SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for subpart Ea and subpart Eb were proposed on December 20, 1980, and September 20, 1994 (respectively) and promulgated on February 11, 1991, and December 19, 1995 (respectively).  Municipal waste combustor (MWC) facilities which commenced construction after December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 1994, or commenced modification or reconstruction after December 20, 1989, and on or before June 19, 1996, are subject to the regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea.  MWC facilities which commenced construction after September 20, 1994, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 19, 1996, are subject to the regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners or operators of the affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to the NSPS.

Owners or operators subject to the provisions of subpart Ea will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of subpart Eb will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  In addition, annual compliance reports are required for respondents (i.e., sources), along with semiannual reports of excess emissions, and quarterly reports for both subparts Ea and Eb.

Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of twelve sources that are subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  There are seven sources that are subject to Ea, and it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years, since the latest applicability date was June 19, 1996.  It is further assumed that there are two affected facilities per plant per respondent (i.e., the owner or operator of the plant site). The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb, and it is estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant.

There are approximately 12 municipal waste combustor plants in the United States, which are all publicly owned and operated by the municipal waste combustor industry.  None of the facilities in the United States are owned by either state, local, tribal or the Federal Government.  They are all owned and operated solely by privately owned for-profit businesses.  You can find the burden to the “Affected Public” listed below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost - NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb).  The Federal government burden does not include work performed by Federal employees only work performed by contractors, which could be found listed below in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb).

	The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, organic, acid gas, and nitrogen oxide emissions from MWCs cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standard is being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual and quarterly reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures, and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10735) on March 9, 2007.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.  Approximately twelve respondents will be subject to the standard over the three-year period covered by this ICR.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as it was being developed, and the standard has been previously reviewed to determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes.  Since there is no change in burden for this renewal no further consultations were conducted.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are municipal waste combustors.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes which correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes could be found in the following table:

Standard (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb)

SIC Codes

NAICS Codes

Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management

9511

924110

Refuse Systems (hazardous waste treatment and disposal)

4953

562211

Refuse Systems (material recovery facilities)

4953

562920

Refuse Systems (other hazardous waste treatment and disposal)

4953

562219

Refuse Systems (solid waste combustors and incinerators)

4953

562213

Refuse Systems (solid waste landfills)

4953

562212

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by the New Source Performance Standards for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification

Notification of construction/reconstruction or modification	60.7(a)(1), 60.59a(a), 60.59b(a), 60.59b(b) and 60.59b(c)

Notification of preconstruction plans and public meeting material 60.59b(a)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3), 60.59a(a) and 60.9b(c)

Notification related to siting analysis	60.59b(a)

Notification of initial performance tests	60.8(d)

Notification of initial performance tests results	60.8(a)

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system	60.7(a)(5)

Notification of physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

Notification related to opacity	60.7(a)(6) and 60.59b(c)

Reports

Report on initial performance test results	60.8(a), 60.59a(c) and 60.59b(f)

Report on public meeting (notification and transcript)	60.59b(a)(2) and 60.59b(a)(3)

Report on responses to public comment	60.59b(a)(4)

Report on preliminary and final draft materials separation plans 60.59b(a)(1)

Report on weights of municipal solid waste and other fuels fired 60.59a(b)(3)

Report on performance tests/compliance report	60.8(a), 60.59a(e), 60.59a(g) and 60.59b(g)

Report excess emissions	60.59a(f) and 60.59b(h)

Report on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) demonstration and test data	60.8(a) and 60.59b(f)

Report of emission levels during annual test (if necessary)	60.59b(d)

Semiannual report and explanation for excess emissions (if necessary) 60.59b(d)

Semiannual carbon report for mercury control (if necessary)	60.59b(d)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Initial performance tests and annual performance tests

60.59b(d)

Records of periodic testing for fugitive ash emissions	60.59b(d)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative	60.7(b)

Occurrence, duration of interruption in operation	60.7(b)

Records of sources with continuous monitoring systems	60.59a(i)

Results of daily CEMs drift tests and Appendix F accuracy assessment 60.59b(d)

Amounts of sorbent used for mercury (Hg) control	60.59b(d)

Persons reviewing operating material	60.59a(j) and 60.59b(d)

Records are required to be retained for two years (subpart Ea)	60.59a(b)

Records are required to be retained for five years (subpart Eb) 60.59b(d) and 60.59b(e)

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 19 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose o collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Perform site selection analysis.

