81 FR 59486
(August 30, 2016). Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and as stated
in the August 30, 2016 final conditional approval of COMAR 26.11.14 for
Maryland's October 8, 2014 SIP submittal, once EPA determines that MDE
has satisfied the condition to remove references to CAIR, EPA shall
remove the conditional nature of the August 30, 2016 approval. At that
time, the October 8, 2014 SIP submission #14-04 will receive full
approval status.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The final rulemaking notice for EPA's conditional approval
of SIP submission #14-04 was published on August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59486) and addressed NOX reductions for pulp mills in
Maryland.
    \11\ Thus, once this proposed action to approve the July 7, 2016
SIP submission #16-07 is finalized, thereby finding Maryland has met
the conditions within our August 30, 2016 conditional approval (81
FR 59486), the conditional approval of Maryland's October 8, 2014
SIP submission #14-04 will be converted to full approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, regarding Maryland's amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>D(1),
the removal of the word ``certified'' from this portion of the Maryland
regulation is merely an administrative action to make clear that CEMs
used by Kraft pulp mill combustion units and boilers must meet all of
the requirements of 40 CFR part 75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.
    Based upon its review, EPA finds Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal approvable under section 110 of the CAA as a SIP
strengthening measure which removes moot provisions and makes minor
administrative changes.

IV. Proposed Action

    This action proposes to approve Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal which seeks removal of Maryland's CAIR program, in its
entirety, from the SIP and also seeks the removal of references to CAIR
from other Maryland regulations that relate to general air quality
definitions and to the control of emissions from Kraft pulp mills in
the State. EPA is also proposing to approve the amended version of
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>D(1) for inclusion in the Maryland SIP as the amended
version removes the word ``certified'' from COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>D(1) in
order to clarify the CEM system requirements for monitoring and
reporting emissions from Kraft pulp mill boilers and combustion units.
    Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal satisfies Maryland's obligation pursuant to EPA's August 30,
2016 (81 FR 59486) rulemaking in which the Agency granted final
conditional approval of amendments regarding the control of
NOX emissions at Kraft pulp mills. For this reason, EPA also
proposes to remove the conditional nature of the August 30, 2016
conditional approval and proposes to grant full approval to the
Maryland SIP revision regarding the control Kraft pulp mill emissions
from various processes and fuel-burning equipment, submitted as #14-04
on October 15, 2014.
    EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision which was
submitted on July 7, 2016. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference portions of MDE regulations COMAR 26.11.01 and
COMAR 26.11.14 regarding air quality definitions and

Kraft pulp mill emission controls to remove reference to CAIR which
were discussed in section II (Summary of SIP Revision) of this
preamble. EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference the portion
of COMAR 26.11.14 which removed the word ``certified'' from COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>D(1). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or
at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, regarding the removal of the CAIR
program under COMAR 26.11.28 from the Maryland SIP and amendments to
COMAR 26.11.01 and 26.11.14, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: March 21, 2017.
Cecil A. Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-08664 Filed 4-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34886-34887]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4694-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

New York; 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 New York (FEMA-4694-DR), dated March 15,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 15, 2023.

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 March 15, 2023, 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 New York resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of December 23 to December 28, 2022, 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 New York.
    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 limited to
Funeral Assistance under Other Needs Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance
under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time
during or proximate to the incident period. 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 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, Lai Sun Yee, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Erie and Niagara Counties for Funeral Assistance under Other
Needs Assistance.
    Erie, Genesee, Niagara, St. Lawrence, and Suffolk Counties for
Public Assistance.
    Erie and Niagara Counties for snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate to the incident period.
    All areas within the State of New York 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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11520 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="08/07/2008 11:22:43 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37867-37868]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14957]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69792; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Require That Listed
Companies Have an Internal Audit Function

