[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28137-28138]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0104]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on April 30, 2020, National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to renew a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0104.
    Specifically, Amtrak seeks to renew the relief previously granted
regarding flammability and smoke emission requirements for passenger
car and locomotive cab materials as outlined in Appendix B of 49 CFR
238.103. Amtrak stated that its current fleet of 205 operating diesel
locomotives is comprised of the Genesis P42-8 model manufactured by
General Electric (GE). These locomotives were manufactured between 1996
and 2002, when the manufacturing and the material selection process
were based on the 49 CFR part 229 regulations. However, due to the
inclusion of all locomotives on passenger trains under the 49 CFR part
238 regulations, some materials in the human-occupied areas have since
become non-compliant under the latest smoke and flame requirements (49
CFR 238.103).
    Amtrak and GE have collectively found alternate manufactures and
materials to eliminate the non-compliant materials from the locomotive
cab. However, due to the small fleet of passenger locomotives compared
with freight locomotives, the cost, and the manufacturing feasibility
of these materials, Amtrak has been unable to obtain alternates for the
components in question. Therefore, Amtrak seeks a continued waiver for
use of these materials in the locomotive cab. Several of these
materials need to be replenished in the locomotive cabs; however, due
to the non-compliance,

Amtrak has not been able to order these items from vendors. Amtrak
listed 13 items in its petition and provided descriptions and analyses
about these items as support. Since the original waiver was granted in
2010, Amtrak has not had any safety-related incidents because of the
grandfathered materials used in the locomotive cabs.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 26, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-10111 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28407-28410]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91961; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Listing Rules Applicable to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies
Whose Business Plan Is To Complete One or More Business Combinations

May 20, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On September 3, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its listing rules to
permit companies whose business plan is to complete one or more
business combinations (``SPACs'' or ``Acquisition Companies'') 15
calendar days following the closing of a business combination to
demonstrate that the SPAC has satisfied the applicable round lot
shareholder requirement. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 22, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89897 (September 16,
2020), 85 FR 59574 (``Notice''). Comments received on the proposal
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-062/srnasdaq2020062.htm. See also, infra,
note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\

