[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12257-12259]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Contracting Initiative

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DOT is announcing an initiative to permit, on an
experimental basis, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) recipients and subrecipients to utilize
various contracting requirements that generally have been disallowed
due to concerns about adverse impacts on competition. This initiative
will be carried out as a pilot program for a period of 1 year (unless
extended) under the FHWA and FTA's existing authorities. The purpose of
this pilot program is to determine whether the use of such requirements
``unduly limit competition,'' as provided in an August 23, 2013,
opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Should DOT find that such restrictions do not unduly limit competition,
DOT may provide further guidance regarding their use.

DATES: This pilot program is effective March 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. Michael
Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the
Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

Background

Interpretation of Competition Mandate

    Traditionally, DOT has prohibited its recipients and subrecipients
from using certain contracting provisions that do not directly relate
to the bidder's performance of work in a competent and responsible
manner. An example of such provisions includes local and other
geographic-based labor hiring preferences. The DOT's position was
reinforced by a 1986 opinion of the OLC, which concluded that 23 U.S.C.
112 (``section 112'') obligated the Secretary of Transportation to
withhold Federal funding from highway construction contracts that were
subject to a New York City law imposing disadvantages on a class of
responsible bidders, where the city failed to demonstrate that its
departure from competitive bidding requirements was justified by
considerations of cost-effectiveness. See Compatibility of New York
City Local Law 19 with Federal Highway Act Competitive Bidding
Requirements, 10 Op. O.L.C. 101 (1986).
    However, in August 2013, at DOT's request, the OLC provided DOT
with a memorandum opinion, clarifying its 1986 opinion on section 112.
See Competitive Bidding Requirements Under the Federal-Aid Highway
Program, 23 U.S.C. 112, (Aug. 23, 2013) (``2013 opinion''). The 2013
opinion is available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/opinions. The 2013
opinion clarifies that section 112 does not compel the DOT's position
with respect to contracting requirements that do not directly relate to
the bidder's performance of work, but rather provides the Secretary
with discretion to permit other types of state or local requirements as
long as they do not ``unduly limit competition.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the 2013 opinion was specific to section 112, which
only applies to highway projects, it also is relevant in
interpreting and implementing FTA's statutory mandate under 49
U.S.C. 5325(a) that broadly requires full and open competition in
the award of contracts utilizing financial assistance from the FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 opinion explains that competition would not be unduly
limited by ``[a] state or local requirement that has only an incidental
effect on the pool of potential bidders or that imposes reasonable
requirements related to the performance of the necessary work. . . .''
2013 opinion at 2. In contrast, ``a requirement that has more than an
incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders and does not relate
to the work's performance would unduly limit competition unless it
promotes the efficient and effective use of federal funds.'' Id. at 2-
3. In assessing whether a requirement does promote the efficient and
effective use of federal funds, the agency ``may take into account
whether the requirement promotes such efficiency in connection with the
letting of a particular contract and also whether it more generally
furthers the efficient and effective use of federal funds in the long
run or protects the integrity of the competitive bidding process
itself.'' Id. at 3. So long as a state or local requirement serves
these purposes, ``the Administrator may reasonably determine,
consistent with section 112, that the requirement does not unduly limit
competition, even if it may have the effect of reducing the number of
eligible bidders for a particular contract.'' Id.
    Thus, DOT retains discretion under the statute to evaluate whether
a particular State or local law or policy that has more than an
incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders is nonetheless
compatible with section 112(b)(1)'s competitive bidding requirement.
The process used to evaluate whether state and local requirements
satisfy section 112 also is a matter of agency discretion. Id. at 17-18
(``It is for FHWA and DOT to determine the regulatory approach the
agency should take in exercising this discretion and in evaluating
whether certain state and local requirements are consistent with
[section 112's] statutory mandates. . . .'').

Experimental Authority

    In 1988, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) task force,
comprised of representatives from all segments of the highway industry,
was formed to evaluate Innovative Contracting Practices. This TRB task
force requested

that the FHWA establish a project to evaluate and validate certain
findings of the task force regarding innovative contracting practices,
which are documented in Transportation Research Circular Number 386,
titled, ``Innovative Contracting Practices,'' dated December 1991. In
response, the FHWA initiated Special Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP-
14) pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary, which now is
codified at 23 U.S.C. 502. The SEP-14 program strives to identify,
evaluate, and document innovative contracting practices that have the
potential to reduce the life cycle cost of projects, while at the same
time, maintain product quality. Under SEP-14, the FHWA has the
flexibility to experiment with innovative approaches to contracting.
    The innovative practices originally approved for evaluation under
SEP-14 were: Cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, design-build
contracting, and warranty clauses. Forty-one States have used at least
one of the innovative practices under SEP-14. Based on their collective
experiences, FHWA decided that cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, and
warranty clauses were techniques suitable for use as non-experimental,
operational practices and in 1995 these were made regular Federal-aid
procedures. Design-build contracting in the Federal-aid highway program
was conducted under SEP-14 until Congress modified section 112 in
section 1307 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to
permanently authorize the use of this contracting method. Additionally,
the construction manager/general contractor method of contracting in
the Federal-aid highway program was originally conducted under SEP-14
until Congress modified section 112 in section 1303 of the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act to permanently authorize the use
of this contracting method. The SEP-14 program continues to be used to
test and evaluate experimental contracting practices.
    Also, the FTA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 5312 to carry out
research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects that will
improve public transportation. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 5314 authorizes
FTA to carry out activities that will assist recipients of assistance
to administer funds received under Chapter 53 in compliance with
Federal law, including the development of voluntary and consensus-based
standards and best practices by the public transportation industry,
including standards and best practices for procurement.

