[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48166-48169]
[DOCID:fr18au08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0612; FRL-8705-7]

Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo Solano
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the Yolo Solano
Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the District's analysis of
whether its rules meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
We are proposing to disapprove the analysis under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0612, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What document did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this document?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted RACT SIP analysis?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis?

    B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the document proposed for disapproval with the date
that it was adopted and submitted by the California Air Resources
Board.

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                               Document                    Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD....................................  Reasonably Available Control                09/13/06        01/31/07
                                             Technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This submittal became complete by operation of law on July 31,
2007.

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous version of this document in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted RACT SIP analysis?

    VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level ozone and smog,
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and
NOX emissions. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 require areas that
are designated as moderate or above for ozone non-attainment to adopt
RACT. The YSAQMD is subject to this requirement as it is designated as
a serious ozone non-attainment area under the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone
(40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT
level controls for sources covered by a Control Technique Guidelines
(CTG) document and for any major non-CTG source.
    Section IV.G. of EPA's final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements. It
states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, States implementing
the 8-hour ozone standard generally must assure that RACT is met,
either through a certification that previously required RACT controls
represent RACT for 8-hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT
determination. The submitted document provides YSAQMD's analysis of
their RACT rules for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's technical
support document (TSD) has more information about YSAQMD's RACT
analysis.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis?

    The rules and guidance documents that we use to evaluate whether
the analysis fulfills RACT include the following:
    1. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
    2. Letter from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers''.
    3. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57
FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
    4. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding
of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
    5. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA's current CTGs, ACTs, and
other documents which may help to establish RACT.

B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria?

    YSAQMD's staff report included a table (Table A) listing all CTG
source categories and matching those CTG categories with the
corresponding District rule which implements RACT. Given its
designation as a serious ozone non-attainment area, YSAQMD was also
required to analyze RACT for all sources that emit or have the
potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of NOX or VOCs
(CAA 182(c)). YSAQMD staff searched for all sources that would be
subject to a CTG and for sources that emitted or have the potential to
emit at least 25 tpy of VOC or NOX. YSAQMD identified three
sources, Agrium U.S., Inc, Premier Industries (now Insulfoam), and
Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., as major sources not subject to a District
RACT rule.
    YSAQMD points out that under Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the
District can submit a plan revision based on a commitment to adopt
specific enforceable measures up to one year after the date of approval
of the plan revision. YSAQMD generally committed to submitting the
required RACT rules for these sources within one year of approval of
the plan revision. Under CAA Section 110(k)(4), however, EPA may
approve a plan revision only where the State commits to adopt
``specific enforceable measures by a date certain'', not later than one
year after the approval of the plan revision. YSAQMD's generalized
commitment to submit RACT rules within a year for the sources and
source categories that are currently not subject to RACT rules fails to
provide the ``specific enforceable measures by a date certain''
required by CAA Section 110(k)(4). Accordingly, EPA concludes it is not
appropriate to grant a conditional approval of the District's RACT
certification.
    The RACT certification provisions which do not meet the evaluation
criteria are summarized in the next section and discussed further in
the TSD.
    YSAQMD's staff report also includes a negative declaration listing
13 CTG categories for which there are no sources in the District
subject to the CTGs and no District rules covering those categories.
These categories are provided in Table 2.

                                         Table 2--Negative Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CTG source category                                     CTG reference document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace..............................................  EPA-453/R-97-004--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
                                                          Operations.

Ships..................................................  61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair.
Metal Coil Container and Closure.......................  EPA-450/2-77-008--Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                                          Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.
Magnetic Wire..........................................  EPA-450/2-77-033--Surface Coating of Insulation of
                                                          Magnet Wire.
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, Equipment Leaks  EPA-450/2-83-007--Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
                                                          Gasoline Processing Plants.
Refineries.............................................  EPA-450/2-77-025--Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                                          Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds.
                                                         EPA-450/2-78-036--VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
                                                          Equipment.
Paper and Fabric.......................................  EPA-450/2-77-008--Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                                          Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.
Dry Cleaning...........................................  EPA-450/3-82-009--Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Rubber Tires...........................................  EPA-450/2-78-030--Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
                                                          Tires.
Large Appliances, Surface Coating......................  EPA-450/2-77-034--Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
Wood Coating...........................................  EPA-450/2-78-032--Factory Surface of Flat Wood
                                                          Paneling.
Synthetic Organic Chemical.............................  Possible error--YSAQMD listed the polymer/Resin CTG
                                                          under this category.
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-006--Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
                                                          Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                                          Equipment.
Polyester Resin........................................
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-006--Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
                                                          Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                                          Equipment.
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-008--Manufacture of High-Density
                                                          Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the deficiencies?