Hold public meeting on site analysis and material separation plan.

	Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents use monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is an EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses,) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden, NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 20,421 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$95.32   ($45.39 + 110%)

Technical	$64.60   ($30.76 + 110%)

Clerical	$40.09   ($19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2003, “Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.  The wage rates were not adjusted from the 2003 BLS standards because the burden has not changed.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

		(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent  	(C)

Number of New Respondents	(D)

Total

Capital/

Startup Cost,  (BXC)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent 	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

CEMs for subpart Ea	$60,000 	0	$0	$8,972	7	$62,804

CEMs for subpart Eb	$60,000	1	$60,000	$8,972	4	$35,888

Total

	$60,000

	$98,692

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $60,000.  This is the total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $98,692.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $159,000 (rounded).

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $31,069.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

	Managerial	$54.66 (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 + 60%)

	Technical	$40.56 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 + 60%)

	Clerical	$21.95 (GS-6, Step 3, $13.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2004 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb), below.  The rates used in this collection have not changed from the 2004 GS levels because the burden has not changed.

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately ten respondents are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that an additional one source per year under subpart Eb will become subject to the standard in the next three years.  The average number of respondents per year is, therefore: 1) subpart Ea - 7 existing, and zero new; and 2) subpart Eb - 4 existing, and one new.  The average number of existing respondents per year is 11, with one new for a total of 12 sources.  This is illustrated below.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

2-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

3-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

  1-Eb 1	1	4	0	1	4

2-Eb	1	5	0	1	5

3-Eb	1	6	0	1	6

Average	1	12	0	1	12

1 The average number of existing respondents for subpart Eb is four.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 12.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of actual startup for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of initial performance test for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of CMS demonstration for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of construction/reconstruction for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of initial performance test for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Compliance reports for Ea	7	1	N/A	7

Opacity reports for Ea (no excess emission)	5.6	1	N/A	5.6

Opacity reports for Ea (excess emission)	1.4	1	N/A	1.4

Report of daily weight of municipal solid waste (MSW) and fuel for Ea	7 4	N/A	28

Appendix F reports for Ea	7	4	N/A	28

Initial compliance reports for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Annual compliance reports for Eb	4	1	N/A	4

Semiannual excess emission reports Eb	4	2	N/A	8

Appendix F quarterly reports for Eb	4	4	N/A	16

Initial report on site selection analysis for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Public meetings and comment responses for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

	Total	103

The number of total respondents is 12.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 103.  This is the number in column E of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses per year in table above.

The total annual labor costs are $1,476,293.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden, NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb), below.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

(i) Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $1,476,293.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb), below.  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 198 hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M cost to the regulated entity are $159,000.

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 785 labor hours at a cost of $31,069.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb), below.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations.  First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years.  Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 198 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0056.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0056 and OMB Control Number 2060-0210 in any correspondence.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb)

 	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)	(I)	(J)	(K)	(L)

Burden item	Technical Person- Hour Per Occurrence

	Number of

Occurrences

Per

Respondent

Per Year

	Technical

Person-

Hour Per

Respondent

Per Year

(C=AxB)	Number of

Respondents

Per Year a

	Technical

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E=CxD)b

	Management

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E x 0.05)b

	Clerical

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E x 0.1)b

	Total

Labor Costs

Per Year

	Emission

Testing

Contractor

Hours Per

Occurrence

	Emission

Testing

Contractor

Hour Per

Respondent

Per Year

(J= IxB)	Contractor

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(K= JxD)

	Total

Contractor

Cost

Per Year

(L=Kx$80) b

1. Applications	N/A

2. Survey and Studies	N/A

3. Reporting requirements

  A.  Read instructions	1	1	1	2	2	0.1	0.2	$146.75	1	1	2	$160.00

  B.  Required activities

      Initial performance test

      for Eb i	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4	$1,761.00	1,053	1,053	1,053 $84,240.00

      Repeat performance

      test for Eb c, i                                                                        	24	1	24	0.2	4.8	0.24	0.48	$352.20	1,053	1,053 210.6	$16,848.00