Pilot Program

    The DOT is interested in permitting State and local recipients of
Federal financial assistance to utilize contracting requirements that
traditionally have been prohibited on the basis that they would
restrict competition by not directly relating to the bidder's
performance of work. Thus, DOT is establishing a pilot program under
the existing authorities of the FHWA and FTA grant programs. The
objective of this pilot program is to enable DOT to determine which
requirements may be used consistently with the 2013 OLC opinion by
promoting efficiency in connection with the letting of a particular
contract, furthering the efficient and effective use of federal funds
in the long run, or protecting the integrity of the competitive bidding
process.
    In particular, with respect to procurements for which FHWA or FTA
funds will be used, recipients and subrecipients may request those
agencies to permit the use of a particular contracting requirement that
otherwise may be found to be inconsistent with the general requirement
for full and open competition. DOT is particularly interested in
contracts for which recipients and subrecipients wish to utilize a
local or other geographic labor hiring preferences, economic-based
labor hiring preferences (i.e., low-income workers), and labor hiring
preferences for veterans \2\ because, in the DOT's view, such
requirements can promote Ladders of Opportunity by ensuring that
disadvantaged workers in the communities in which the projects are
located benefit from the economic opportunities such projects present.
DOT, however, will not approve projects for which recipients wish to
alter the requirements of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also 23 U.S.C. 114(d), which requires recipients, to the
extent practicable, to encourage contractors to make a best faith
effort to hire veterans on Federal-aid highway projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This pilot program will be carried out for a period of 1 year from
the date of publication of this notice. As such, DOT is only interested
in contracts that will be advertised during this time frame. For any
such contracts, the DOT will monitor and evaluate whether contracting
requirements that traditionally have been prohibited on the basis that
they would restrict competition by not directly relating to the
bidder's performance of work have an undue restriction on competition.
While DOT's current plan is to conduct this pilot program for 1 year,
DOT reserves the right to extend this time period at its discretion.

FHWA

    For contracts to be funded by FHWA, State and local recipients and
subrecipients must request prior approval from the FHWA to use a
specific contracting requirement under SEP-14. In order to receive SEP-
14 approval, States and local recipients and subrecipients would follow
the normal process that includes submitting work plans to the
appropriate FHWA division office. For more information on the SEP-14
process, please see: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/sep_a.cfm.
    In developing requests to FHWA to use contracting requirements
under SEP-14, recipients and subrecipients should address, at a
minimum, the following points:
    (1) Describe the project, including the amount of FHWA funding
involved in the as well as the estimated total project cost.
    (2) Describe the contracting requirement that may otherwise be
found to be inconsistent with the general requirement for full and open
competition.
    (3) Describe how they will evaluate the effects of relevant
contracting requirements on competitive bidding. In doing so, the
recipient or subrecipient should, at a minimum, provide comparisons of
bids received for the projects utilizing the relevant contract
requirements to other projects of similar size and scope and in the
same geographic area not utilizing such requirements. If a reduction in
the pool of bidders is evident, explain the potential offsetting
benefits resulting from the use of the requirement.
    (1) Describe and quantify how the relevant contracting requirement
would lead to increases in the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal
funds for the project.
    (2) Describe and quantify how the experimental contracting
technique would protect the integrity of the competitive bidding
process either in connection with the particular contract or when
considered over the long term for that agency's program.
    For contracts involving the use of local and other geographic labor
hiring preferences, economic-based labor hiring preferences, and/or
labor hiring preferences for veterans, FHWA may approve, at the request
of the recipient or subrecipient, the use of such requirements for a
specific contract, a specific group of, or on a more general
programmatic basis. The use of other contracting requirements may be

approved by FHWA after coordination with the DOT Office of General
Counsel.