    The following deficiencies prevent full approval of YSAQMD's RACT
certification.
    1. YSAQMD identified three major non-CTG sources in the District
that are not covered by RACT rules or SIP approved permits. Such rules
or permits should be submitted to EPA for approval.
    2. YSAQMD's pharmaceutical manufacturing rule may be less stringent
than the CTG. Rule 2.35 should be revised and submitted to EPA for
approval.
    3. On May 14, 2008, YSAQMD amended the solvent cleaning provisions
in several rules to address RACT requirements. These rules need to be
submitted to, and approved by, EPA.
    4. YSAQMD should submit a negative declaration for the Wood
Furniture CTG or submit Rule 2.39 for SIP approval.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis

    The TSD describes additional revisions that do not affect EPA's
current action but are recommended to strengthen the RACT analysis.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a
disapproval of the submitted YSAQMD RACT SIP analysis. If finalized,
sanctions would be imposed unless EPA approves a revised RACT SIP
analysis and the required rules that correct the deficiencies discussed
above within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would be
imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.30-52.32. A final
disapproval would also trigger the 2 year clock for the federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c)(1).
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP disapproval actions under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply disapproves for inclusion into the SIP
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new requirements, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
disapprove a pre-existing analysis under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely disapproves a state analysis, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule
disapproval does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule disapproval.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
disapproval from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it
disapproves a state analysis.

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

    This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-19073 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 245

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0019, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC91

Certification of Dispatchers

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 31, 2023, FRA published an NPRM proposing to require
railroads to develop written programs for certifying individuals who
work as dispatchers on their networks and to submit those written
certification programs to FRA for approval prior to implementation. By
this notice, FRA is extending the NPRM's comment period by 30 days.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM, published May 31, 2023, at 88
FR 35574, scheduled to close on July 31, 2023, is extended until August
30, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2022-0019, Notice No.
1, may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and
following the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AC91). Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis Dolan, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Dispatch Operating Practices, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected]; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney
Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a June 16, 2023, petition, the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) requested a 60-
day extension of the NPRM's comment period.\1\ ASLRRA stated it needs
additional time to thoroughly obtain and review feedback from its
member railroads and provide FRA with data for the NPRM's regulatory
flexibility analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 35574 (May 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment period for this NPRM is scheduled to close on July 31,
2023. As FRA is partially granting ASLRRA's request, the comment period
is now extended to August 30, 2023, which is a total of 30 days.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for
alternate submission instructions.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20162, 21301, 21304, 21311;
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 CFR 1.89; and Pub. L. 110-432, sec. 402, 122
Stat. 4884.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-14178 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41990-41991]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0048]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations, this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated April 7, 2013, the Massachusetts Central Railroad
Corporation (MCER) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4). FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0048.
    In its petition, MCER seeks relief from 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)
which, in part, requires a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty
after initiating an on-duty period, each day, for 6 consecutive days.
Specifically, MCER seeks a waiver to allow a train employee to initiate
an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days followed by 24 hours off duty.
In support of its request, MCER submitted documents demonstrating
employee support and a description of employee work schedules.
    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
Avenue 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 party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, 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:
     Web site: 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 Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 26, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to 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 comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-16676 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46093-46094]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16578]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0353; FRL-10013-06-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an

information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Stationary Spark
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (EPA ICR Number 2227.06, OMB
Control Number 2060-0610), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through September 30, 2020. Public comments were previously requested,
via the Federal Register, on May 6, 2019 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0353, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ) were proposed on June 12, 2006; promulgated on January
18, 2008; and most-recently amended on February 27, 2014. These
regulations apply to existing and new manufacturers, owners, and
operators of stationary spark ignition (SI) internal combustion engines
(ICE) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
either on or after the dates specified at 40 CFR 60.4230(a)(1)-(6). New
facilities include those that commenced construction, modification or
reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, owners, and operators
of stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines (SI ICE).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19,329 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 36,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,860,000 (per year), which includes
$2,570,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes or
changes in regulatory requirements. The change in the burden and cost
estimates is due primarily to an increase in the number of existing
sources subject to rule requirements. This increase is based on the
growth rate from the prior ICR and assumes continued growth in the
manufacture and use of SI ICE. This has led to an increase in O&M
costs, as well as for recordkeeping and reporting costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-16578 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51047-51048]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1981-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 10 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 for the
State of North Dakota (FEMA-1981-DR), dated May 10, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 8, 2011, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig
Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Dakota resulting from flooding during the period of
February 14 to July 20, 2011, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of May 10, 2011, to authorize
Federal funds for Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible
costs.
    This adjustment to State, Tribal, and local government cost
sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs eligible for such
adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at
75 percent of total eligible costs.

