[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52192-52193]
[DOCID:fr12se07-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56361; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Deletion of the NMS Linkage Fee

September 6, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 30, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Phlx. 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 Phlx proposes to eliminate from the XLE Fee Schedule: (1) the
execution fee for incoming NMS Linkage Orders; and (2) another
reference to NMS Linkage Orders that appears in a footnote. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.Phlx.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delete a fee that is
no longer applicable due to the termination of the NMS Linkage Plan
(``Plan'').\3\ The Plan was utilized by certain exchanges, including
Phlx, for the purpose of routing and receiving orders in NMS Stocks.
The Plan ended by its own terms on June 30, 2007.\4\ Phlx had imposed a
fee on incoming NMS Linkage Orders of $0.003 per share executed on XLE.
Since the end of the Plan, this fee is no longer applicable and Phlx
proposes deleting it from the XLE Fee Schedule. In addition, Phlx
proposes deleting a reference to ``liquidity provided by NMS Linkage
Orders'' in footnote 2 of the XLE Fee Schedule. With the termination of
the Plan, there will be no more orders sent to Phlx over NMS Linkage
and therefore no liquidity provided by NMS Linkage Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 54551 (September 29, 2006),
71 FR 59148 (October 6, 2006).
    \4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-66. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-66 and should be
submitted on or before October 3, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17960 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64995]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58776; File No. SR-BATS-2008-007]

Self[dash]Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled ``Order Execution''

October 14, 2008.

Correction

    In notice document E8-25388 beginning on page 63529 in the issue of
Friday, October 24, 2008, make the following correction:
    On page 63531, in the first column, in the last line from the
bottom, ``November 13, 2008'' should read ``November 14, 2008''.

[FR Doc. Z8-25388 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


                     Index to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0792

             Redesignation of Clark County, Nevada to Attainment
                      For the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

CATEGORY I.  Proposed Rule

A. "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule" signed November 2, 2012. (prepublication version).

B. "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule" 77 FR 67600, November 13, 2012

CATEGORY II.  OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NPRM

A. Letter from Kevin Dick, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Washoe County Health District, to Ginger Vagenas, US EPA Region 9, December 5, 2012.
B. Letter from Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to Ginger Vagenas, US EPA Region 9, December 6, 2012.

CATEGORY III.  OTHER DOCUMENTS

A. "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992
B. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992," Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
C.  "Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment," Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
D. Consolidated Emission Inventory Report, Appendix A, Environ, May 31, 2007.)
E. 8-hour Ozone Early Progress Plan for Clark County, Nevada, June 2008.
F. 1. Clark County Regional Transportation Plan 2009-2030, approved November 2008, Executive Summary.
F.2 Clark County Regional Transportation Plan 2009-2030, approved November 2008, Appendix 4.
G. Technical System Audit Report - Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management-Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, US EPA Region 9, February 2010.
H. Clark County DAQEM Annual Network Plan Report, June 2010
I. Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, EPA Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office, to Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County DAQEM, November 1, 2010.
J. "List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods," US EPA, Office of Research and Development, June 6, 2012.
K. 1. Clark County Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, March 2011.
K.2. Clark County Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Appendix A, March 2011.
K.3. Clark County Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Appendix B, March 2011.
K.4. Clark County Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan Appendix C, March 2011.
L. Submittal letter from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) transmitting Clark County's Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (March 2011); April 11, 2011.
M. County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management - Annual Network Plan Report, June 2011.
N. Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, US EPA Region 9, to Mike Sword, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, November 1, 2011.
O. Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County DAQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, US EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, February 28, 2012.
P. Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, US EPA Region 9, to Mike Sword, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, March 8, 2012.
Q. "Climate of Las Vegas, Nevada," by Andrew Gorelow and Chris Stachelski, updated October 2012 (previous edition, Paul H. Skrbac, 1999).
R. AQS Preliminary Design Value Report, Report Date: Oct. 11, 2012
S. Memo to file from Karina O'Connor, US EPA Region 9, "Adequacy Documentation for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in April 2011 Clark County Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan," October 15, 2012.
T. Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, US EPA Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office, to Mike Sword, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, October 23, 2012.
U. Memo to file from Roy Ford, US EPA Region 9, regarding outreach to the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, November 7, 2012.
V. Memo to file from Ginger Vagenas, US EPA Region 9, regarding outreach to the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, November 8, 2012.
W. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) section 445B.500
X. Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) section 445B.22083
Y. Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), Article 13 (approved 1981)