FTA

    For contracts to be funded by FTA (including federal financial
assistance under any FTA formula or discretionary program), State and
local recipients and subrecipients must request prior approval from the
FTA to use a specific contracting requirement pursuant to FTA's
research and assistance authorities discussed above. In making such
requests, recipients and subrecipients must submit an application to
their FTA Regional Office. In their application, recipients should
address, at a minimum, the following points:
    (1) Describe the contracting opportunity, including the schedule
for the type of project and type of asset being constructed and the
amount of FTA funding involved in the project as well as the estimated
total project cost.
    (2) Describe the contracting requirement that may otherwise be
found to be inconsistent with the general requirement for full and open
competition.
    (3) Describe how they will evaluate the effects of relevant
contracting requirements on competitive bidding. In doing so, the
recipient and subrecipient should, at a minimum, provide comparisons of
bids received for the projects utilizing the relevant contract
requirements to other projects of similar size and scope and in the
same geographic area not utilizing such requirements. If a reduction in
the pool of bidders is evident, explain the potential offsetting
benefits resulting from the use of the requirement.
    (4) Describe how the relevant contracting requirement would lead to
increases in the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal funds for the
project.
    (5) Describe and quantify how the experimental contracting
technique would protect the integrity of the competitive bidding
process either in connection with the particular contract or when
considered over the long term for that agency's program.
    An evaluation committee comprised of FTA staff will evaluate
applications for inclusion in the pilot program. The evaluation
committee reserves the right to evaluate applications it receives and
to seek clarification from any proposer about any statement that is
made in an application. FTA also may request additional documentation
or information to be considered during the evaluation process. The
evaluation committee will provide a recommendation to the FTA
Administrator regarding each application. The FTA Administrator will
provide a final written determination to each applicant, on a rolling
basis, regarding whether an application has been accepted into the
pilot program.
    For projects involving the use of local and other geographic labor
hiring preferences, economic-based labor hiring preferences, and/or
labor hiring preferences for veterans, FTA may approve, at the request
of the recipient or subrecipient, the use of such requirements for a
specific contract, a specific group of, or on a more general
programmatic basis. The use of other contracting requirements may be
approved by FTA after coordination with the DOT Office of General
Counsel.
    With respect to in-state or local geographic labor hiring
preferences, please note that Section 418 of the Consolidated and
further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (FY
2015 Appropriations Act), prohibits FTA from using FY 2015 funds to
implement, administer, or enforce 49 CFR 18.36(c)(2), for construction
hiring. Section 18.36(c)(2) prohibits the use of statutorily or
administratively imposed in-State or local geographical preferences in
the evaluation of bids or proposals.\3\ Accordingly, for construction
contracts awarded or advertised in FY 2015, FTA recipients may use in-
state or local geographic preferences for construction labor hiring.
Additional guidance on FTA's implementation of Section 418 may be found
on FTA's Web site at www.fta.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Effective December 26, 2014, 49 CFR part 18 will apply only
to grants obligated on or before December 25, 2014. Grants obligated
on or after December 26, 2014 will be subject to 2 CFR part 200.
This provision (18.36(c)(2)) has been recodified at 2 CFR 200.319(b)
and is substantively the same as 18.36(c)(2). Although Congress did
not address the change in codification in section 418, FTA intends
to apply section 418 to grants obligated on or after December 26,
2014 and subject to 2 CFR 200.319(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the enactment of Section 418, recipients and
subrecipients do not need to submit applications for participation in
the pilot program for the use of in-state or local geographic labor
hiring preferences for contracts awarded or advertised on or before
September 30, 2015. In other words, prior FTA approval is not required
to use such requirements, and FTA recipients and subrecipients may
impose such requirements for their contracts at their discretion. Such
projects will receive automatic admission into the pilot program.
However, in order to assess the effect of such preferences on
competition, recipients and subrecipients that plan to utilize in-state
or local geographic labor hiring preferences must notify their FTA
Regional Office prior to advertising contracts that use such
preferences. For in-state or local geographic hiring preferences
proposed for inclusion in contracts advertised after September 30,
2015, recipients and subrecipients must request prior approval from the
FTA to utilize such hiring preferences through the above-described
process unless provisions similar to section 418 are included in a new
appropriations or re-authorization act. Requests to use requirements
other than in-state or local geographic preferences for construction
hiring, including requirements involving the procurement of rolling
stock, must request prior FTA approval as described above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2015.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2015-05204 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48615-48617]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19200]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350; FRL-9844-9]

Disapproval of State Implementation Plans; State of Utah;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to disapprove a portion of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Utah that is
intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (``Act'' or ``CAA'') for the 2006
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is disapproving the
portion of the Utah SIP submission that addresses the CAA requirement
prohibiting emissions from Utah sources from significantly contributing
to nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state
or interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
any other state. Under a recent court decision, this disapproval does
not trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address these interstate transport
requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective September 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (v) The initials UDEQ mean or refer to the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (vi) The words Utah and State mean the State of Utah.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 17, 2006 EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for
PM2.5, revising the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\. (71 FR 61144). By statute,
SIPs