On December 16, 2020, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (``OIP)''.\7\ On
February 25, 2021, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change, which superseded the proposed rule change as originally
filed. Amendment No. 1 was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 16, 2021.\8\ On March 18, 2021, the Commission
designated a longer period for Commission action on the proposed rule
change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90340, 85 FR 71704
(November 10, 2020). The Commission designated December 21, 2020, as
the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90682, 85 FR 83113
(December 21, 2020).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91294 (March 10,
2021), 86 FR 14508 (March 16, 2021) (``Notice II''). Comments
received in response to Amendment No. 1 to the proposal are
available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-062/srnasdaq2020062.htm.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91348, 86 FR 15747
(March 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order disapproves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, because, as discussed below, Nasdaq has not met its
burden under the Exchange Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice to
demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and, in particular, the
requirement that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and
to protect investors and the public interest.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    A SPAC is a company with no operations whose business plan is to
complete an initial public offering and then subsequently engage in a
merger or acquisition with one or more unidentified operating companies
within a specific period of time.\11\ Nasdaq listing rules, among other
things, require a SPAC to keep at least 90% of the proceeds from its
initial public offering in an escrow account,\12\ and to complete one
or more business combinations having an aggregate fair market value of
at least 80% of the value of the escrow account within a specified
period of time.\13\ Following each business combination, the combined
company must meet the requirements for initial listing on Nasdaq \14\
including those requiring a minimum number of round lot shareholders
(the ``Shareholder Requirement'').\15\ If the combined company does not
meet all the initial listing requirements following a business
combination, Nasdaq listing rules currently provide that Nasdaq staff
will issue a Staff Delisting Determination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58228 (July 25,
2008), 73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (order approving the predecessor
rule to IM-5101-2).
    \12\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(a).
    \13\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(b).
    \14\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(d). If a shareholder vote on the
business combination is held, public shareholders voting against a
business combination must have the right to convert their shares of
common stock into a pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in
the escrow account (net of taxes payable and amounts distributed to
management for working capital purposes) if the business combination
is approved and consummated. Id. If a shareholder vote on the
business combination is not held, the company must provide all
shareholders with the opportunity to redeem their shares for cash
equal to their pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in the
deposit account (net of taxes payable and amounts distributed to
management for working capital purposes). See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(e).
    \15\ Nasdaq has three listing tiers, each of which require,
among other things, a company to have a minimum number of
shareholders in order to initially list on the Exchange. See Nasdaq
Rule 5315 (f)(1) (on Global Select, an issuer must have at least 550
Total Holders with a minimum average monthly trading volume over the
prior 12 months, 2,200 Total Holders, or 450 Round Lot Holders with
50% of holders holding Unrestricted Securities); Nasdaq Rule
5405(a)(3) (on Global, an issuer must have at least 400 Round Lot
Holders with 50% of holders holding Unrestricted Securities); and
Nasdaq Rule 5505(a)(3) (on Capital, an issuer must have at least 300
Round Lot Holders with at least 50% of holders holding Unrestricted
Securities.
    \16\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, Nasdaq acknowledges that its existing rules
require that, ``following each business combination'' with a SPAC, the
resulting company must satisfy all initial listing requirements. Nasdaq
states, however, that the rule does not provide a timetable for the
company to demonstrate that it satisfies those requirements.
Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to modify the rule to specify if the SPAC
demonstrates that it will satisfy all requirements except the
applicable Shareholder Requirement, then the SPAC will receive 15
calendar days following the closing to demonstrate that it satisfied
the applicable Shareholder Requirement immediately following the
transaction's closing. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to require that a
company relying on this 15-day grace period publicly announce, prior to
the business combination, on a Form 8-K, where required by SEC rules,
or by issuing a press release, that it has not yet demonstrated
compliance with the Shareholder Requirement and is subject to delisting
if it cannot do so within the requisite time frame.\17\ Finally, Nasdaq
proposes to halt trading in the securities if the company fails to make
this public announcement.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice II of Amendment No. 1, supra note 8.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq states that it ordinarily determines compliance with the
Shareholder Requirement at the time of a business combination by
reviewing a company's public disclosures and information provided by
the company about the transaction.\19\ According to Nasdaq, if it
cannot determine compliance using public information, it will typically
request the company to provide additional information such as
registered shareholder lists from the company's transfer agent, data
from Cede & Co. about shares held in street name, or data from broker-
dealers and third parties that distribute information such as proxy
materials for the broker-dealers. If the company can provide
information demonstrating compliance before the business combination
closes, Nasdaq states that no further information would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Nasdaq states, for example, that the merger agreement may
result in the Acquisition Company issuing a round lot of shares to
more than 300 holders of the target of the business combination at
closing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Nasdaq states that it has observed that in some cases it
can be difficult for a company to obtain evidence demonstrating the
number of shareholders that it has or will have following a business
combination. Nasdaq states that shareholders in a SPAC may redeem or
tender their shares until just before the time of the business
combination, and the SPAC may not know how many shareholders will
choose to redeem until very close to the consummation of the business
combination.\20\ Nasdaq states that this could impact its ability to
determine compliance before the business combination closes, in cases
where the number of round lot shareholders is close to the applicable
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange notes that SPACs are unlike other newly
listing companies which do not face redemptions and are not already
listed and trading at the time they must demonstrate compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq states that under its proposal the SPAC must still
demonstrate that it satisfied the round lot shareholder requirement
immediately following the business combination, and that the proposal
merely would give the SPAC 15 calendar days to provide evidence that it
had met the Shareholder Requirement. Nasdaq also states that it
believes that the proposed public disclosure requirement will help
provide transparency to investors about the status of the company
during the additional time period it has to evidence