      Demonstration/CEMS

      for Eb	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4	$1,761.00	470	470	470	$37,600.00

      Repeat CEM

      demonstration Eb d	24	1	24	0.2	4.8	0.24	0.48	$352.20	470	470	94 $7,520.00

      Annual compliance test

      for Ea e	24	1	24	7	168	8.4	16.8	$12,327.00	826	826	5,782 $462,560.00

      Annual compliance test

      for Eb f	24	1	24	4	96	4.8	9.6	$7,044.00	1,053	1,053	4,212 $336,960.00

      Appendix F audit for Ea

      (in-situ)	125	8	1,000	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Appendix F audit for Ea

      (extractive)	36	8	288	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

  C.  Create Information	See 3B

	  D.  Gather information 	See 3B

	  E.  Write report

      Notification of

      construction/

      reconstruction for Ea       	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of actual

      startup – Ea	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of initial

      performance test - Ea 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of CMS

     demonstration for Ea                                               2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of

     construction/

     reconstruction for Eb	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$146.75	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of initial

     performance test – Eb	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$146,75	0	0	0	$0

     Annual compliance

     reports for Ea	16	1	16	7	112	5.6	11.2	$8,218.00	0	0	0	$0

     Annual opacity report of g

     no excess emission for Ea	8	1	8	5.6	44.8	2.24	4.48	$3,287.20	0	0	0 $0

     Annual opacity report for

     excess emission for Ea h	16	1	16	1.4	22.4	1.12	2.24	$1,643.60	0	0	0 $0

     Report of daily weight of

     MSW and fuel for Ea	34	4	136	7	952	47.6	95.2	$53,145.40	0	0	0	$0

     Appendix F reports for Ea	11	4	44	7	308	15.4	30.8	$21,131.57	0	0	0 $0

     Initial compliance report

     for Eb	40	1	40	4	160	8	16	$11,740.00	0	0	0	$0

     Annual compliance report

     for Eb	40	1	40	4	160	8	16	$11,740.00	0	0	0	$0

     Semiannual excess

     emission report Eb	17	2	34	4	136	6.8	13.6	$9,979.00	0	0	0	$0

     Appendix F reports for Eb	11	4	44	4	176	8.8	17.6	$12,914.00	0	0	0 $0

     Initial site selection

     analysis/report for Eb	270	1	270	4	1,080	54	108	$79,245.00	0	0	0	$0

     Public meeting and

     comment response for Eb	140	1	140	4	560	28	56	$41,090.00	0	0	0	$0

4.  Recordkeeping

A.  Read instructions	See 3A

	    B.  Plan activities	See 4E

    C.  Implement activities	See 4E

D.  Develop record system 	See 4E

E.  Time to enter information

 Records of SSM for Ea	1.5	104	156	7	1,092	54.6	109.2	$80,125.50	0	0	0 $0

 Record emission

 Measurements	1.5	104	156	7	1,092	54.6	109.2	$80,125.00	0	0	0	$0

 Record of employee

 review of operation for Ea	4	2	8	7	56	2.8	5.6	$4,109.00	0	0	0	$0

 Record of emission rates,

 and computation tests

 for Eb    	1.5	94	141	4	564	28.2	56.4	$41,383.50	0	0	0	$0

 Record of SSM for Eb	1.5	94	141	4	564	28.2	56.4	$41,383.50	0	0	0	$0

Record of employee

review of operation for Eb	4	2	8	4	32	1.6	3.2	$2.348.00	0	0	0	$0

Record amount of  sorbent

for Hg control for Eb 	0.1	94	9.4	4	37.6	1.88	3.76	$2,758.90	0	0	0	$0

    F.  Train personnel	See 4E

	    G.  Audits	See 4E

	Subtotal

	7,476.4	373.82	747.64	$530,405.32

	11,823.6	$945,888.00

						  Labor Hours (E+F+G)             8,597.86                                  Labor Cost                                 $530,405.32

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 		                  Contractor Labor Hours          11,823.6		   Contractor Labor Cost               $945,888.00					                                   Total Hours                             20,421.46                                 Total Cost                                  $1,476,293.32