meeting the ``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard. Among the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) are the ``interstate transport''
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements
related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air
pollutants. In this action for the state of Utah, EPA is addressing the
first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The first element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The
second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action does not address the two elements of the
transport SIP provision (in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another
state. We will act on these elements in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 21, 2010, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ) provided a submission to EPA certifying that Utah's SIP is
adequate to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all the
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), including
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ UDEQ's submission is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2013 (78 FR 29314), EPA proposed to disapprove Utah's
September 2010 submission with regard to the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained in that
notice, id. at 29317, we proposed to disapprove this element of Utah's
submission because there is no basis for EPA to conclude that the
existing SIP is adequate to satisfy the significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one letter on June 14, 2013 containing comments from
the Sierra Club. The letter supported our proposed disapproval of
Utah's submission, but disagreed with other aspects of our proposal.
The significant comments in the letter and EPA's responses are given
below.
    Comment 1: The commenter disagrees with EPA's statement that
disapproval of Utah's infrastructure SIP, as it relates to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements, would not trigger a mandatory duty for
EPA to promulgate a FIP to address these requirements. Specifically,
the commenter contends that the plain language of the CAA requires EPA
to issue a FIP within two years of a disapproval action. In addition,
the commenter contends that the decision in EME Homer City Generation
v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. LEXIS
4801 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182) (EME Homer City), is not
binding or persuasive because it was incorrectly decided. The commenter
also contends that the decision is inconsistent with previous decisions
by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit Court of Appeals. The
commenter further suggests that EPA should not voluntarily follow the
incorrectly decided EME Homer City opinion, particularly in the context
of an infrastructure action that only impacts sources in Utah, a state
within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rather
than the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Response 1: EPA has historically adopted the commenter's
interpretation: disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) would trigger
an obligation for the Agency to promulgate a FIP within two years
unless the state submitted and EPA approved a SIP to correct the
deficiency within that time. EPA continues to agree that the plain
language of the statute establishes these obligations, and for those
reasons, we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EME Homer City. On June 24, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed
to do so.
    In the meantime and because the mandate from the D.C. Circuit was
issued to EPA in February 2012, EPA intends to act in accordance with
the EME Homer City opinion. In particular, the D.C. Circuit court
concluded that EPA does not have authority to promulgate a FIP to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has
identified emissions in a state that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state and given the state an opportunity to submit a SIP to address
those emissions. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28. Because EPA has not
identified or quantified any potential contribution and or interference
from Utah to other states, or given the State an opportunity to submit
a SIP to address any potential downwind contribution following action
by EPA to quantify that contribution, our disapproval action today does
not obligate Utah to take any action or make a new SIP submission, nor
does it trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP.
    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the Agency
need not follow the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City in the
context of an infrastructure action for Utah. The EPA rule reviewed by
the court in EME Homer City--``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP
Approvals,'' 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011), also known as the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)--was designated by EPA as a
``nationally applicable'' rule within the meaning of section 307(b)(1)
of the CAA. See id. at 48352. Accordingly, all petitions for review of
the CSAPR had to be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit and could not be filed in any other federal court. 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1). Accordingly, EPA believes the D.C. Circuit's decision in
EME Homer City vacating this rule is also nationally applicable.\3\ As
such, EPA does not intend to take any actions, even if they are only
reviewable in another federal Circuit Court of Appeals, that are
inconsistent with the decision of the D.C. Circuit. EPA acknowledges,
however, that if the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise
modified by the Supreme Court, at that time EPA may need to revisit its
conclusion that this action does not trigger an obligation for EPA to
promulgate a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this respect, the D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City decision
is distinguishable from decisions of other Courts of Appeal
involving petitions for review of EPA actions under the CAA that are
``regionally or locally applicable'' within the meaning of section
307(b)(1). E.g., Summit Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 733
(6th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter contends that even if EPA chose to follow
the EME Homer City Generation decision, EPA should acknowledge that the
disapproval starts a FIP clock and then move expeditiously to provide
Utah with the information the EME Homer City court said EPA must
provide.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees. As discussed in the response to comment
1, unless the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City is reversed or

otherwise modified, disapproval of Utah's 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not
give EPA authority, much less obligate it, to promulgate a FIP for
Utah. EPA intends to move forward expeditiously to address the
interstate transport requirements of the CAA in accordance with all
applicable court decisions.
    Comment 3: The commenter states that the D.C. Circuit lacked
jurisdiction in the EME Homer City decision to address whether or not a
2 year FIP clock should have started to run, because that issue was not
timely raised in a challenge to the June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32673) finding
of failure to submit. Citing footnote 34 of the EME Homer City opinion,
the commenter argues that the opinion acknowledged that the court was
not overturning the June 9, 2010 finding of failure to submit in which
EPA stated that a FIP clock was started by the finding.
    Response 3: The Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to
consider all three questions presented in the United States' petition,
including whether the D.C. Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the
challenges on which it granted relief. However, as explained above we
do not intend to take any actions that are inconsistent with the D.C.
Circuit's EME Homer City decision unless that decision is reversed or
otherwise modified. The D.C. Circuit clearly held that EPA lacked
authority to promulgate the CSAPR FIPs even though it acknowledged that
for each state subject to a CSAPR FIP EPA had previously disapproved
that state's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission or had previously found
that the state had failed to submit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP. EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 31-37. Also, in the very same footnote cited by the
commenter, the court stated: ``[A] State cannot be `required' to
implement its good neighbor obligation in a SIP `submission'-- nor be
deemed to have submitted a deficient SIP for failure to implement the
good neighbor obligation--until it knows the target set by EPA.'' Id.
at 37 n.34. In our disapproval of the Utah submission, we are acting
consistently with the D.C. Circuit decision, even as expressed in the
footnote cited by the commenter.