compliance with the Shareholder Requirement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice II of Amendment No. 1, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that the proposal ``balances the burden placed on
the Acquisition Company to obtain accurate shareholder information for
the new entity and the need to ensure that a company that does not
satisfy the initial listing requirements following a business
combination enters the delisting process promptly.'' \22\ Nasdaq states
that if the company does not evidence compliance within the proposed
time period, Nasdaq staff would issue a Staff Delisting Determination,
which the company could then appeal to an independent hearings
panel.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange also states that shareholders of the SPAC
would be harmed if Nasdaq issued a delisting determination at a time
when the company did, in fact, satisfy all initial listing
requirements but could not yet provide proof.
    \23\ The Exchange has also proposed to eliminate a duplicative
paragraph and add a new subsection enumeration to its existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters opposing the proposal
from the Council of Institutional Investors.\24\ The commenter stated
that additional information from Nasdaq in response to the OIP would be
helpful in determining whether the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act, and questioned whether a loosening of SPAC
listing standards is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.\25\ More broadly, the commenter referenced a
recent study that it believes finds that SPACs and their officers and
directors face limited liability to investors for material
misstatements in, or omissions from, their registration statements, and
that SPAC structures generally create losses for long-term
investors.\26\ Finally, the commenter referenced the study's suggestion
that the regulatory treatment for SPACs should be generally equivalent
to that for direct listings and questioned whether Nasdaq's proposal
would lead to a pro-SPAC bias.\27\ The Exchange responded to CII Letter
I that the proposal would not loosen SPAC listing standards because
under its proposal SPACs would still have to comply with the
Shareholder Requirement at the time of the business combination and
would just be provided an additional 15 days after completing their
business combination to demonstrate such compliance.\28\ The Exchange
further stated that its proposal will provide transparency and does not
pose any additional risk to the protection of shareholders.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Letter from Jeffrey P. Mahoney, General Counsel,
Council of Institutional Investors (January 7, 2021) (``CII Letter
I''); Letter from Jeffrey P. Mahoney, General Counsel, Council of
Institutional Investors (March 25, 2021) (``CII Letter II'').
    \25\ See CII Letter I, supra note 24.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ See CII Letter II, supra note 24.
    \28\ See Letter from Arnold Golub, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, (February 25, 2021) (``Nasdaq Letter'').
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission must consider whether Nasdaq's proposal is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, including
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which requires, in relevant part,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed ``to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices'' and ``to
protect investors and the public interest.'' \30\ Under the
Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a
proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules
and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory
organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), the Commission must disapprove a
proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it
does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Exchange Act. Exchange Act Section
6(b)(5) states that an exchange shall not be registered as a
national securities exchange unless the Commission determines that
``[t]he rules of the exchange are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers,
or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by
this title matters not related to the purposes of this title or the
administration of the exchange.'' 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \31\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding,\32\ and any failure of an
SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having
a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\33\ Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's
representations in a proposed rule change is not sufficient to justify
Commission approval of a proposed rule change.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 447 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of the
minimum number of holders and other similar requirements stating that
such listing standards help ensure that exchange listed securities have
sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide
the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly
markets.\35\ The Shareholder Requirement also helps to ensure that
trading in exchange-listed securities is not susceptible to
manipulation.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Commission considers distribution standards, including
minimum number of holders and number of shares outstanding
requirements, to be important means of promoting fair and orderly
markets. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57785 (May
6, 2008), 73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-17) (stating that
the distribution standards, which includes exchange holder
requirements ``. . . should help to ensure that the [Acquisition
Companies'] securities have sufficient public float, investor base,
and liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets''); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 86117 (June 14, 2019), 84 FR 28879 (June
20, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-46) (disapproving a proposal to reduce the
minimum number of public holders continued listing requirement
applicable to Acquisition Companies from 300 to 100).
    \36\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91236
(March 2, 2021), 86 FR 13414 (March 8, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-56)
and 90819 (December 29, 2020), 86 FR 332 (January 5, 2021) (SR-
CboeBZX-2020-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Nasdaq is proposing to: (1) Allow a SPAC 15
calendar days following the closing of a business combination to
demonstrate that it satisfied the applicable Shareholder Requirement
immediately following the transaction's closing, and (2) require a SPAC
relying on the additional 15 day period to publicly announce, prior to
the listing of the combined company, that it has not demonstrated
compliance with the Shareholder Requirement and is subject to delisting
if it cannot do so within the requisite time period. Nasdaq states that
it can be difficult for a SPAC to obtain evidence demonstrating the
number of holders the SPAC will have following its business combination
because SPAC shareholders have the right to redeem or tender their
shares until just before the time of such business combination.
Further, Nasdaq states that, given the uncertainty around the number of
redemptions and ongoing trading through the closing of the business
combination, it may not be possible for