June 18, 2013.
    On February 20, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
require that each listed company establish and maintain an internal
audit function to provide management and the audit committee with
ongoing assessments of that company's risk management processes and
system of internal control. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 8, 2013.\3\ On April 18, 2013,
the Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change, to June 6, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69030 (Mar. 4,
2013), 78 FR 15075.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69402, 78 FR 24281
(Apr. 24, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received 42 comment letters on the proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from William F. Derbyshire, dated Mar. 5, 2013;
Letter from Rainer Lenz, Ph.D., dated Mar. 9, 2013; Letter from
Raymond A. Link, Chief Financial Officer, FEI Company, dated Mar.
11, 2013; Letter from Ann Marie Kim, dated Mar. 12, 2013; Letter
from Jeff A. Killian, Chief Financial Officer, Cascade Microtech,
Inc., dated Mar. 14, 2013; Letter from Matthew Hogan, dated Mar. 18,
2013; Letter from Ann Rhoads, Chief Financial Officer, Zogenix,
dated Mar. 18, 2013; Letter from Daniel P. Penberthy, Chief
Financial Officer, Rand Capital Corporation, dated Mar. 19, 2013;
Letter from Jeff Andreson, dated Mar. 19, 2013; Letter from Gary R.
Fairhead, dated Mar. 19, 2013; Letter from Roger Hawley, Chief
Executive Officer, Zogenix, dated Mar. 20, 2013; Letter from Vernon
A. LoForti, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, InfoSonics
Corporation, dated Mar. 20, 2013; Letter from Howard K. Kaminsky,
Chief Financial Officer, Sport Chalet, Inc., dated Mar. 21, 2013;
Letter from Stanley P. Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer,
Smartpros.Ltd., dated Mar. 25, 2013; Letter from Simon J. Parker,
Head of Business Assurance, Innospec Inc., dated Mar. 26, 2013;
Letter from John H. Lowry III, Chief Financial Officer; Perceptron,
Inc., dated Mar. 27, 2013; Letter from David L. Nunes, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Pope Resources, dated Mar. 27, 2013; Letter
from Don Tracy, Chief Financial Officer, MGP Ingredients, Inc.,
dated Mar. 27, 2013; Letter from Vickie Reed, Sr. Director and
Controller, Zogenix, Inc., dated Mar. 27, 2013; Letter from Jay
Biskupski, Chief Financial Officer, Peregrine Semiconductor
Corporation, dated Mar. 27, 2013; Letter from Alan F. Eisenberg,
Executive Vice President, Emerging Companies and Business
Development, Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), dated Mar.
28, 2013; Letter from Mary Kay Fenton, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated Mar.
28, 2013; Letter from Robert D. Shallish, Jr., Executive Vice
President--Finance and Chief Financial Officer, CONMED Corporation,
dated Mar. 28, 2013; Letter from Dorothy M. Donohue, Deputy General
Counsel--Securities Regulation, Investment Company Institute, dated
Mar. 28, 2013; Letter from Richard F. Chambers, President and Chief
Executive Officer, The Institute of Internal Auditors, dated Mar.
28, 2013; Letter from Daniel C. Regis, Chairman, Cray Inc. Audit
Committee, Cray, Inc., dated Mar. 29, 2013; Letter from Kenneth
Bertsch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Society of Corporate
Secretaries & Governance Professionals, dated Mar. 29, 2013; Letter
from Paul R. Oldham, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
Finance Administration, Electro Scientific Industries, dated Mar.
29, 2013; Letter from Joseph D. Hill, Chief Financial Officer,
Metabolix, Inc., dated Mar. 29, 2013; Letter from Grant Thornton
LLP, dated Mar. 29, 2013; Letter from Michael McConnell, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Digimarc Corporation,
dated Mar. 29, 2013; Letter from Elizabeth L. Hougen, Chief
Financial Officer, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated Mar. 29, 2013;
Letter from Julia Reigel, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, dated
Mar. 29, 2013; Letter from Sharon Barbari, Executive Vice President
Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Cytokinetics, Inc., dated Mar.
29, 2013; Letter from Michael G. Zybala, General Counsel, The
InterGroup Corporation, dated Apr. 3, 2013; Letter from Ramy R.
Taraboulsi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, SyncBASE Inc.,
dated Apr. 6, 2013; Letter from Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief Financial
Officer, NTIC, dated Apr. 10, 2013; Letter from Barbara Russell,
Chief Financial Officer, TOR Minerals International Inc., dated Apr.
17, 2013; Letter from Todd DeZoort, Ph.D., CFE, Professor of
Accounting and Professional Advisory Board Fellow, The University of
Alabama, and Dana Hermanson, Ph.D., Dinos Eminent Scholar Chair of
Private Enterprise, Director of Research, Corporate Governance
Center, Kennesaw State University, dated May 10, 2013; Letter from
Paul Nester, Treasurer and CFO, RGC Resources, Inc., dated May 13,
2013; Letter from Neil Lerner, Vice President, Finance, Psychemedics
Corporation, dated May 20, 2013; and Letter from Robert C. Kirk,
dated May 28, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 7, 2013, NASDAQ withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-
NASDAQ-2013-032).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that NASDAQ stated in its withdrawal
that it is withdrawing this proposal so that it may fully consider
the comments filed. See supra note 5. NASDAQ also stated that it
remains committed to the underlying goal of the proposal, to help
ensure that listed companies have appropriate processes in place to
assess risks and the system of internal controls, and that it
intends to file a revised proposal.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14957 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6294-6295]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0059]