						  Total Hours (rounded)            20,421                                      Labor Cost                                 $530,405.32

Assumptions:

a  We have estimated that an average of 12 sources are subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  Seven of these sources are currently subject to subpart Ea, with no additional sources

becoming subject to the regulation in the next three years.  The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb (4 existing and 1 new).  We have assumed that one additional

source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant per respondent.

b  Assume that all tasks are to be performed by managerial, technical and clerical personnel.  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $95.32 for Managerial labor, $64.60 for Technical labor

and $40.09 for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2003, (Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and

industry group.(  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.  We have also included contractors( rate

at $80.00 per hour.

c  It is estimated that 20 percent of respondents will repeat performance test for Eb.

d  It is assumed that 20 percent of the respondents will repeat CEM demonstration activity for Eb.

e  Assume that seven respondents for subpart Ea will have to complete an annual compliance test.

f  Assume that four respondents for subpart Eb will have to complete an annual compliance test.

g  It is assumed that 80 percent of respondents will file an opacity report of no excess emission for Ea.

h  It is assumed that 20 percent of respondents will file an opacity report of excess emission for Ea.

i  Assume that it will take an emission testing contractor 1,053 hours to perform both initial performance test and repeat performance test for subpart Eb.

j  Assume that it will take an emission testing contractor 826 hours to complete an annual compliance test for Eb.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden – NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb)

 	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	 (H)

Activity 	EPA person- hours per occurrence	No. of occurrences per plant

per year	EPA person- hours per plant per year (C=AxB)	Plants per year (a)	Technical person- hours per year (E=CxD)	Management person-hours per year (Ex0.05)

	Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)

	Cost ($) b

Initial performance tests for Ea	180	1	180	0	0	0	0	$0

Review report of initial performance test for Ea	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Repeat performance test for Ea	12	1	12	0	0	0	0	$0

Repeat performance test for Eb c	12	1	12	0.2	2.4	0.12	0.24	$109.17

Report review for Ea

    Notification of construction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of initial test                      	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of CMS demonstration	12	1	12	0	0	0	0	$0

Review of CEMS demonstration for Ea	96	1	96	0	0	0	0	$0

Report review for Eb

    Notification of construction	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$90.98

    Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$90.98

    Notification of initial performance test	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$363.90

    Notification of CEMS demonstration	5	1	5	1	5	0.25	0.5	$227.45

Review CEMS demonstration for Eb	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$1,819.52

Review excess emission reports for Ea

    No excess emission report d	8	1	8	5.6	44.8	2.24	4.48	$2,037.87

    Excess emission report e	2	1	2	1.4	2.8	0.14	0.28	$127.67

Review semiannual excess emission reports for Eb f	12	2	24	4	96	4.8	9.6 $4,366.85

Review quarterly appendix F reports for Ea g	0.5	4	2	7	14	0.7	1.4 $636.83

Review quarterly compliance report for Ea g	8	4	32	7	224	11.2	22.4 $10,189.31

Review annual compliance reports for Eb h	5	1	5	4	20	1	2	$909.76

Review annual compliance tests for Ea i	18	1	18	7	126	6.3	12.6	$5,731.49

Review siting requirements study for Eb j	24	1	24	4	96	4.8	9.6	$4,366.85

Subtotal

	683	34.15	68.3	$31,068.63

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST

(rounded)

785.45

785 (rounded)

$31,069

Assumptions:

a.  We have estimated that an average of 12 sources is subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  Seven of these sources are currently subject to subpart Ea, with no additional sources

becoming subject to the regulation in the next three years.  The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb (4 existing and 1 new).  We have assumed that one additional

source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant per respondent.

b.  The cost is based on the following labor rate which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses.  Managerial rates of $54.66 (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16x1.6), Technical rate of $40.56 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $21.95 (GS-6, Step 3, $13.72 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2004 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.

c.  It is estimated that 20 percent of respondents are required to perform retest preparations and observance for subpart Eb.

d. It is estimated that 80 percent of respondents will review reports for no excess emission for subpart Ea.

e.  It is assumed that 20 percent of respondents will review reports for excess emission for subpart Ea.

f.  We have assumed that all four respondents that are subject to subpart EB will review semiannual excess emission reports.

g.  We have assumed that all seven respondents that are currently subject to subpart Ea will have to review quarterly reports.

h  We have assumed that all four respondents that are subject to subpart Eb will have to review annual compliance reports.

i  We have assumed that it will take 18 hours to review the annual compliance test for Ea.

j  All of the four respondents that are subject to subpart Eb will have to review the siting requirement’s study.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76706-76708]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30905]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63423; File No. 4-620]

Acceptance of Public Submissions on a Study Mandated by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Section 719(b)

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange
Commission.