the SPAC to definitively establish that it will satisfy the Shareholder
Requirement before completing the combination. In addition, Nasdaq
states that, while other companies cannot become listed until they
demonstrate compliance with the Shareholder Requirement, SPACs
completing business combinations are already listed and, without more
time, would be the only type of company to face immediate delisting as
a result of these difficulties. Finally, Nasdaq states that 21 of the
49 SPAC business combinations processed by Nasdaq during 2019 and 2020
needed additional time to demonstrate compliance with the Shareholder
Requirement.
    Nasdaq emphasizes that, under its proposal, the SPAC must still
demonstrate that it satisfied the applicable Shareholder Requirement
immediately following the business combination, and is simply being
provided 15 calendar days to provide evidence that it did. However,
Nasdaq has not explained the extent to which the 21 SPACs that needed
additional time to demonstrate compliance in 2019 and 2020 actually
were in compliance with the shareholder requirement immediately
following the closing of the business combination, or instead were not
in compliance and needed additional time to acquire the requisite
number of shareholders. If the former, Nasdaq has not explained why,
like newly-listed companies in advance of their public offerings, the
SPAC could not provide preliminary evidence of its compliance with the
Shareholder Requirement in advance of the business combination, or why
last minute shareholder redemptions would impact that evidence. If the
latter, then the SPACs in fact were not in compliance with the
Shareholder Requirement at the time of the business combination, and do
not provide support for Nasdaq's proposal, which is premised on the
assumption that such SPACs simply needed additional time to evidence
their compliance.
    More broadly, Nasdaq does not explain how its proposal addresses
the regulatory risks to fair and orderly markets, investor protection
and the public interest, and the manipulation concerns if companies
initially list, and can continue to trade, on the Exchange without
meeting the Shareholder Requirement. Notably, and as discussed in the
OIP, Nasdaq has not addressed the risk that, by waiting for SPACs to
demonstrate compliance with the Shareholder Requirement until after the
closing of the business combination, non-compliant companies could be
listed on the Exchange despite not meeting initial listing standards,
and have their securities continue to trade until the delisting process
has been completed. In such circumstances, a SPAC could complete a
business combination and very soon thereafter be subject to delisting
proceedings, and during such time its securities may continue to trade
with a number of holders that is substantially less than the required
minimum raising concerns about the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets and investor protection.
    While Nasdaq has amended its proposal to require certain public
disclosure, the Commission does not believe the disclosure required by
the proposed rule adequately addresses the potential risks associated
with trading during a time period in which the minimum number of round
lot shareholders may not be present, nor has Nasdaq explained why
subjecting shareholders to this potential risk is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, and the other
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Commission notes that the commenter continued to oppose
the proposal after Nasdaq amended it to require this public
disclosure. See CII Letter II, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the
``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . .
is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule
change.'' \38\ The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose
and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding, and any failure of an SRO
to provide this information may result in the Commission not having a
sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\39\ For the reasons discussed above, the Commission
concludes that, because Nasdaq has not demonstrated that its proposal
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
or to protect investors and the public interest, Nasdaq has not met its
burden to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in
particular Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.\40\ For this reason,
the Commission must disapprove the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ In disapproving this proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\41\ that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange, and in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, that proposed rule change SR-Nasdaq-2020-062 is
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11099 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51348-51351]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-32-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; FERC-917 & FERC-
918; Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collections,
FERC-917 (Electric Transmission Facilities) and FERC-918 (Standards for
Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities),
which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for a review of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 15,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-917 and/or FERC-918) to OMB
through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control
Number (1902-0233) in the subject line of your comments. Comments
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-32-000)
by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-917, Electric Transmission Facilities and FERC-918,
Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public
Utilities.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0233.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-917 and FERC-918
information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting
requirements.
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities transmission providers.
    Abstract: On February 17, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 890
\1\ to address and remedy opportunities for undue discrimination under
the pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) adopted in 1996 by
Order No. 888.\2\ Through Order No. 890, the Commission:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order No. 890, Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, 18 FERC ] 31,096 (2007), 72 FR
12,266 (2007).
    \2\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar.
14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No.
888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom.
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Adopted pro forma OATT provisions necessary to keep imbalance
charges closely related to incremental costs.
    2. Increased nondiscriminatory access to the grid by requiring
public utilities, working through the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), to develop consistent methodologies for
available transfer capability (ATC) calculation and to publish those
methodologies to increase transparency.
    3. Required an open, transparent, and coordinated transmission
planning process thereby increasing the ability of customers to access
new generating resources and promote efficient utilization of
transmission.
    4. Gave the right to customers to request from transmission
providers, studies addressing congestion and/or integration of new
resource loads in areas of the transmission system where they have
encountered transmission problems due to congestion or where they
believe upgrades and other investments may be necessary to reduce
congestion and to integrate new resources.
    5. Required both the transmission provider's merchant function and
network customers to include a statement with each application for
network service or to designate a new network resource that attests,
for each network resource identified, that the transmission customer
owns or has committed to purchase the designated network resource and
the designated network resource comports with the requirements for
designated network resources. The network customer includes this
attestation in the customer's comment section of the request when it
confirms the request on the Open Access Same-Time Information System
(OASIS).
    6. Required with regard to capacity reassignment that: (a) All
sales or assignments of capacity be conducted through or otherwise
posted on the transmission provider's OASIS on or before the date the
reassigned service