CATEGORY IV.  FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A. 43 FR 8962	(March 3, 1978
B. 44 FR 8220	(February 8, 1979)
C. 46 FR 21758	(April 14, 1981)
D. 51 FR 41788	(November 19, 1986)
E. 57 FR 13498	(April 16, 1992 )
F. 57 FR 18070	(April 28, 1992)
G. 57 FR 27936	(June 23, 1992)
H. 57 FR 27939	(June 23, 1992)
I. 58 FR 62188	(November 24, 1993)
J. 60 FR 12459	(March 7, 1995)
K. 60 FR 62748	(December 7, 1995)
L. 61 FR 20458	(May 7, 1996)
M. 61 FR 31831	(June 21, 1996)
N. 61 FR 53174 (October 10, 1996)
O. 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 1997)
P. 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000)
Q. 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001)
R. 66 FR 53099 (October 19, 2001)
S. 66 FR 53665 (October 23, 2001)
T. 68 FR 25414 (May 12, 2003)
U. 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003)
V. 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004)
W. 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)
X. 69 FR 31056 (June 2, 2004)
Y. 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004)
Z. 69 FR 55956 (September 17, 2004)
AA. 69 FR 56351 (September 21, 2004)
BB. 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005)
CC. 72 FR 6986  (February 14, 2007)
DD. 72 FR 26718 (May 11, 2007)
EE. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008)
FF. 73 FR 20536 (April 16, 2008)
GG. 73 FR 38124 (July 3, 2008)
HH. 73 FR 66182 (November 7, 2008)
II. 74 FR 3975  (January 22, 2009)
JJ. 74 FR 22738 (May 14, 2009)
KK. 75 FR 17254 (April 5, 2010)
LL. 76 FR 17343 (March 29, 2011)
MM. 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012)
NN. 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012)
OO. 77 FR 64039 (October 18, 2012)
PP. 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012)

CATEGORY V.  ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR FINAL RULE

   A.    Email from Benny Tso, Chairperson, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, November 5, 2012.
   B.    AQS Preliminary Design Value Report, Report Date: December 17, 2012.

CATEGORY VI.  FINAL RULE

   A.    "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Final Rule" signed December 20, 2012. (prepublication version).
   B.    "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Final Rule" 78 FR 1149, January 8, 2013.


[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35547-35550]
[DOCID:fr21jn06-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 262

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391; FRL-8186-3]

Extension of Site-Specific Regulations for University
Laboratories XL Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to extend the expiration
date of the New England University Laboratories XL Project (Labs XL
Project) rule that EPA previously promulgated under the eXcellence and
Leadership program (Project XL), allowing laboratories at certain
universities in Massachusetts and Vermont to follow certain alternative
RCRA generator requirements. In this action, EPA is extending the
expiration date from September 30, 2006 to a new date of April 15,
2009. EPA is making no further changes to the Labs XL Project
regulations other than the change in expiration date.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on August 21, 2006,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by
July 21, 2006. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal notice in the Federal Register indicating that this
direct final rule has been withdrawn due to adverse comment.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
RCRA-2006-0391, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of
Ecosystems Protection, EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100
(Mail Code: CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
     Hand Delivery: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office
of Ecosystems Protection, EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100
(Mail Code: CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the EPA's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-
2006-0391. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391. All documents in the docket are listed
on the http://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some

information may not be publicly available, e.g., 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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA New England Library, One

Congress Street--11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023, business hours
Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Records in these dockets are available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
EPA New England, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (Mail Code: CHW),
Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Previously, on October 21, 2003, the EPA proposed an extension of
the original expiration date of the Labs XL Project. EPA received no
negative public comments in response to the proposal, and published a
final rule on March 12, 2004. EPA is again extending the expiration
date, this time as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, because
the Agency views the extension as non-controversial and anticipates no
adverse comments.
    Unless the EPA gets written comments which oppose this action
during the comment period, the decision will take effect as provided
below. If EPA gets comments that oppose this action, EPA will withdraw
this direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will then
address the public comments in a later final rule, but may not provide
any further opportunity for comment beyond what is being provided for
in this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so during the comment period being provided for in this
action.

A. Why Is the EPA Extending the Expiration Date of Its XL Project
Regulations?

    As indicated above, EPA is extending the expiration date of
September 30, 2006 set forth in 40 CFR 262.108 of the Labs XL Project
regulations until April