ACTION: Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') was enacted on July 21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act,
among other things, mandates that the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'') conduct a study on ``the feasibility of requiring the
derivatives industry to adopt standardized computer-readable
algorithmic descriptions which may be used to describe complex and
standardized financial derivatives.'' These algorithmic descriptions
should be designed to ``facilitate computerized analysis of individual
derivative contracts and to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives.'' The study also must consider the extent to which the
algorithmic description, ``together with standardized and extensible
legal definitions, may serve as the binding legal definition of
derivative contracts.'' In connection with this study, the staff of the
CFTC and SEC seek responses of interested parties to the questions set
forth below.

DATES: The CFTC will accept submissions on behalf of both agencies in
response to the questions through December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses to the CFTC, identified in the
subject line with ``algorithmic study'' by any of the following
methods:
     CFTC Agency Web site: http://www.cftc.gov, via its
Comments Online process at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.
     Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail above.
    Please submit your comments using only one method.
    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied
by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
http://www.cftc.gov and http://www.sec.gov. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the
CFTC to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential
treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the
procedures established in CFTC Regulation 145.9, 17 CFR 145.9.
    The CFTC and the SEC reserve the right, but shall have no
obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any
or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov and http://www.sec.gov that they may deem to be inappropriate for publication,
such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or
removed that contain comments may be accessible under the Freedom of
Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy R. Doyle, Office of the General
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or Matthew P. Reed, Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial
Innovation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-[mail stop], telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), Public Law
111-203, was enacted.
    Pursuant to Title VII, Sec. 719(b) of Dodd-Frank, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
jointly, must report to Congress by March of 2011 on ``the feasibility
of requiring the derivatives industry to adopt standardized computer-
readable algorithmic descriptions which may be