commences; (b) assignees of transmission capacity execute a service
agreement prior to the date on which the reassigned service commences;
and (c) transmission providers aggregate and summarize in an electric
quarterly report the data contained in these service agreements.
    7. Adopted an operational penalties annual filing that provides
information regarding the penalty revenue the transmission provider has
received and distributed.
    8. Required creditworthiness information to be included in a
transmission provider's OATT. Attachment L must specify the qualitative
and quantitative criteria that the transmission provider uses to
determine the level of secured and unsecured credit required.
    The Commission required a NERC/NAESB \3\ team to draft and review
Order No. 890 reliability standards and business practices. The team
was to solicit comment from each utility on developed standards and
practices and utilities were to implement each, after Commission
approval. Public utilities, working through NERC, were to revise
reliability standards to require the exchange of data and coordination
among transmission providers and, working through NAESB, were to
develop complementary business practices. Required OASIS postings
included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NAESB is the North American Energy Standards Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Explanations for changes in ATC values;
    2. Capacity benefit margin (CBM) reevaluations and quarterly
postings;
    3. OASIS metrics and accepted/denied requests;
    4. Planning redispatch offers and reliability redispatch data;
    5. Curtailment data;
    6. Planning and system impact studies;
    7. Metrics for system impact studies; and
    8. All rules.
    Incorporating the Order No. 890 standards into the Commission's
regulations benefits wholesale electric customers by streamlining
utility business practices, transactional processes, and OASIS
procedures, and by adopting a formal ongoing process for reviewing and
upgrading the Commission's OASIS standards and other electric industry
business practices. These practices and procedures benefit from the
implementation of generic industry standards.
    The Commission's Order No. 890 regulations can be found in 18 CFR
35.28 (pro forma tariff requirements), and 37.6 and 37.7 (OASIS
requirements). 18 CFR 35.28(b) states: ``Audit data must remain
available for download on the OASIS for 90 days, except ATC/TTC
postings that must remain available for download on the OASIS for 20
days. The audit data are to be retained and made available upon request
for download for five years from the date when they are first posted in
the same electronic form as used when they originally were posted on
the OASIS.''
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collections as follows.
Please note, the zeroes for respondents and responses are based on
having no filings of this type over the past four years. In addition,
we estimate no filings during the next three years. The requirements
remain in the regulations and are included as part of OMB Control
Number 1902-0233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR part 1320.