15, 2009. The original rule implementing the Labs XL Project took
effect on September 28, 1999 and allowed four years for the colleges to
demonstrate the beneficial aspects of the new management system
expiring on September 30, 2003. See 40 CFR 262.108. EPA later
determined that an extension was appropriate, and published a Federal
Register on October 21, 2003 (68 FR 60060) proposing a three-year
extension (until September 30, 2006) of the Labs XL Project
regulations. EPA received no negative public comments in response to
the proposal, and finalized the extension on March 12, 2004 (69 FR
11801). In the meantime, EPA has been developing a national set of
alternative regulations for academic laboratories that are similar to
the Labs XL Project regulations. However, since these alternative
regulations for academic laboratories will not be in place prior to the
expiration of the current September 30, 2006 Labs XL Project
regulations, if the Labs XL Project was not extended, there would be a
period of time in which labs participating in the Labs XL Project would
have to terminate their participation in the program and would not be
able to benefit from alternative generator regulations, either under
the Labs XL Project (since this would have expired) or under the
National Labs Rule that EPA is developing (since this would not have
been finalized). For this reason, EPA has decided to extend the
expiration date of the Labs XL Project to allow time for a national set
of alternative regulations to be promulgated and for equivalent
regulations to be adopted by the States. EPA is proposing an extension
of approximately two and a half years because the Agency believes that
this would be a reasonable period of time for EPA to promulgate its
National Labs Rule, and for the States to adopt equivalent regulations.
Of course, nothing in this rule pre-judges what general Federal and
State regulations ultimately will be adopted--rather, it simply gives
an opportunity for alternative general regulations to be adopted before
the expiration of the Labs XL Project.
    Also, EPA Region I recently has done an analysis of the Labs XL
Project, which is available in the Docket. Based on this analysis, and
other oversight of the project, the EPA believes that the continuation
of the project should provide a superior level of environmental
protection in comparison to an immediate return by the three covered
institutions to standard RCRA regulation.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views it as a non-controversial action. The Agency anticipates
no adverse comments, since none were received during the previous
comment period to extend the original expiration date. However, in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is
publishing a separate, parallel document that will serve as a proposal
to extend the current expiration date if the Agency receives adverse
comments.

B. What Is the University Labs XL Project?

    EPA announced Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership'' in May 1995
as a part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort to
reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).
Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated
entities an opportunity to develop pilot projects to provide regulatory
flexibility that would result in environmental protection that is
superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current
standard regulations and reasonably anticipated future regulations.
    One of the projects that EPA approved under Project XL was the Labs
XL project. This project was intended to provide certain flexibility
under RCRA for: (1) The University of Massachusetts--Boston, Boston,
MA; (2) Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA; and (3) the University of
Vermont, Burlington, VT (the ``participating universities''). On
September 28, 1999, EPA, the participating universities, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation signed the Final Project
Agreement for the project. That agreement and the related specially
adopted Federal and State regulations allow the participating
universities to comply with the terms of their Environmental Management
Plans (EMPs) for their laboratories in place of certain standard
requirements for hazardous waste generators, during a trial period. In
order to allow this experiment, the EPA promulgated certain regulations
in 1999 which are set forth in 40 CFR 262.10(j) and 40 CFR 262.100--
108. See 64 FR 52380 (September 28, 1999) (final rulemaking) and 64 FR
40696 (July 27, 1999) (proposed rulemaking). The reasons for
promulgating these particular EPA regulations are fully set forth in
those previous rulemaking notices and will not be repeated here. These
EPA regulations were designed to enable the EPA to authorize as part of
a State's RCRA authorized program State regulations that were different
from the standard EPA regulations, in order to implement the Labs XL
project.
    After EPA promulgated its Labs XL Project regulations, both
Massachusetts and Vermont promulgated their own state regulations
establishing equivalent alternative standards for laboratories at the
participating universities. The Vermont regulations were authorized by
the EPA and became part of the federally enforceable Vermont RCRA
program on October 26, 2000. See 65 FR 64164. The Massachusetts
regulations were authorized by the EPA and became part of the federally
enforceable Massachusetts RCRA program on March 12, 2004. See 69 FR
11801.

C. What Is the Federal Regulation Change in This Rule?

    The Federal regulation change in this direct final rule is to
extend the expiration date in 40 CFR 262.108 from September 30, 2006 to
April 15, 2009. EPA is making no further changes to the Labs XL Project
regulations. The regulation change is set out at the end of this
document.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The EPA has examined the effects of the change to the Federal
regulations and reached the conclusions set out below.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
    Because the annualized cost of these actions will be significantly
less than $100 million and because these actions will not meet any of
the other criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information
request contained in a proposed rule or final rule. The Labs XL Project
applies to only three universities, and any reporting obligations for
nine or fewer sources are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Therefore, no information collection request (ICR) was submitted to OMB
for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally
requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act or other statute, unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact,
since the primary purpose of any regulatory flexibility analysis would
be to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. The Labs XL Project applies to only three universities. Also, the
rule increases flexibility--thus relieving the regulatory burden.
Accordingly, the EPA hereby certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Thus a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required to be prepared under
that Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopts the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. In addition, before the EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments about the
regulatory requirements, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the section 202 and 205 requirements do
not apply to this action because the rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the
private sector. Costs to State, local or tribal governments and the
private sector already exist under the State program, and the actions
will not impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. Thus
the requirements of section 203 that the EPA develop a small government
agency plan will not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not create a mandate
on State, local, or tribal governments and does not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and the Indian tribes.''
    The actions will not have tribal implications, as defined by the
Executive Order, because they will have no direct effect in Indian
Country. None of the three universities participating in the XL project
are located in Indian Country; therefore, this rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