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (CFIVSAC).
The CFIVSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast
Guard for improving commercial fishing industry safety practices.

DATES: Completed application forms should reach the Coast Guard at the
address below on or before June 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing to Commandant
(CG-5433), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001; by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send
your application in written form to the above street address. This
notice and the application form are available on the Internet at http:/
/www.FishSafe.info.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Kemerer of the CFIVSAC by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CFIVSAC is a Federal advisory committee
under 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The Coast Guard chartered the
CFIVSAC to provide advice on issues related to the safety of commercial
fishing industry vessels regulated under Chapter 45 of Title 46, United
States Code, which includes uninspected fishing vessels, fish
processing vessels, and fish tender vessels. (See 46 U.S.C. 4508.)
    The CFIVSAC meets at least once a year. It may also meet for other
extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may gather throughout the
year to prepare for meetings or develop proposals for the committee as
a whole to address specific problems.
    We will consider applications for six positions that expire or
become vacant in October 2009 in the following categories: (a)
Commercial Fishing Industry (four positions); (b) Naval Architects/
Marine Surveyors (one position); and (c) General Public (one position).
    The CFIVSAC consists of 17 members as follows: (a) Ten members from
the

commercial fishing industry who reflect a regional and representational
balance and have experience in the operation of vessels to which
Chapter 45 of Title 46, United States Code applies, or as a crew member
or processing line member on an uninspected fish processing vessel; (b)
one member representing each of (1) naval architects or marine
surveyors; (2) manufacturers of equipment for vessel to which Chapter
45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies; (3) education or training professionals
related to fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, fish tender vessel
safety, or personnel qualifications; and (4) underwriters that insure
vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies; and (c) three
members representing the general public including, whenever possible,
an independent expert or consultant in maritime safety and a member of
a national organization composed of persons representing owners of
vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies and persons
representing the marine insurance industry.
    Each member serves for a term of 3 years. Members may serve two
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement
and per diem may be provided.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply.
    If you are selected as a non-representative member, or as a member
who represents the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a
Special Government Employee (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title
18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a SGE,
applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report (OGE Form 450). A completed OGE Form 450 is not releasable to
the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as
otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the
Designated Agency Ethics Official or the DAEO's designate may release a
Confidential Disclosure Report.

    Dated: January 30, 2009.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-2497 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P