(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.

    August 11, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-20962 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-23-P


DCN 5 1100 Northern California Case Study Docket Program List SAS Programs DCN # Filename Program Use Description Data used and created 5 1100 Northern California Case Study Docket Program. pdf N/ A Informational Description of data and program types Uses: None Creates: None 5 1107 NMFS Catch for CA  Boat Mode  1_ 14_ 03. sas NMFS Catch for CA Boat Mode California Boat Mode Catch Rates Calculate 5 year average catch rates for private/ rental boat anglers Uses: i2_ 1996. sas7bdat, i3_ 1996. sas7bdat, i2_ 1997. sas7bdat, i3_ 1997. sas7bdat, i2_ 1998. sas7bdat, i3_ 1998. sas7bdat, i2_ 1999. sas7bdat, i3_ 1999. sas7bdat, i2_ 2000. sas7bdat, i3_ 2000. sas7bdat Creates: ca_ s_ bt. sas7bdat, ca_ n_ bt. sas7bdat 5 1108 NMFS Catch for CA  Shore Mode  1_ 14_ 03. sas NMFS Catch for CA Shore Mode California Shore Mode Catch Rates Calculate 5 year average catch rates for shore anglers Uses: i2_ 1996. sas7bdat, i3_ 1996. sas7bdat, i2_ 1997. sas7bdat, i3_ 1997. sas7bdat, i2_ 1998. sas7bdat, i3_ 1998. sas7bdat, i2_ 1999. sas7bdat, i3_ 1999. sas7bdat, i2_ 2000. sas7bdat, i3_ 2000. sas7bdat Creates: ca_ s_ sh. sas7bdat, ca_ n_ sh. sas7bdat 5 1109 Pull Together CA Catch Rates. sas Pull Together CA Catch Rates California Catch Rates Merge the estimated private/ rental and shore catch rates into one file Uses: ca_ s_ bt. sas7bdat, ca_ n_ bt. sas7bdat, ca_ s_ sh. sas7bdat, ca_ n_ sh. sas7bdat Creates: master_ sites. sas7bdat DCN 5 1100 Northern California Case Study Docket Program List 5 1110 Generate Northern CA Model Choice Sets v6. sas Generate Northern CA Model Choice Sets Choice Sets Create the choice sets for the Northern CA models Uses: i5_ 20001. sas7bdat , i5_ 20002. sas7bdat, i5_ 20003. sas7bdat, i5_ 20004. sas7bdat, i5_ 20005. sas7bdat, i5_ 20006. sas7bdat, ca_ income. sas7bdat, distances. sas7bdat, master_ sites. sas7bdat, species_ group. sas7bdat Creates: nest_ ca_ nth. sas7bdat, nest_ carum_ nth6. sas7bdat, nth_ id_ to_ respnum. sas7bdat 5 1111 Northern Sites Per Anglers  boat and shore. sas Northern Sites for Anglers  boat and shore Choice Sets Create full choice sets for Northern CA anglers private/ rental and shore modes Uses: i5_ 20001. sas7bdat , i5_ 20002. sas7bdat, i5_ 20003. sas7bdat, i5_ 20004. sas7bdat, i5_ 20005. sas7bdat, i5_ 20006. sas7bdat, ca_ income. sas7bdat, distances. sas7bdat, master_ sites. sas7bdat, species_ group. sas7bdat Creates: sites_ nth. sas7bdat 5 1112 Calculate Discount Factors from Stratus Excel File v2. sas Calculate Discount Factors from Stratus Excel File Discount Factors Calculate weighted discount factors for 3% and 7% based on species group composition. Uses: rec. losses. feb14. plus. reduced. loss. xls Creates: Printed Output ( see DCN XXXXX DCN 5 1100 Northern California Case Study Docket Program List MRFSS Survey Data DCN # Filename Program Use Description Data used and created 5 1113 Unpack NMFS PC Intercept and Catch data. sas Unpack NMFS PC Intercept and Catch data MRFSS Pacific Coast Data Unpack MRFSS data for Pacific Coast Uses: i1_ 1996. xpt, i2_ 1996. xpt, i3_ 1996. xpt, i1_ 1997. xpt, i2_ 1997. xpt, i3_ 1997. xpt, i1_ 1998. xpt, i2_ 1998. xpt, i3_ 1998. xpt, i1_ 1999. xpt, i2_ 1999. xpt, i3_ 1999. xpt, i1_ 2000. xpt, i2_ 2000. xpt, i3_ 2000. xpt Creates: i1_ 1996. sas7bdat, i2_ 1996. sas7bdat, i3_ 1996. sas7bdat, i1_ 1997. sas7bdat, i2_ 1997. sas7bdat, i3_ 1997. sas7bdat, i1_ 