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

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because that
Executive Order applies only to rules that are ``significant'' under
Executive Order 12866, and this rule is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards covered by voluntary
consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 is submitting a report containing this document 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 in the Federal Register. In addition, 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 in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). However, it nevertheless will take effect in 60 days in
accordance with the procedures applicable to direct final rules.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: The Federal regulation change is being made under the
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
sections 2002 and 3002, 42 U.S.C. 6912 and 6922.

    Dated: June 12, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart J--University Laboratories XL Project--Laboratory
Environmental Management Standard

0
2. Section 262.108 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  262.108  When will this subpart expire?

    This subpart will expire on April 15, 2009.

[FR Doc. E6-9754 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29514-29515]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13400]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2018-0767; FRL-9995-53-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Challenge to Clean Air Act SIP
Action

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
settlement agreement to resolve a case filed by ArcelorMittal Burns
Harbor, L.L.C. (``ArcelorMittal''), involving an EPA action on a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Indiana.
On February 25, 2014, ArcelorMittal filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit challenging EPA's
disapproval of Indiana's SIP revision which would have removed the
emissions limit for SO2 from the blast furnace gas flare at
ArcelorMittal's steel mill in Porter County, Indiana. ArcelorMittal
Burns Harbor LLC v. EPA (14-1412, 7th Cir.). Under the proposed
settlement agreement, the parties agree to take certain specified
actions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by July 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2018-0767, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Thrift, Air and Radiation Law
Office, Office of General Counsel, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, San Diego Border Office, 610 West Ash Street, San Diego, CA
92101; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve the case filed by
ArcelorMittal challenging EPA Region 5's disapproval of the State of
Indiana's SIP revision, submitted on December 10, 2009. EPA issued a
final rule disapproving the SIP revision on December 27, 2013. On
February 25, 2014, ArcelorMittal filed a petition for review of EPA's
disapproval action in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit. ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC v. EPA (No. 14-
1412). The State of Indiana intervened in the case on petitioner's
behalf and is also a party to the settlement agreement.
    Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Indiana
agrees to submit to EPA a SIP revision which contains numeric emissions
limits, a blast furnace gas testing protocol, and other specified
provisions. EPA agrees to propose and take final action on the SIP
submittal. If EPA approves a SIP submittal with numeric emissions
limits and blast furnace gas testing protocol which are identical to
those in the agreement, and otherwise contains terms substantially
consistent with those in the agreement, ArcelorMittal agrees to dismiss
its petition for review with prejudice. The proposed settlement
agreement also provides that nothing in the settlement agreement limits
the discretion of EPA to alter, amend, or revise its action under the
agreement, nor does the agreement limit or modify any discretion
afforded EPA by the Act or by general principles of administrative law.
See the proposed settlement agreement for specific details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who are not named as parties
or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2018-0767) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.''
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider late comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 11, 2019.
Gautam Srinivasan,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-13400 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1340-1343]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0871; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01581-A;
Amendment 39-21874; AD 2021-26-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Vulcanair S.p.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain km, Vulcanair S.p.A. Model P.68C, P.68C-TC, P.68 ``OBSERVER,''
P.68 OBSERVER 2, P.68R, and P.68TC OBSERVER airplanes. This AD was
prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI identifies
the unsafe condition as a damaged stabilator trim control cable. This
AD requires inspecting the stabilator trim control cables and replacing
if necessary. This AD also requires reporting the results of each
inspection to Vulcanair S.p.A. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 15, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 15,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Vulcanair S.p.A., Fulvio Oloferni, via Giovanni Pascoli, 7,
Naples, 80026, Italy; phone: +39 081 5918 135; email:
[email protected]; website: www.vulcanair.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA,