                          FERC-917 (Electric Transmission Facilities) and FERC-918 (Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annual number                                                                                Average annual
                                            Number of     of responses   Annual number of    Average annual burden hrs. & cost \5\   Total average annual burden hours & total      cost per
                                           respondents   per respondent      responses                 per response ($)                         annual cost \6\ ($)              respondent ($)
                                                    (1)             (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)  (4).....................................  (3) * (4) = (5)..........................   (5) / (1) = (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                18 CFR 35.28 (FERC-917)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conforming tariff changes (Reporting)..              20               1                20  20 hrs.; $1,460.00......................  400 hrs.; $29,200.00.....................         $1,460.00
Revision of Imbalance Charges                        21               1                21  25 hrs.; $1,825.00......................  525 hrs.; $38,325.00.....................          1,825.00
 (Reporting).
ATC revisions (Reporting)..............              11               1                11  20 hrs.; $1,460.00......................  220 hrs.; $16,060.00.....................          1,460.00
Planning (Attachment K) (Reporting) \7\             162               1               162  100 hrs., $7,300.00.....................  16,200 hrs., $1,182,600.00...............          7,300.00
Congestion studies (Reporting).........             162               1               162  300 hrs., $21,900.00....................  48,600 hrs., $3,547,800.00...............         21,900.00
Attestation of network resource                     162               1               162  1 hr., $73.00...........................  162 hrs., $11,826.00.....................             73.00
 commitment (Reporting).
Capacity reassignment (Reporting)......             162               1               162  100 hrs., $7,300.00.....................  16,200 hrs., $1,182,600.00...............          7,300.00
Operational Penalty annual filing                   162               1               162  10 hrs., $358.30........................  1,620 hrs., $58,044.60...................            358.30
 (Record Keeping) \8\.
Creditworthiness--include criteria in                 0               0                 0  0.......................................  0........................................                 0
 the tariff (Reporting) \9\.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-917, Sub-Total of Record        ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  1,620 hrs., $58,044.60...................  ................
     Keeping Requirements.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-917, Sub-Total of Reporting     ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  82,307 hrs., $6,008,411.00...............  ................
     Requirements.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-917--Sub Total of Reporting     ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  83,927 hrs., $6,066,455.60...............  ................
     and Recordkeeping Requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                18 CFR 37.6 & 37.7 (FERC-918)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation by each utility \9\                    0               0                 0  0.......................................  0........................................                 0
 (Reporting) \10\.
NERC/NAESB Team to develop \9\                        0               0                 0  0.......................................  0........................................                 0
 (Reporting).
Review and comment by utility \9\                     0               0                 0  0.......................................  0........................................                 0
 (Reporting).
Mandatory data exchanges (Reporting)...             162               1               162  80 hrs., $5,840.00......................  12,960 hrs., $946,080.00.................          5,840.00
Explanation of change of ATC values                 162               1               162  100 hrs., $7,300.00.....................  16,200 hrs., $1,182,600.00...............          7,300.00
 (Reporting).
Reevaluate CBM and post quarterly                   162               1               162  20 hrs., $716.60........................  3,240 hrs., $116,089.20..................            716.60
 (Record Keeping).
Post OASIS metrics; requests accepted/              162               1               162  90 hrs., $6,570.00......................  14,580 hrs., $1,064,340.00...............          6,570.00
 denied (Reporting).
Post planning redispatch offers and                 162               1               162  20 hrs., $716.60........................  3,240 hrs., $116,089.20..................            716.60
 reliability redispatch data (Record
 Keeping).
Post curtailment data (Reporting)......             162               1               162  1 hr., $73.00...........................  162 hrs., $11,826.00.....................             73.00
Post Planning and System Impact Studies             162               1               162  5 hrs., $365.00.........................  810 hrs., $59,130.00.....................            365.00
 (Reporting).
Posting of metrics for System Impact                162               1               162  100 hrs., $7,300.00.....................  16,200 hrs., $1,182,600.00...............          7,300.00
 Studies (Reporting).
Post all rules to OASIS (Record                     162               1               162  5 hrs., $179.15.........................  810 hrs., $29,022.30.....................            179.15
 Keeping).
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-918, Sub-Total of Record        ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  7,290 hrs., $261,200.70..................  ................
     Keeping Requirements.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-918 Sub-Total of Reporting      ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  60,912 hrs., $4,446,576.00...............  ................
     Requirements.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-918--Sub Total of Reporting     ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  68,202 hrs., $4,707,776.70...............  ................
     and Recordkeeping Requirements.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FERC-917 and FERC-918          ..............  ..............  ................  ........................................  152,129 hrs., $10,774,232.30.............  ................
     (Reporting and Recordkeeping
     Requirements).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in
this section is based on the salary figures for March 2021 posted by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector and benefits
based on BLS report; issued June 17, 2021 Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation Summary (available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly rates are displayed below:
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $142.25
    Management Analyst (Occupation Code: 13-1111): $68.39
    Office and Administrative Support (Occupation Code: 43-000):
$44.47
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $72.15
    Information Security Analyst (Occupation Code: 15-1122): $73.57
    File Clerk (Occupation Code: 43-4071): $35.83
    The skill sets are assumed to contribute equally, so the hourly
cost is an average [($142.25 + $68.39 + $44.47 + $72.15 + $73.57 +
35.83) / 6 = $72.78]. The figure is rounded to $73.00 per hour.
    \6\ The last renewal of FERC-917/918 (ICR Ref. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>-
002) included a $7,400,000 cost for off-site storage facility for
recordkeeping. This cost was not related to burden hours, rather an
annual estimate of the fees related to offsite storage. This cost
has been removed as all recordkeeping is retained electronically per
18 CFR 37.7(b), which states: ``Audit data must remain available for
download on the OASIS for 90 days, except ATC/TTC postings that must
remain available for download on the OASIS for 20 days. The audit
data are to be retained and made available upon request for download
for five years from the date when they are first posted in the same
electronic form as used when they originally were posted on the
OASIS.''
    \7\ The increase in the number of responses from 134 (from OMB's
currently approved inventory for FERC-917/918) to 162 is based on
the increased number of companies subject to compliance and changes
in the last few years as identified by the NERC registry.
    \8\ While we are using the average hourly rate for the majority
of the calculations, all recordkeeping tasks are solely completed by
a file clerk at $35.83/hour.
    \9\ As noted, the zeroes for respondents and responses in the
table are based on having no filings of this type over the past four
years.
    \10\ ATC-related standards include: Implementation by each
utility (Reporting), NERC/NAESB Team to develop (Reporting), and
Review and comment by utility (Reporting).