1998. sas7bdat, i2_ 1998. sas7bdat, i3_ 1998. sas7bdat, i1_ 1999. sas7bdat, i2_ 1999. sas7bdat, i3_ 1999. sas7bdat, i1_ 2000. sas7bdat, i2_ 2000. sas7bdat, i3_ 2000. sas7bdat 5 1114 Unpack 2000 Econ Survey. sas Unpack NMFS 2000 Econ Survey MRFSS 2000 Pacific Coast Expenditure Survey Unpack MRFSS Expenditure Survey data for Pacific Coast Uses: craig_ hanson_ i5. xpt, craig_ hanson_ i7. xpt, craig_ hanson_ i8. xpt Creates: i5_ 20001. sas7bdat , i5_ 20002. sas7bdat, i5_ 20003. sas7bdat, i5_ 20004. sas7bdat, i5_ 20005. sas7bdat, i5_ 20006. sas7bdat, i7_ 20001. sas7bdat, i7_ 20002. sas7bdat, i7_ 20003. sas7bdat, i7_ 20004. sas7bdat, i7_ 20005. sas7bdat, i7_ 20006. sas7bdat, i8_ 20001. sas7bdat, i8_ 20002. sas7bdat, i8_ 20003. sas7bdat, i8_ 20004. sas7bdat, i8_ 20005. sas7bdat The data sets containing the MRFSS intercept survey data are available for download from the world wide web. These data can found at http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ recreational/ index. html, and include int90ag. zip, int91ag. zip, int92ag. xpt, int93ag. xpt, and int94ag. xpt. Zipped versions of the data sets have been included DCN 5 1100 Northern California Case Study Docket Program List under DCN 5 1065 through 5 1069, respectively.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 68 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 18975]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07403]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0124; FRL-10022-03-OMS]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Contractor Cumulative Claim and
Reconciliation (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0246.14, OMB Control No. 2030-
0016) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before
doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 30,
2021. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2018-0124 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Valentino, Policy Training and
Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Solutions (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: All contractors who have completed an EPA cost-
reimbursement type contract will be required to submit EPA Form 1900-
10. EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes all costs incurred in performance of
the contract and sets forth the final indirect rates. This form is
reviewed by the contracting officer to determine the final costs
reimbursable to the contractor. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) 52.216-7 states that the Government will pay only the costs
determined to be allowable by the contracting officer in accordance
with FAR Subpart 31.2. Furthermore, FAR 52.216-7 states that indirect
cost rates shall be established for each fiscal year at the close of a
contractor's fiscal year. EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes this information
for the entire contract period and provides a basis for cost review by
contracting, finance, and audit personnel. In addition, FAR 4.804-5
mandates that the office administering the contract shall ensure that
the costs and indirect cost rates are settled.
    Form numbers: EPA Form 1900-10.
    Respondents/affected entities: All contractors who have completed
an EPA cost-reimbursement type contract.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (FAR 52.216-7).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once, at the end of the contract.
    Total estimated burden: 31.5 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,730.40 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