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0871.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0871; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Johnson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, International Validation Section, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Vulcanair S.p.A. Model P.68C, P.68C-TC, P.68 ``OBSERVER,'' P.68
OBSERVER 2, P.68R, and P.68TC OBSERVER airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on October 8, 2021 (86 FR 56229). The NPRM was
prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0262, dated November 30,
2020 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition on certain serial-numbered Vulcanair S.p.A. Model P.68R,
P.68C, P.68C-TC, P.68 ``OBSERVER,'' P.68 ``OBSERVER 2,'' and P.68TC
``OBSERVER'' airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two occurrences have been reported of finding a damaged
stabilator trim control cable connected to the stabilator trim
actuator assembly, mounted on fuselage frame No.16. The related
technical investigation concluded that the cause of the damage is a
design issue.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of an affect [sic] part, preventing trim surface control
(remaining in the last position), possibly resulting in reduced
control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, and pending a design
improvement, Vulcanair published the [service bulletin] SB, to
provide inspection instructions for detecting damage.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections of the affected parts, and, depending on
findings, replacement.
    This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further
[EASA] AD action may follow.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0871.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Vulcanair S.p.A. P.68 Variants Service Bulletin
No. 263, dated October 20, 2020. The service information contains
procedures for repetitively inspecting each stabilator trim control
cable part number 5.6067-1, 5.6161-1, 5.6171-1, 5.6231-2, or 5.6231-4
for broken wires and replacing the cable if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD an interim action. The inspection reports
required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better
insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and
eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition.
Once final action has been identified, the FAA might consider further
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per airplane          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  0.50 work-hour x $85               $0  $42.50 per inspection  $5,397.50 per
                              per hour = $42.50                      cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                              per inspection cycle.
Report.....................  1 work-hour x $85 per              $0  $85 per inspection     $10,795 per
                              hour = $85 per                         cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                              reporting cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has
no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this
replacement:

                           On-Condition Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
        Action             Labor cost       Parts cost       airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...........  2 work-hours x              $340            $510
                         $85 per hour =
                         $170.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that
this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-26-15 Vulcanair S.p.A.: Amendment 39-21874; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0871; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01581-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 15,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Vulcanair S.p.A. (Vulcanair) Model P.68C,
P.68C-TC, P.68 ``OBSERVER,'' P.68 OBSERVER 2, P.68R, and P.68TC
OBSERVER airplanes, serial numbers 333, 337 to 339 inclusive, 378,
379, and 383 and larger (except serial numbers 387 and 398),
certificated in any category, with a stabilator trim control cable
part number 5.6067-1, 5.6161-1, 5.6171-1, 5.6231-2, or 5.6231-4
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2740, Stabilizer
Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a damaged stabilator trim control cable
connected to the stabilator trim actuator assembly, mounted on
fuselage frame No. 16. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and
address failure of a stabilator trim control cable, which could
prevent trim surface control thereby leaving the cable remaining in
the last position. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Before a stabilator trim control cable part number 5.6067-1,
5.6161-1, 5.6171-1, 5.6231-2, or 5.6231-4 accumulates more than 400
hours time-in-service (TIS) since first installation on an airplane
or within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50
hours TIS, visually inspect the stabilator trim control cable for
broken wires and replace the stabilator trim control cable before
further flight if there is broken wire in a strand in accordance
with steps 1 through 22 of Part 2 Work Procedure in Vulcanair S.p.A.
P.68 Variants Service Bulletin No. 263, dated October 20, 2020.

(h) Reporting

    Within 14 days after the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD or within 14 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the results of the
initial inspection to Vulcanair at
[email protected] or at the address in
paragraph (l)(3) of this AD. Thereafter, report the inspection
results within 14 days after each inspection. Each report must
include the following information:
    (1) Owner/operator name, mailing address, phone number, and
email address;
    (2) Airplane model, serial number, and registration number;
    (3) Airplane hours TIS at the time of the inspection;
    (4) Stabilator trim control cable hours TIS at the time of the
inspection;
    (5) Date of the inspection;
    (6) Inspection result (positive or negative); and
    (7) A description of any non-conformity (damage).

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

 (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gregory Johnson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Section, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0262, dated November 30, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0871.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Vulcanair S.p.A. P.68 Variants Service Bulletin No. 263,
dated October 20, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Vulcanair S.p.A., Fulvio Oloferni, via Giovanni Pascoli, 7, Naples,
80026, Italy; phone: +39 081 5918 135; email:
[email protected]; website: www.vulcanair.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 10, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00056 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77903-77906]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27497]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96500; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2022-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Listing Rules 5605 and 5606