III. Final Action

    EPA is disapproving the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Utah's
September 21, 2010 submission. We are disapproving this portion of the
submission because it fails to demonstrate that the Utah SIP is
adequate for the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained in
detail in our proposal and our response to comments, unless the
decision of the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City is reversed or modified,
this disapproval will not trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a
FIP to address these interstate transport requirements, nor does it
require Utah to submit a revised interstate transport SIP to meet the
requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves state law that does not
meet Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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 rule 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 8, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 26, 2013.
 Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-19200 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30004-30005]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2020-35]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; National
Air Transportation Association

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-FAA-2020-0291
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time.

Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the
Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alphonso Pendergrass,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0291.
    Petitioner: National Air Transportation Association.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  135.293(b), 135.295(e)
and (g), 135.297(c)(1)(i) and (ii), 135.331(c)(3), (5), and (7),
135.347(a), and 135.351(b)(2) and (c).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests extension of
exemption 18509 to allow certificate holders to use alternative methods
to conduct certain required crewmember emergency procedures during
recurrent and upgrade training, testing, and checking until December
31, 2020.

[FR Doc. 2020-10666 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22398-22399]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

April 14, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-597-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits for filing a
report of the penalty and daily delivery variance charge revenues for
the period November 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009 that have been
credited to shippers.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100413-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-598-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota.
    Description: Centra Pipelines Minnesota, Inc submits Seventh
Revised Sheet 35 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 2,
the Index of Shippers to be effective 6/1/10.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100413-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-599-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Original Sheet
121K et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 4/10/10.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100413-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 26, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the

Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9788 Filed 4-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 74707-74708]
[DOCID:fr01de10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

November 23, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC11-22-000.
    Applicants: Icahn Partners LP et al.
    Description: Application of Icahn Partners LP et al for approval
under the Federal Power Act Section 203.
    Filed Date: 11/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101123-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1562-002, ER10-2254-002.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and Duke
Energy Kentucky, Inc. in response to Order Addressing RTO Realignment
Request.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-45-001.
    Applicants: Deutsche Bank AG.
    Description: Deutsche Bank AG submits their Application requesting
a Waiver of the Quarterly Reporting requirements.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 2, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2083-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.15: Cancel Tariff Database to be effective 1/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101112-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 3, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2165-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Cancel BREC Adj. BA Coord
Agr to be effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2166-000.
    Applicants: Planet Energy (USA) Corp.
    Description: Planet Energy (USA) Corp. submits tariff filing per
35.1: Planet Energy USA MBR Application to be effective 11/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2167-000.
    Applicants: Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp.
    Description: Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp. submits tariff
filing per 35.1: Planet Energy Pennsylvania MBR Application to be
effective 11/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2168-000.
    Applicants: Planet Energy (Maryland) Corp.
    Description: Planet Energy (Maryland) Corp. submits tariff filing
per 35.1: Planet Energy Maryland MBR Application to be effective 11/22/
2010.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101122-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2169-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits a revised
depreciation accrual rate and depreciation reserve imbalance
amortization for one account for use in their formula rates wholesale
power sales.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101123-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2170-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Service Agreement for Conditional
Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with PacifiCorp and
CEP Funding, LLC etc, to be effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101123-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a

compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30136 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28514-28517]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1725]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by
insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown
in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and

revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this
determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Online location of
        State and county           Location and case    Chief executive officer of community    Community map  repository       letter of map            Effective date of         Community No.
                                          No.                                                                                revision                 modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    Arapahoe....................  City of Aurora (16-  The Honorable Steve Hogan, Mayor,      Public Works Department,      http://                Aug. 11, 2017................          080002
                                   08-0957P).           City of Aurora, 15151 East Alameda     Engineering Division, 15151   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Parkway, Aurora, CO 80012.             East Alameda Parkway,         lomc.
                                                                                Aurora, CO 80012.
    El Paso.....................  City of Colorado     The Honorable John Suthers, Mayor,     City Hall, 30 South Nevada    http://                Aug. 22, 2017................          080060
                                   Springs (17-08-      City of Colorado Springs, 30 South     Avenue, Colorado Springs,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0131P).              Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO    CO 80901.                     lomc.
                                                        80901.
    Weld........................  Town of Severance    The Honorable Don Brookshire, Mayor,   Town Hall, 3 South Timber     http://                Aug. 11, 2017................          080317
                                   (17-08-0609X).       Town of Severance, P.O. Box 339,       Ridge Parkway, Severance,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Severance, CO 80546.                   CO 80546.                     lomc.
Connecticut:
    Hartford....................  Town of East         The Honorable Marcia A. Leclerc,       Town Hall, 740 Main Street,   http://                Aug. 16, 2017................          090026
                                   Hartford (17-01-     Mayor, Town of East Hartford, 740      East Hartford, CT 06108.      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0668P).              Main Street, East Hartford, CT                                       lomc.
                                                        06108.
Florida:
    Lee.........................  City of Sanibel (17- The Honorable Kevin Ruane, Mayor,      Planning and Code             http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          120402
                                   04-0549P).           City of Sanibel, 800 Dunlop Road,      Enforcement Department, 800   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Sanibel, FL 33957.                     Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL      lomc.
                                                                                33957.
    Martin......................  City of Stuart (17-  The Honorable Tom Campenni, Mayor,     Development Department, 121   http://                Aug. 23, 2017................          120165
                                   04-3100P).           City of Stuart, 121 Southwest          Southwest Flagler Avenue,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Flagler Avenue, Stuart, FL 34994.      Stuart, FL 34994.             lomc.
    Miami-Dade..................  City of Doral (17-   The Honorable Juan Carlos Bermudez,    City Hall, 8401 Northwest     http://                Aug. 16, 2017................          120041
                                   04-1147P).           Mayor, City of Doral, 8401 Northwest   53rd Terrace, Doral, FL       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        53rd Terrace, Doral, FL 33166.         33166.                        lomc.