used to describe complex and standardized financial derivatives.''
These algorithmic descriptions should be designed to ``facilitate
computerized analysis of individual derivative contracts and to
calculate net exposures to complex derivatives.'' The study also must
consider whether a combination of these algorithmic descriptions and
``standardized and extensible legal definitions[ ] may serve as the
binding legal definition of derivative contracts.''
    A copy of the text of the statute calling for this study may be
found here: http://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_Frank_Act_Text_Section_719.html.
    In furtherance of this report, we seek responses to the following
questions. Please note that responses may be made public, and may be
cited in this report. Questions relate to the current use of
standardized computer-readable descriptions for both data storage and
messaging, and to the usefulness and cost of any transition to a
universal standard for messaging and data storage. Responders are
encouraged to provide any additional relevant information beyond that
called for by these questions.
    Calculation of ``Net Exposures to Complex Derivatives'' and other
``Computerized Analysis'':
    1. How would your organization or community define ``net exposures
to complex derivatives?''
    2. Do you calculate net exposures to complex derivatives?
    3. What data do you require to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives? Does it depend on the derivatives instrument type? How?
    4. Are there any difficulties associated with your ability to
gather the data needed to calculate net exposures to complex
derivatives? What are they?
    5. What other analyses do you currently perform on derivatives
agreements? What kinds of analyses would you like to perform, and how
could regulators and standards setters make those analyses possible?
    6. How often do you perform net exposure calculations at the level
of your organization? Is it continuous and real time, only for periodic
external reporting, or some frequency in between?
    Current practices concerning standardized computer descriptions of
derivatives:
    7. Do you rely on a discrete set of computer-readable descriptions
(``ontologies'') to define and describe derivatives transactions and
positions? If yes, what computer language do you use?
    8. If you use one or more ontologies to define derivatives
transactions and positions, are they proprietary or open to the public?
Are they used by your counterparties and others in the derivatives
industry?
    9. How do you maintain and extend the ontologies that you use to
define derivatives data to cover new financial derivative products? How
frequently are new terms, concepts and definitions added?
    10. What is the scope and variety of derivatives and their
positions covered by the ontologies that you use? What do they describe
well, and what are their limitations?
    11. How do you think any limitations to the ontologies you use to
describe derivatives can be overcome?
    12. Are these ontologies able to describe derivatives transactions
in sufficient detail to enable you to calculate net exposures to
complex derivatives?
    13. Are these ontologies able to describe derivatives transactions
in sufficient detail to enable you to perform other analysis? What
types of analysis can you conduct with this data, and what additional
data must be captured to perform this analysis?
    14. Which identifier regimes, if any, do you use to identify
counterparties, financial instruments, and other entities as part of
derivatives contract analysis?
    Current use of standardized computer readable descriptions for
messaging of derivatives transactions:
    15. Which computer language or message standard do you currently
use to create and communicate your messages for derivatives
transactions?
    16. Is there a difference between the created message and the
communicated message? For example, does your internally archived
version of the message contain proprietary fields or data that are
removed when it is communicated to counterparties or clearing houses?
    17. Are different messaging standards used to describe different
contracts, counterparties, and transactions?
    18. How and where are the messages stored, and do the messages
capture different information from that information stored in internal
systems?
    19. What information is currently communicated, by and to whom, and
for what purposes?
    20. For lifecycle event messages (e.g., credit events, changes of
party names or identifiers), are there extant messaging standards that
can update data relating to derivatives contracts that are stored in
data repositories?
    21. What other standards (i.e., FpML, FIX, etc.) related to
derivatives transactions does your organization or community use, and
for what purposes? Has your implementation of these standards had any
effect on the way your business is conducted (e.g., does it reduce
misunderstanding of contract terms, has it increased the frequency or
ease of trades).
    22. Is the data represented by this/these messaging standard(s)
complete enough to calculate net exposures to complex derivatives? What
additional information would need to be represented?
    23. In general, to what extent are XML-based languages able to
describe a derivatives contract for further analysis? To what extent is
other technology needed to provide a full description?
    24. What other analysis can be conducted with this data? What
additional information should be captured?
    25. Do you have plans to change your messaging schemes/formats in
the near future?
    26. Are there identifier regimes widely used in the derivatives
market for identifying counterparties, financial instruments, and other
entities in messaging?
    The need for standardized computer descriptions of derivatives:
    27. Would there be a benefit to standardizing computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives? What about standardization for a
certain class/type of financial derivatives (i.e., CDS versus interest
rate, or plain vanilla versus complex)?
    28. What would be the issues, costs and concerns associated with
standardizing computer readable descriptions of financial derivatives?
Are there existing standards that could or should be expanded (i.e.,
FpML, FIX, etc.)? Do the existing standards in this area have
materially different costs or issues?
    29. What would be an ideal ontology for you in terms of design,
implementation, and maintenance of the data sets and applications
needed for your business?
    30. How would a standardized computer readable description of
financial derivatives be developed and maintained (i.e., a government-
sponsored initiative, a public-private partnership, standard-setting by
a collaborative process, etc.)? Are there current models that should be
considered?
    31. What is the importance of ontologies for the representation of
derivatives data now and in the future?
    Implementation:
    32. Have you ever implemented a transition to a new data ontology,
data messaging standard, or internal data standard?

    33. If yes, how did the perceived and actual benefits compare to
estimated and actual costs over the short- and long-run?
    34. What were the main difficulties that you experienced during a
transition/implementation of new data standards? What could the
organization developing and maintaining the standards do (or avoid) to
help alleviate these difficulties?
    35. Would it be useful to use a standardized, computer readable
description for financial derivatives instruments? How would it be
useful? Would such a standard be useful for communicating transactions,
storing position information, both, or other purposes? What would be
the costs involved?
    36. How should regulators and standard setters implement
description standards in the derivatives market?
    Making computer descriptions legally binding:
    37. Are there currently aspects of financial derivatives messaged
in a computer readable format that have a legally-binding effect?
    38. What information, if any, is not captured that would be
required to make the computer descriptions themselves, without
reference to other materials, legally binding?
    39. What information would need to be captured for a legally
binding contract that would not need to be captured for analyzing the
contract? Is there a substantial cost differential between the
processes needed to capture one set of information versus another?
    40. Would there be a benefit to making the computer readable
descriptions of financial derivatives legally binding? Would there be
drawbacks? What are they?
    Other:
    41. Is there other information not called for by these questions
that we should consider?