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

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 9, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19903 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8611-8612]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5737-007]

Santa Clara Valley Water District; Notice of Availability of
Supplemental Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Santa Clara
Valley Water District for the Anderson Dam Project No. 5737, to draw
down the Anderson Reservoir, construct and operate a new low-level
outlet tunnel, and implement downstream measures. Anderson Dam is
located on Coyote Creek in Santa Clara County, California.
    A supplemental environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared as
part of Commission staff's review of the proposal.\1\ The supplemental
EA includes additional analysis to supplement staff's October 1, 2020
EA for the reservoir drawdown. The supplemental EA contains Commission
staff's analysis of the probable environmental effects of the proposed
action and concludes that approval of the proposal, with appropriate
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal

action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 16, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
issued a final rule, Update to the Regulations Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(Final Rule, 85 FR 43,304), which was effective as of September 14,
2020; however, the NEPA review of this project was in process at
that time and was prepared pursuant to CEQ's 1978 NEPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-5737) in the docket number field to access the document. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 2, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02498 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 16221]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4298-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

South Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4298-DR), dated February 1, 2017,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of February 1, 2017.

    The Lake Traverse Reservation for Public Assistance.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-06431 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 7576]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0059]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0004; Application for
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0004; FEMA Form
086-0-30 (currently FEMA Form 81-64), Application for Participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
abstracted information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0004.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-30 (currently FEMA Form
81-64), Application for Participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
    Abstract: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides
flood insurance to the communities that apply for participation and
make a commitment to adopt and enforce land use control measures that
are to protect development from future flood damages. The application
form will enable FEMA to continue to rapidly process new community
applications and to thereby more quickly provide flood insurance
protection to the residents in the communities.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 237.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: FEMA Form 086-0-30, 4
hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 948 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There is no capital, start-up, operation or
maintenance cost associated with this collection.

    Dated: February 4, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-3015 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36863-36865]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16184]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0393; FRL-9997-60-Region 9]

Partial Approval, Partial Disapproval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; California; Control of
Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111(d) plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to implement the EPA's Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Emission Guidelines). This state
plan submittal pertains to the regulation of landfill gas and its
components from existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. We are
partially approving the state plan because it meets many of the
requirements of the Emission Guidelines; however, we are partially
disapproving the state plan because it does not fully address certain
provisions of the Emission Guidelines.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019--0393 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 29, 2016, the EPA finalized Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf, pursuant to section 111(d) of the CAA.\1\ Section 111(d) of
the CAA requires the EPA to establish a procedure for a state to submit
a plan to the EPA which (A) establishes standards of performance for
any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality
criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list
published under section 108(a) or emitted from a source category which
is regulated under section 112 but (ii) to which a standard of
performance under section 111 would apply if such existing source were
a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement
of such standards of performance. The EPA has established requirements
for state plan submittals in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and established
Emission Guidelines for the control of designated pollutants \2\ from
certain MSW landfills. State submittals under CAA section 111(d) must
be consistent with the relevant emission guidelines, in this instance
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B, and part 62, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 59276 (August 29, 2016).
    \2\ Designated pollutant means any air pollutant, the emissions
of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary
sources, but for which air quality criteria have not been issued and
that is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or
section 112(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 40 CFR 60.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 30, 2017, CARB submitted to the EPA a section 111(d) plan
for existing MSW landfills, the ``California State Plan for Compliance
with the Federal Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills'' (California plan). The plan was submitted in response to
the August 29, 2016 promulgation of Federal emission guidelines
requirements for MSW landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