    Miami-Dade..................  City of Doral (17-   The Honorable Juan Carlos Bermudez,    City Hall, 8401 Northwest     http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          120041
                                   04-1148P).           Mayor, City of Doral, 8401 Northwest   53rd Terrace, Doral, FL       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        53rd Terrace, Doral, FL 33166.         33166.                        lomc.
    Monroe......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable George Neugent, Mayor,   Monroe County Building        http://                Aug. 17, 2017................          125129
                                   areas of Monroe      Monroe County, Board of                Department, 2798 Overseas     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-04-       Commissioners, 500 Whitehead Street,   Highway, Suite 300,           lomc.
                                   2646P).              Suite 102, Key West, FL 33040.         Marathon, FL 33050.
Massachusetts:
    Essex.......................  City of Gloucester   The Honorable Sefatia Romeo Theken,    City Hall, 9 Dale Avenue,     http://                Jul. 25, 2017................          250082
                                   (17-01-0572X).       Mayor, City of Gloucester, 9 Dale      Gloucester, MA 01930.         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01930.                                        lomc.
    Essex.......................  City of Salem (17-   The Honorable Kimberley Driscoll,      Department of Planning and    http://                Jul. 25, 2017................          250102
                                   01-0158P).           Mayor, City of Salem, 93 Washington    Community Development, 93     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Street, Salem, MA 01970.               Washington Street, Salem,     lomc.
                                                                                MA 01970.
    Essex.......................  Town of Manchester-  The Honorable Eli G. Boling,           Town Hall, 10 Central         http://                Jul. 25, 2017................          250090
                                   by-the-Sea (17-01-   Chairman, Town of Manchester-by-the-   Street, Manchester-by-the-    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0572X).              Sea, Board of Selectmen, 10 Central    Sea, MA 01944.                lomc.
                                                        Street, Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA
                                                        01944.
North Carolina:
    Onslow......................  Town of North        The Honorable Fred J. Burns, Mayor,    Planning Department, 2008     http://                Jul. 21, 2017................          370466
                                   Topsail Beach (17-   Town of North Topsail Beach, 2008      Loggerhead Court, North       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   04-0912P).           Loggerhead Court, North Topsail        Topsail Beach, NC 28460.      lomc.
                                                        Beach, NC 28460.
Oklahoma:
    Tulsa.......................  City of Tulsa (17-   The Honorable G. T. Bynum, Mayor,      Planning and Engineering      http://                Aug. 25, 2017................          405381
                                   06-0736P).           City of Tulsa, 175 East 2nd Street,    Department, 175 East 2nd      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        15th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103.           Street, 4th Floor, Tulsa,     lomc.
                                                                                OK 74103.
Pennsylvania:
    Berks.......................  Township of Robeson  The Honorable Christopher Smith,       Township Municipal Building,  http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          420146
                                   (17-03-0500P).       Chairman, Township of Robeson Board    8 Boonetown Road,             www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        of Supervisors, 8 Boonetown Road,      Birdsboro, PA 19508.          lomc.
                                                        Birdsboro, PA 19508.
    Chester.....................  Township of West     Ms. Mimi Gleason, Manager, Township    Township Hall, 101 Commerce   http://                Oct. 2, 2017.................          420295
                                   Whiteland (16-03-    of West Whiteland, 101 Commerce        Drive, Exton, PA 19341.       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   1541P).              Drive, Exton, PA 19341.                                              lomc.
South Dakota:
    Lincoln.....................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Dan King, Chairman,      Lincoln County Commission,    http://                Aug. 11, 2017................          460277
                                   areas of Lincoln     Lincoln County, Board of               104 North Main Street,        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (16-08-       Commissioners, 104 North Main          Suite 240, Canton, SD         lomc.
                                   0908P).              Street, Suite 110, Canton, SD 57013.   57013.
Texas:
    Collin......................  City of Allen (16-   The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor,  Engineering Department, 305   http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          480131
                                   06-4233P).           City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway,    Century Parkway, Allen, TX    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Allen, TX 75013.                       75013.                        lomc.
    Collin......................  City of Allen (17-   The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor,  Engineering Department, 305   http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          480131
                                   06-0212P).           City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway,    Century Parkway, Allen, TX    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Allen, TX 75013.                       75013.                        lomc.
    Fort Bend...................  City of Houston (17- The Honorable Sylvester Turner,        Floodplain Management         http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          480296
                                   06-1036P).           Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box       Department, 1002 Washington   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        1562, Houston, TX 77251.               Avenue, Houston, TX 77002.    lomc.
    Fort Bend...................  City of Sugar Land   The Honorable Joe R. Zimmerman,        Engineering Department, 2700  http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          480234
                                   (17-06-1036P).       Mayor, City of Sugar Land, P.O. Box    Town Center Boulevard,        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        110, Sugar Land, TX 77479.             Sugar Land, TX 77479.         lomc.
    Fort Bend...................  Fort Bend County     Mr. Robert Yack, President, Fort Bend  Pate Engineers, Inc., 13333   http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          481272
                                   M.U.D. #2 (17-06-    County M.U.D. #2, Board of             Northwest Freeway, Suite      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   1036P).              Directors, Allen Boone Humphreys       300, Houston, TX 77040.       lomc.
                                                        Robinson, LLP, 3200 Southwest
                                                        Freeway, Suite 2600, Houston, TX
                                                        77027.