December 14, 2022.
    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 December 12, 2022, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to simplify implementation and compliance
tracking of Listing Rules 5605 and 5606, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/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 1, 2020, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change to adopt listing rules to

advance board diversity and enhance transparency of diversity
statistics (``Board Diversity Proposal'').\3\ On August 6, 2021
(``Approval Date''), the Commission approved the proposal, as amended
(``Board Diversity Rules).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90574 (December 4,
2020), 85 FR 80472 (SR-NASDAQ-2020-081).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92590 (August 6, 2021),
86 FR 44424 (August 12, 2021) (Approval order). Nasdaq filed an
amendment to the proposal on February 26, 2021. See Amendment No. 1,
available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/srnasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8425992-229601.pdf.
Pursuant to Rule 5605(f)(1), ``Approval Date'' means the date that
the Commission issued an order granting the approval of this
proposed Rule 5605(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of filing of the Board Diversity Proposal, Nasdaq and
listed companies could not know when the proposal would be approved.
Since directors typically are elected in connection with the annual
shareholder meeting, Nasdaq wanted to assure that listed companies had
at least one year from the approval of the rules, or until their next
annual meeting, to take necessary actions to satisfy the requirements
of the Board Diversity Rules. Therefore, Nasdaq tied the initial
compliance deadlines in the Board Diversity Proposal to one year after
the approval date.\5\ Specifically, on August 8, 2022 (one year after
the Approval Date),\6\ Nasdaq-listed companies became subject to the
first compliance condition: disclosing their Board Diversity Matrix
(``Matrix'').\7\ Subsequent compliance conditions were similarly
scheduled to take effect starting two or more years from the Approval
Date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 5605(f)(1); see also Rule 5605(f)(7) and 5606(e).
    \6\ The Approval Date became August 8, 2022 because August 6,
2022 was a Saturday.
    \7\ See Rule 5606.
    \8\ See Rule 5605(f)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has found that this formulation of the compliance deadlines
is confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Therefore, Nasdaq now
proposes to make technical changes to Rule 5605(f)(3) (Alternative
Public Disclosure) and Rule 5605(f)(7) (Effective Dates/Transition) to
simplify the implementation of the Board Diversity Rules by eliminating
references to the Approval Date and the alternative deadline related to
the filing of materials for the company's annual meeting, and instead
requiring compliance by December 31st of the applicable year. Nasdaq is
also proposing to amend Rule 5605(f)(3) to provide additional
flexibility in how a company can notify Nasdaq about the alternative
public disclosure permissible under that rule. Additionally, Nasdaq is
proposing a technical amendment to Rule 5605(f)(3) to change an
erroneous reference to a non-existent Rule 5606(f)(2)(D).
Effective Dates
    Pursuant to Rule 5605(f)(7)(A), Nasdaq currently requires each
company listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market, The Nasdaq Global
Market and The Nasdaq Capital Market (including a Company with a
smaller board under Rule 5606(f)(2)(D)) to have, or explain why it does
not have, at least one Diverse \9\ director by the later of: (i) two
calendar years after the Approval Date, which is August 7, 2023 or (ii)
the date the Company files its proxy statement or its information
statement (or, if the Company does not file a proxy, in its Form 10-K
or 20-F) for the Company's annual shareholders meeting during the
calendar year of the First Effective Date,\10\ which can be no later
than December 31, 2023. The Exchange is proposing to replace this
deadline with December 31, 2023, which is the deadline under the
current rule for a company with a December 31st fiscal year-end to hold
its annual shareholder meeting during the calendar year of the First
Effective Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pursuant to Rule 5605(f)(1), ``Diverse'' means an individual
who self-identifies in one or more of the following categories:
Female, Underrepresented Minority, or LGBTQ+. ``Female'' means an
individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard
to the individual's designated sex at birth.
    \10\ The ``First Effective Date'' is defined as two calendar
years after the Approval Date. See Rule 5605(f)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, pursuant to Rule 5605(f)(7)(B), Nasdaq currently
requires all companies listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market or The
Nasdaq Global Market to have, or explain why it does not have, at least
two Diverse directors by the later of: (i) four calendar years after
the Approval Date (``Second NGS/NGM Effective Date''), which is August
6, 2025 or (ii) the date the Company files its proxy statement or its
information statement (or, if the Company does not file a proxy, in its
Form 10-K or 20-F) for the Company's annual shareholders meeting during
the calendar year of the Second NGS/NGM Effective Date, which can be no
later than December 31, 2025. The Exchange is proposing to replace this
deadline with December 31, 2025, which is the deadline under the
current rule for a company with a December 31st fiscal year-end to hold
its annual shareholder meeting during the calendar year of the Second
NGS/NGM Effective Date.
    Lastly, Rule 5605(f)(7)(C) currently requires each Company listed
on The Nasdaq Capital Market to have, or explain why it does not have,
at least two Diverse directors by the later of: (i) five calendar years
after the Approval Date (``Second NCM Effective Date''), which is
August 6, 2026 or (ii) the date the Company files its proxy statement
or its information statement (or, if the Company does not file a proxy,
in its Form 10-K or 20-F) for the Company's annual shareholders meeting
during the calendar year of the Second NCM Effective Date, which is no
later than December 31, 2026. The Exchange is proposing to replace this
deadline with December 31, 2026, which is the deadline under the
current rule for a company with a December 31st fiscal year-end to hold
its annual shareholder meeting during the calendar year of the Second
NCM Effective Date.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to align the proposed December 31st
deadlines for Rule 5605(f)(7) with the Rule 5606(f)(3) deadline for
companies to explain why they do not meet the diversity objectives of
Rule 5606(f)(2). Therefore, Nasdaq is proposing to amend Rule
5606(f)(3) to allow for companies to provide such disclosure on or
before December 31st.
    Additionally, Rule 5606(e) provides a deadline for a company's
initial Matrix disclosure and requires a company to annually disclose
the Matrix thereafter, but the current rule does not provide a specific
deadline for subsequent disclosures, other than that such disclosure
must be made in the same manner as, and concurrently with, the
disclosure required in Rule 5605(f)(3) for those companies that are
subject to that provision. Therefore, Nasdaq is proposing to modify
Rule 5606(b) to specify the method of disclosure, which is the same as
outlined in Rule 5605(f)(3), and the December 31st annual deadline for
the required Matrix disclosure.
    Nasdaq believes that using December 31st as the applicable deadline
for various elements of the diversity objectives of Rule 5605(f) and
Matrix disclosure of Rule 5606 aligns these deadlines with the end of
the fiscal year for most companies,\11\ which is also the deadline for
those companies to hold their annual meeting under Nasdaq's rules.\12\
As such, Nasdaq believes that aligning the deadline for these
disclosures with the December 31st