II. Summary of the Plan and EPA Analysis

    The EPA has reviewed the California plan in the context of the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and part 62, subpart
A. In this action, the EPA is proposing to partially approve the
California plan as meeting the above-cited requirements as they pertain
to landfill gas, and to partially disapprove the California plan
because it omits the following operational, monitoring, recordkeeping
and corrective action requirements relative to temperature and/or
oxygen or nitrogen: 40 CFR 60.34f(c), 60.36f(a)(5), 60.37f(a)(2) and
(3), 60.38f(k), and 60.39f(e)(2) and (5).
    The primary mechanism selected by CARB to implement the emission
guidelines for MSW landfills under state jurisdiction is through a
demonstration that its MSW landfill regulations, ``Methane Emissions
from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' are no less stringent than 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf.\3\ The California plan will be federally
applicable to MSW landfills in California upon the EPA's partial
approval of the plan by final rulemaking. The EPA intends to address
the aspects of the California plan underlying our proposed partial
disapproval in a subsequent rulemaking when we promulgate a Federal
plan to implement subpart Cf.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ California's MSW landfill regulations are codified at title
17 California Code of Regulations (CCR) CCR 95460-95476.
    \4\ The EPA is required to promulgate regulations setting forth
a Federal plan on or before November 6, 2019. State of California v.
EPA, No. 4:18-cv-03237 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federally regulated pollutant under subpart Cf is MSW landfill
emissions. While the stated purpose of California's MSW regulations is
to ``reduce methane from [MSW] landfills pursuant to the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008,'' \5\ the California plan
demonstrates that the control of methane simultaneously controls
landfill gas because ``the control system does not distinguish the
compounds within the landfill gas.'' \6\ Also, with this proposed
partial approval and partial disapproval, the EPA's approval of the
California plan is limited to those landfills that meet the criteria
established in subpart Cf.\7\ A detailed explanation of the rationale
behind this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval is
available in the EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CCR 95460.
    \6\ California plan at 7.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.27, the EPA is proposing to partially approve
and partially disapprove the California plan for MSW landfills
submitted pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart F, to reflect this
action. In addition, if the EPA finalizes this action as proposed, we
intend to subsequently take action to update 40 CFR part 62, subpart F,
upon promulgation of the Federal plan to identify the specific
provisions corresponding to 40 CFR 60.34f(c), 60.36f(a)(5),
60.37f(a)(2) and (3), 60.38f(k), and 60.39f(e)(2) and (5) that MSW
landfills in California will have to implement (in addition to the
requirements of the state plan we are proposing to take action on
today). Finally, the EPA's approval of the California plan is limited
to those landfills that meet the criteria established in subpart Cf.
This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval is based on the
rationale discussed above and in the EPA's TSD associated with this
action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference of the
California plan. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA
is proposing to incorporate by reference CARB rules regarding MSW
landfills discussed in section II of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0393, and at
the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the section 111(d) plan is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the
EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction,
and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern

environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe
may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Landfills, Methane, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 23, 2019
Michael B. Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-16184 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 72431-72432]
[DOCID:fr20de07-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56958; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3
Thereto Relating to Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists)

December 13, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On November 9, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 104 to allow the
specialist's algorithm systems to generate trading messages that
provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill
an order at a sweep price. The Exchange filed and withdrew Amendment
No. 1 to the proposal on October 24, 2007 and October 29, 2007,
respectively. The Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 on October 29,
2007 and November 5, 2007, respectively. The proposed rule change was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on November 13,
2007.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56747 (November 5,
2007), 72 FR 63946 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Currently, Rule 104(b)(i)(F) permits the specialist proprietary
algorithm (``Specialist Algorithm'') to generate a trading message to
provide supplemental specialist volume at the Exchange published best
bid or offer (``BBO''). This trading message enables specialists,
through the use of their algorithms, to provide more volume where,
technically, there is no other interest available to trade with the
customer order.
    The Exchange seeks to further provide its customers with additional
opportunities for a better priced execution by amending Rule
104(b)(i)(F) to allow the specialist to also partially or completely
fill an order beyond the Exchange published best bid or offer at a
sweep price.\4\ The Specialist Algorithm will generate this trading
message in reaction to one order at a time and only as that order is
entering Exchange systems. Additionally, this trading message will only
be able to interact with the targeted order to add volume at one place,
either at the Exchange best bid or offer or at a particular sweep
price. In other words, the specialist will not have two opportunities
to provide supplemental specialist volume to the incoming order at the
Exchange best bid or offer and also at a particular price point should
the order sweep the Display Book. There will be no change with respect
to priority and parity. The specialist's algorithm will make a
determination about where and how much supplemental specialist volume
to provide based on the state of the book information when the order is
received by Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The instant filing was initially filed with the Commission
on November 9, 2006. In the notice, the Exchange stated that the
proposed functionality inadvertently became operational in Exchange
systems without Commission approval on or about January 24, 2007.
The proposed rule change, as amended, is intended to codify the
current Exchange system functionality. See Notice, supra note 3, at
note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specialist would not be required to buy the full size remaining
of the sell order at the particular sweep price. The Exchange states
that there is no disadvantage to the customer in allowing the
specialists to partially fill an order at a particular sweep price
especially when applicable rules only allow the supplemental specialist
volume to interact with the order when no other interest exists.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(5) of the

Act \5\ which requires an Exchange to have rules that are designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\6\ Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal
should benefit investors and the public interest by enabling customers
to receive better priced executions than they otherwise would have
received. Additionally, when specialists choose, through their
algorithms, to partially or completely fill orders beyond the Exchange
BBO, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its
systems would not permit a trading message to provide supplemental
specialist volume that would trade-through a protected quotation in
violation of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Act.\7\ The
Commission also notes that the supplemental specialist volume would
yield to displayed and reserve interest (i.e., customer limit orders,
Floor broker agency interest and specialist interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2006-99), as amended, is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24725 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P