    Fort Bend...................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Robert Hebert, Fort      Fort Bend County Engineering  http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          480228
                                   areas of Fort Bend   Bend County Judge, 401 Jackson         Department, 401 Jackson       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-06-       Street, Richmond, TX 77469.            Street, Richmond, TX 77469.   lomc.
                                   1036P).
    Fort Bend...................  West Keegans Bayou   Ms. Sandra Weider, President, West     AECOM, 5444 Westheimer,       http://                Aug. 21, 2017................          481602
                                   Improvement          Keegans Bayou Improvement District,    Suite 400, Houston, TX        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   District (17-06-     15014 Traymore Drive, Houston, TX      77056.                        lomc.
                                   1036P).              77083.
    Goliad......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable P.T. Calhoun, Goliad     Goliad County Court House,    http://                Aug. 11, 2017................          480827
                                   areas of Fort Bend   County Judge, P.O. Box 677, Goliad,    127 North Courthouse          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (16-06-       TX 77963.                              Square, Goliad, TX 77963.     lomc.
                                   4108P).
    Harris......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Edward M. Emmett,        Harris County Permit Office,  http://                Aug. 14, 2017................          480287
                                   areas of Harris      Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston      10555 Northwest Freeway,      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (17-06-       Street, Houston, TX 77002.             Houston, TX 77092.            lomc.
                                   0430X).
    Tarrant.....................  City of Fort Worth   The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor,      Transportation and Public     http://                Aug. 17, 2017................          480596
                                   (17-06-0630P).       City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas          Works Department, 200 Texas   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.          Street, Fort Worth, TX        lomc.
                                                                                76102.
    Webb........................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Tano E. Tijerina, Webb   Webb County Planning and      http://                Aug. 24, 2017................          481059
                                   areas of Webb        County Judge, 1000 Houston Street,     Physical Development          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (16-06-       3rd Floor, Laredo, TX 78040.           Department, 1110 Washington   lomc.
                                   2463P).                                                     Street, Suite 302, Laredo,
                                                                                TX 78040.
Utah:
    Davis.......................  City of Farmington   The Honorable Jim Talbot, Mayor, City  City Hall, 130 North Main     http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          490044
                                   City (16-08-1270P).  of Farmington City, 130 North Main     Street, Farmington, UT        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Street, Farmington, UT 84025.          84025.                        lomc.
    Davis.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable P. Bret Millburn,        Davis County Administration   http://                Aug. 18, 2017................          490038
                                   areas of Davis       Chairman, Davis County, Board of       Building, 61 South Main       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (16-08-       Commissioners, 61 South Main Street,   Street, Suite 304,            lomc.
                                   1270P).              Suite 301, Farmington, UT 84025.       Farmington, UT 84025.
Virginia:
    Prince William..............  Unincorporated       Mr. Christopher E. Martino, Prince     Prince William County         http://                Aug. 24, 2017................          510119
                                   areas of Prince      William County Executive, 1 County     Development Services          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   William County (16-  Complex Court, Prince William, VA      Department, Environmental     lomc.
                                   03-1619P).           22192.                                 Services Division, 5 County
                                                                                Complex Court, Prince
                                                                                William, VA 22192.
    Spotsylvania................  Unincorporated       Mr. Mark B. Taylor, Spotsylvania       Spotsylvania County Zoning    http://                Aug. 14, 2017................          510308
                                   areas of             County Administrator, P.O. Box 99,     Department, 9019 Old          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   Spotsylvania         Spotsylvania, VA 22553.                Battlefield Boulevard,        lomc.
                                   County (17-03-                                              Suite 300, Spotsylvania, VA
                                   0692P).                                                     22553.
    Stafford....................  Unincorporated       Mr. Thomas C. Foley, Stafford County   Stafford County Planning and  http://                Aug. 3, 2017.................          510154
                                   areas of Stafford    Administrator, P.O. Box 339,           Zoning Department, 1300       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   County (16-03-       Stafford, VA 22555.                    Courthouse Road, Stafford,    lomc.
                                   1916P).                                                     VA 22554.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-12974 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 22189-22190]
[DOCID:fr12my09-67]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange

Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 14, 2009 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; Consideration of amicus participation; Adjudicatory
matters; Resolution of litigation claims; and Other matters related to
enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11100 Filed 5-8-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59043-59044]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4145-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4145-DR), dated September 14, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 19, 2013.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 14, 2013.