deadline for most companies to hold the annual meeting will simplify
both compliance and compliance monitoring with these rules.\13\ In that
regard, Nasdaq notes that while companies tend to hold their annual
meetings at a similar time each year, they are not required to do so,
and do not necessarily file their proxies or information statements at
the same time each year. Moreover, neither Nasdaq nor investors know
ahead of time when a company will file their proxy statements or
information statements. Establishing a single deadline for all
companies will therefore simplify Nasdaq's ability to review for
instances of non-compliance and give investors a final date to expect a
company's disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Approximately 80% of Nasdaq-listed companies subject to the
rule have a December 31st fiscal year-end.
    \12\ See Rule 5620 (requiring most listed companies to hold an
annual meeting of shareholders no later than one year after the end
of the Company's fiscal year-end). Under Rules 5605(f)(3) and
5606(b), companies can include disclosure about why they do not meet
the applicable diversity objectives of Rule 5605(f)(2) and the
Matrix in the proxy or information statement for their annual
meeting.
    \13\ Of course, companies will continue to be able to comply
earlier than the proposed December 31st deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice to Nasdaq
    Currently, if a Nasdaq-listed company posts its Matrix disclosure
or its explanation for why the company does not satisfy the diverse
director objective on its website, then the company must also submit a
URL link to the disclosure through the Nasdaq Listing Center within one
business day after posting on the company's website.\14\ To provide
additional flexibility to companies, Nasdaq is proposing to also allow
companies to submit the URL link via email to
``[email protected]''. Nasdaq notes that providing the
additional alternative may simplify compliance for companies and will
not affect Nasdaq's ability to review for instances of non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 5605(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Changes
    Nasdaq is proposing a technical amendment to Rule 5605(f)(3) to
change an erroneous reference to a non-existent Rule 5606(f)(2)(D). The
reference was intended to be 5605(f)(2)(D). Nasdaq is also proposing to
remove Rule 5606(e) since the rule became effective and operative over
a year ago and Nasdaq believes the provision is no longer relevant.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(1) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that the Exchange is
organized and has the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its member. The Exchange believe the proposal is also
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is consistent with the Act to amend Rule 5605(f)(7) governing
the effective dates of the Diverse director objective. When proposing
changes to its rulebook, Nasdaq must ensure that the changes remain
consistent with other provisions. Presently, companies that opt to
publish the alternative public disclosure rather than satisfy the
Diverse director objective must do so in the same manner, and
concurrently with Rule 5606--the Matrix disclosure.\18\ The proposed
amendments to Rule 5605(f)(7) aligns the annual deadline for companies
that opt to explain why they do not satisfy the Diverse director
objective with the proposed annual deadline for the Matrix. Companies
will continue to have the option of publishing the disclosure sooner
than the proposed December 31st deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 5605(f)(3) and Rule 5606(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange's proposal to amend its rule requiring
Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose board diversity statistics
using the Matrix, or a substantially similar format, at Rule 5606(e),
is consistent with the Act. Clarifying the date for subsequent Matrix
disclosures ensures that all Nasdaq-listed companies will disclose a
Matrix during each calendar year. Additionally, proposing December 31st
as the deadline each year simplifies compliance and more closely aligns
the deadline with the end of the fiscal year for most companies, which
is also their deadline to hold an annual meeting. Moreover, this
revised formulation provides all Nasdaq-listed companies with the same
compliance deadline, which is the same as the latest calendar date for
compliance under the current rule.\19\ As discussed above, Companies
will continue to have the option of publishing the disclosure sooner
than the proposed December 31st deadline. Nasdaq also believes that
having the same annual deadline date for all companies will simplify
Nasdaq's ability to track non-compliant companies and give investors a
final date to expect a company's disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Currently, all Nasdaq-listed companies are required to file
an annual proxy or information statement by the end of the company's
fiscal year. The end of the fiscal year for most Nasdaq-listed
companies is December 31st. Therefore, Nasdaq is proposing to
simplify the deadlines by aligning the Board Diversity Rule
deadlines with the most company's fiscal year end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, it is consistent with the Act to amend Rule
5605(f)(3) to give companies an additional alternative for submitting
the URL link to their disclosures. The additional option of submitting
the URL via email simplifies compliance and gives companies flexibility
in meeting their requirements. Moreover, there will be no impact on
Nasdaq's ability to review for instances of non-compliance.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All companies would continue to
be required to make the same disclosure of their board-level
statistical information and will have the same deadline for that
disclosure. Additionally, all companies would be given the same
flexibility of alternatively submitting the URL link to their
disclosure via email. Similarly, all companies would be given the same
maximum amount of time to publish their Matrix and to satisfy the
Diverse director objective.
    Moreover, none of the proposed changes will unduly burden intra-
market competition among various Exchange participants. Participants
will experience no competitive impact from the proposals, as these
proposals are merely intended to assist companies in maintaining
compliance with the Board Diversity Rules by providing additional
flexibility, clarifying certain provisions, and maintaining consistency
among the provisions.