    Dated: December 2, 2010.

    By the CFTC.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
    By the Commission (SEC).
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30905 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16098-16099]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0106; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Manufactured
for Sale in the Mexican Market Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
nonconforming 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander multipurpose passenger vehicles
manufactured for sale in the Mexican market that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States
because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally
manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by
their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-
certified version of the same 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Multipurpose
passenger vehicles) and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Mesa Auto Wholesalers of Chandler, Arizona (Registered Importer 94-
018) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2011
Mitsubishi Outlander multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) manufactured
for sale in the Mexican market are eligible for importation into the
United States. The vehicles which Mesa Auto Wholesalers believes are
substantially similar are 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander MPV that were
manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2011
Mitsubishi Outlander MPV manufactured for sale in the Mexican market to
their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be
substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    Mesa Auto Wholesalers submitted information with its petition
intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2011 Mitsubishi
Outlander MPV manufactured for sale in the Mexican market, as
originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner
claims that non-U.S. certified 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles manufactured for sale in the Mexican market are
identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to
compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 113 Hood Latch System, 114 Theft
Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window,
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 126
Electronic Stability Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems,
138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash Protection, 209
Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield
Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint Anchorages, 301 Fuel
System Integrity, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: replacement of the
instrument cluster with the U.S.-model component.
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other
Than Passenger Cars: installation of a placard with required tire
information printed in the English language.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 18, 2014.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06370 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69326-69328]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0953]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
all navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of berth four at the 10th
Avenue Marine Terminal in San Diego, CA during the offload of narcotics
from a military vessel. The security zone is needed to protect the
military vessel and vessel's personnel. Entry of vessels or persons
into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port San Diego.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. until noon on December 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0953 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impractical. This urgent
security zone is required to protect the military vessel, the
surrounding waterway and the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this
security zone by December 18, 2019 and lack sufficient time to provide
a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to provide the security of the military vessel and the
waterways and structures nearby.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector San
Diego (COTP) has determined that the presence of the military vessel
loaded with narcotics presents a potential target for terrorist attack,
sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of
similar nature. This rule is needed to protect military personnel, the
public and the navigable waters in the vicinity of the 10th Avenue
Marine Terminal.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 7 a.m. until noon on
December 18,

2019. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 100-
yards radius around the military vessel moored at berth four of the
10th Avenue Marine Terminal located at 32[deg]41'56.6'' N and
117[deg]9'31.9'' W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters while the vessel's personnel are offloading narcotics. No vessel
or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location
and limited duration of the security zone. This zone impacts a small
designated area of the San Diego bay for a very limited period.
Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the security
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
establishment of a security zone lasting only 5 hours on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Regulated navigation and limited access areas.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-013 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-013   Security Zone; San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable
waters of San Diego Bay within a 100-yards radius around the military
vessel moored at berth four of the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal located
at 32[deg]41'56.6'' N and 117[deg]9'31.9'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the
security zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Chnnel 16. Those in the security zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. until
noon on December 18, 2019.

    Dated: December 12, 2019.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2019-27353 Filed 12-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3232]
[DOCID:fr20ja10-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-37-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

January 8, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2009, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in
Docket No. CP10-37-000 a prior notice request pursuant to Northern's
blanket authority granted on September 1, 1982, at Docket No. CP82-401-
000 and sections 157.205 and 157.214 of the Commission's regulations
under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to increase its maximum
storage capacity at its Redfield Storage Field in Dallas County, Iowa
from 130.551 Bcf to 133.750 Bcf to provide interruptible storage
service, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs
for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at (402)
398-7103 or Bret Fritch, Senior Regulatory Analyst, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-917 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21485-21487]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69296; File No. SR-NSX-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend its Rule 11.24, Limit Up/Limit Down