    Clear Creek, El Paso, and Jefferson Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-23317 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24589]
[DOCID:fr05my08-468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-692-000]

Mountain Wind Power II, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

April 25, 2008.
    Mountain Wind Power II, LLC (Mountain Wind II) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The
proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Mountain Wind II
also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Mountain Wind II requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by Mountain Wind II.
    On April 23, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the request
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Mountain Wind II, should file a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007). The
Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the
FERC Online link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is May
23, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Mountain Wind II is authorized to
issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Mountain Wind II, compatible
with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate
for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Mountain Wind II's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9778 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10419-10420]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03333]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96903; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Market Maker Requirements in Equity 2 Section 5 and Equity 2
Section 11

February 13, 2023.
    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 January 31, 2023, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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 amend Equity 2, 5 and Section 11 related
to certain Market Maker requirements, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, 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
    On December 2, 2022, Nasdaq proposed changes to amend certain
Nasdaq Market Maker requirements. These changes were published in the
Federal Register on December 21, 2022 (``Initial Filing'') and were
immediately effective on January 2, 2023.\3\ However, the system
updates necessary to implement the changes in the Initial Filing have
not been completed. The updates will be completed by Q3 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96507 (December 15,
2022), 87 FR 78154 (December 21, 2022) (``Initial Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the delay in these system updates, Nasdaq is proposing to
reinsert certain rule text changes into Equity 2 Section 5(a)(2) and
Section 11(a). More specifically, the Exchange is reinserting
previously deleted references to a Market Maker's and an Electronic
Communications Network's (``ECN'') use of a Primary MPID and additional
MPIDs (``Supplemental MPIDs'') in Equity 2, Section 5(a)(2)(J) and
Section 5(a)(2)(K). Although the Exchange has eliminated the
distinction between Primary and Supplemental MPIDs, the technology
updates that are required to remove the distinction from its system are
expected to be completed in Q3 2023. To ensure that the rulebook is
compliant with current system operations, the Exchange is proposing to
reinsert the previously deleted references.
    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to amend Equity 2, Section
11(a). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend the re-
registration waiting period for Nasdaq Market Makers that terminate
registration in a security. In the Initial Filing, the Exchange reduced
the re-registration waiting period from twenty business days to 5
business days.\4\ However, the Exchange is proposing to roll back the
rule text language to twenty business days because the system updates
that are required to reduce the re-registration waiting period to 5
business days are not expected to be completed until Q3 2023. The
Exchange represents that a rollback of the re-registration waiting
period will not have an impact on any Nasdaq Market Maker because none
have terminated registration in a security since the Initial Filing
became effective. The Exchange also represents that no Nasdaq Market
Maker will be affected by the rollback of the distinction between
Primary and Secondary MPIDs because the Exchange has eliminated the
distinction between Primary and Supplemental MPIDs.\5\ The proposed
changes are identical to the rules previously removed from Equity 2,
Section 5(a)(2)(J) and Section 5(a)(2)(K) in the Initial Filing.
Similarly, the proposed change to the re-registration waiting period
reinstates the time period that was previously removed from Equity 2,
Section 11(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Initial Filing at 78154.
    \5\ Id. at 78155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing to modify any other aspect of the
Initial Filing and no market participants has been affected by the
proposed amendments to reinstate the rule text related to a Market
Maker's and an ECN's use of a Primary MPID and Supplemental MPIDs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange has already eliminated the
distinction between Primary and Supplemental MPIDs. Because the
Exchange has an obligation to ensure that its rule text aligns with the
operation of its system, the proposed rule changes are intended to
remove any potential impediments to a free and open market and a
national market system by keeping the previous rule text in place until
technology updates to remove the distinction from our system are
finalized.
    Similarly, no market participants have been affected by the
proposal to revert the re-registration waiting period for Nasdaq Market
Makers that terminate registration in a security.\8\ The proposed rule
change will remove any potential impediments to a free and open market
and a national market system by allowing the Exchange to maintain
compliance with its obligation to ensure that its rule text aligns with
the operation of its system. When the system updates are ready, the
Exchange will submit a subsequent rule filing to reinstate the reverted
changes from the Initial Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since the Initial Filing became effective, no market makers
have terminated registration from a security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained above, the purpose
of this proposal is to

add certain rule text changes that were prematurely removed from Equity
2 Section 5(a)(2) and Section 11(a). Furthermore, as discussed above,
the Exchange has represented that no Market Maker has been affected by
the distinction between Primary and Supplemental MPIDs because the
Exchange has eliminated the distinction between Primary and
Supplemental MPIDs, and no market maker has terminated registration or
attempted to re-register in a security since the Initial Filing became
operative on January 2, 2023. Therefore, the Exchange does not expect
reinserting the proposed rule text to place any burden on competition.

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 \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative upon filing in order to permit the Exchange to immediately
reflect rules that align with Nasdaq's current system capabilities
until Nasdaq system updates are completed. The Commission thus believes
that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2023-001 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-2023-001. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2023-001, and should be submitted
on or before March 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03333 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P