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 \20\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-075.

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-2022-075. 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-2022-075, and should be submitted
on or before January 10, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27497 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52018-52019]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008]

National Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National
Advisory Council (NAC) will meet in person on September 17 and 18, 2014
in Los Angeles, CA. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The NAC will meet on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Thursday, September 18 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45
a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). Please note that the meeting may
close early if the NAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Los Angeles Emergency
Operations Center located at 500 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012. All visitors to the Los Angeles Emergency Operations Center are
required to register with FEMA prior to the meeting in order to be
admitted to the building. Photo identification is required to access
the building. Please provide your name,

telephone number, email address, title, and organization by close of
business on September 10, 2014, to the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT below.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the NAC (see ``Agenda''). Written comments must be submitted and
received by September 10, 2014, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008,
and submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number
in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received by the
NAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and search for the Docket ID
listed above.
    A public comment period will be held after each subcommittee report
and before NAC voting and again from 3:35 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. PDT. All
speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Comments
should be addressed to the committee. Any comments not related to the
agenda topics will not be considered by the NAC. Contact the individual
listed below to register as a speaker by September 10, 2014. Please
note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated,
following the last call for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexandra Woodruff, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer, Office of the National Advisory Council,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472-3184, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The NAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/national-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
    The NAC advises the FEMA Administrator on all aspects of emergency
management. The NAC incorporates State, local, and tribal government,
private sector and nongovernmental input in the development and
revision of FEMA plans and strategies.
    Agenda: On Wednesday, September 17, the NAC will be welcomed to
FEMA Region IX and introduced to its activities by the Acting Regional
Administrator and then engage in an open discussion with the FEMA
Administrator. The NAC will receive report outs from its subcommittees
on the following topics: Progress on issues related to Federal
Insurance and Mitigation, Preparedness and Protection, and Response and
Recovery. The NAC will review the information presented on each topic,
deliberate on any recommendations presented in the subcommittees'
reports, and, if appropriate, vote on recommendations for FEMA's
consideration.
    The NAC will also receive briefings from FEMA Executive Staff on
the following topics:
     The FEMA Strategic Plan;
     FEMA Office of Response and Recovery Activities and
Updates; and
     America's PrepareAthon.
    On Thursday, September 18, the NAC will receive a briefing on Unity
of Effort and Novelty from the Los Angeles Police Department, a
presentation on the Integration of the Public Health/Medical Sector
with Emergency Management, a briefing on the Preparations for the 2015
Special Olympics from the Los Angeles Fire Department, and a briefing
on Emergency Management Issues at Colleges and Universities from a
representative from Loyola Marymount University.
    The full agenda and any related committee documents will be posted
on the NAC Web site at http://www.fema.gov/national-advisory-council.

    Dated: August 27, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-20832 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-48-P