April 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on April 3, 2013, National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24(k) regarding routing of
orders under the National Market System Plan established pursuant to
Rule 608 of the Exchange Act, to address extraordinary market
volatility (the ``Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility'' or ``Plan''),\3\ also known as Limit Up/Limit Down. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided
the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under
the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Appendix A to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091
(May 31, 2012) 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the national securities exchanges that list and trade equity securities
and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') have
implemented market-wide measures that are designed to restore investor
confidence in the markets by reducing the potential for excessive
volatility. The measures adopted include pilot plans for stock-by-stock
trading pauses \5\ and related changes to the equities market clearly
erroneous execution rules,\6\ and more stringent equity market maker
quoting requirements.\7\ On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the
Plan, on a pilot basis.\8\ On March 8, 2013, the Commission published
the Exchange's proposed rule change to comply with the Plan, which is
to become operative on April 8, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., NSX Rule 11.20B.
    \6\ See e.g., NSX Rule 11.19.
    \7\ See e.g., NSX Rule 11.8(a)(1)(B)(iv) and (v).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012)
77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (Order approving, on a Pilot Basis, the
National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Activity).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69087 (March 8,
2013), 78 FR 16325 (March 14, 2012) (SR-NSX-2013-09)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to prevent trades in NMS Stocks from occurring
outside of specified Price Bands.\10\ Price Bands consisting of a Lower
Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS Stock are calculated by
the Processors.\11\ The Price Bands are coupled with Trading Pauses to
accommodate more fundamental price moves. All trading centers in NMS
Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, are required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in the
Plan.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on defined terms in the Plan.
    \11\ See Section V(A) of the Plan.
    \12\ The Exchange is a Participant in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, Exchange Rule 11.24, Limit Up-Limit Down, addresses the
treatment of certain orders to prevent executions outside the Price
Bands.\13\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24(k) in order to
explain how the Exchange will route orders under the Plan. Rule
11.24(k) currently states that the Exchange will route orders to an
away market in accordance with Rule 11.15(a)(ii) regardless of whether
the away market is displaying a sell (buy) quote that is above (below)
the Upper (Lower) Price Band. The Exchange now proposes to not route an
order unless an away market is displaying trading interest at or within
the Price Bands. As amended, Rule 11.24(k) will state that the Exchange
will not route an order unless an away market is displaying a sell
(buy) quote that is at or below (above) the Upper (Lower) Price
Band.\14\ The Exchange believes that this provision is reasonably
designed to prevent an execution from occurring outside the Price Bands
in a manner that promotes compliance with the Limit Up-Limit Down and
Trading Pause requirements specified in the Plan. This approach is also
consistent with that of other exchanges, including the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') \15\ and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 9.
    \14\ Under NSX Rule 11.15(a)(iii), unless the terms of the order
direct otherwise, any order not executed in full on the Exchange
which is not eligible for routing away (e.g,, no away market is
displaying a sell (buy) quote that is at or below (above) the Upper
(Lower) Price Band), or which is not executed in full when routed
away, will be ranked in the NSX Book in accordance with the order
priority rules under NSX Rule 11.14 and eligible for execution in
accordance with NSX Rule 11.15.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68876 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10643 (February 14, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-09).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69002 (February 27,
2013), 78 FR 14394 (March 5, 2013) (SR-EDGA-2013-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.\17\ In addition,
the rule furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
\18\ by promoting just and equitable principles of trade, removing
impediments to, and perfecting the mechanisms of, a free and open
national market system while protecting investors and the public
interest. The proposal furthers these causes by ensuring that orders in
NMS Stocks are not routed to other away markets where an execution may
occur outside the Price Bands, and thereby is reasonably designed to
prevent an execution outside the Price Bands in a manner that promotes
compliance with the Limit Up-Limit Down and Trading Pause requirements
specified in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. All national securities
exchanges are required to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to comply with the requirements of the
Plan. Every member of those exchanges, including ETP Holders of the
Exchange, are subject to those procedures and prevented from executing
an order in an NMS Stock outside of the Price Bands prescribed by the
Plan. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does
not 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\22\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiving the operative delay and
designating April 8, 2013 as the operative date of the proposed rule
change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because such waiver would allow the proposed rule change to be
operative on the initial date of Plan operations. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates an
operative date of April 8, 2013.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2013-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2013-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2013-12 and should be
submitted on or before May 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08322 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P