Kimberly Patrick,
Director, Office of Acquisition Solutions.
[FR Doc. 2021-07403 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57630]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22741]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0048; FRL 9532-5]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Information Requirements for Importation of
Nonconforming Vehicles (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Information Requirements for
Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles (EPA ICR No.0010.13, OMB Control
No. 2060-0095) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through September 30, 2013. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 15010) on March 8,
2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0048 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4851; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Importers into the U.S. of light duty vehicles, light
duty trucks and on-road motorcycles or the corresponding engines are
required to report and keep records regarding the imports. The
collection of this information is mandatory to insure compliance with
Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and U.S. Customs Service
regulations at 40 CFR 85.1501 et seq., 19 CFR 12.73 and 19 CFR 12.74,
promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act sections 203 and 208,
give authority for the collection of this information. The information
is used by program personnel to ensure that all Federal emissions
requirements are met and by State regulatory agencies, businesses and
individuals to verify whether vehicles are in compliance. Any
information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth
in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, chapter 1, part 2,
subpart B-- Confidentiality of Business Information, and the public is
not permitted access to information containing personal or
organizational identifiers.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 3520-1, EPA Form 3520-8.
    Respondents/affected entities: Importers (including Independent
Commercial Importers) into the U.S. of light duty vehicles, light duty
trucks and on-road motorcycles or the corresponding engines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (40 CFR 85.1501 et seq., 19 CFR 12.73 and 19 CFR 12.74).
    Estimated number of respondents: 10,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 8,040 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $460,412 (per year), which includes $141,493
annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,310 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of
responses expected.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-22741 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69717-69722]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28548]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63276; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-138]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Establish a Program for Managed Data Solutions

November 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, \2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 25, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to establish a program for Managed Data Solutions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
7026. Distribution Models [Reserved]

    (a) Reserved
    (b) Managed Data Solutions

    The charges to be paid by Distributors and Subscribers of Managed
Data Solutions products containing Nasdaq Depth data shall be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Fee schedule for Managed Data
            Solutions                              Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Data Solution............  $1,500/mo Per Distributor.
Administration Fee (for the right
 to offer Managed Data Solutions
 to client organizations).
Nasdaq Depth Data................  $300/mo Per Subscriber.
Professional Subscriber Fee
 (Internal Use Only and includes
 TotalView, Level 2, OpenView).
Nasdaq Depth Data................  $60/mo Per Subscriber.
Non-Professional Subscriber
 (Internal Use Only and includes
 TotalView, Level 2, OpenView).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d) Reserved
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to create a new data distribution model (a
Managed Data Feed Solution) to further the distribution of Nasdaq
TotalView, Nasdaq OpenView and/or Nasdaq Level 2 Information
(collectively, ``Nasdaq Depth Information''). It offers a new delivery
method available to firms seeking simplified market data
administration. The Managed Data Solution may be offered by
Distributors to clients and/or client organizations that are using the
Nasdaq Depth Information internally. This new pricing and
administrative option is in response to industry demand, as well as due
to changes in the technology use [sic] to distribute market data.
Distributors offering Managed Data Solutions continue to be fee liable
for the applicable distributor fees for the receipt and distribution of
the Nasdaq Depth Information.
    A Managed Data Solution is a delivery option that will assess a
new, innovative fee schedule to Distributors of Nasdaq Depth
Information that provide data feed solutions such as an Application
Programming Interface (API) or similar automated delivery solutions to
recipients with only limited entitlement controls (e.g., usernames and/
or passwords) (``Managed Data Recipients''). However, the Distributor
must first agree to reformat, redisplay and/or alter the Nasdaq Depth
Information prior to retransmission, but not to affect the integrity of
the Nasdaq Depth Information and not to render it inaccurate, unfair,
uninformative, fictitious, misleading, or discriminatory. A Managed
Data Solution is any retransmission data product containing Nasdaq
Depth Information offered by a Distributor where the Distributor
manages and monitors, but does not necessarily control, the
information. However, the Distributor does maintain contracts with the
Managed Data Recipients and is liable for any unauthorized use by the
Managed Data Recipients under a Managed Data Solution. The recipient of
a Managed Data Solution may use the information for internal purposes
only and may not distribute the information outside of their [sic]
organization.
    In the past, Nasdaq has considered this type of retransmission to
be an uncontrolled data product if the Distributor does not control
both the entitlements and the display of the information. Over the last
ten years, Distributors have improved the technical delivery and
monitoring of data and the Managed Data Solution offering responds to
an industry need to administer these new types of technical deliveries.
    Currently, Nasdaq charges Managed Data Recipients who receive a
Managed Data Solution the same distributor fees as a recipient of an
uncontrolled data product. Some Distributors believe that the Managed
Data Solution is a better controlled data product and as such should
not be subject to the same rates as a data feed. However, the
Distributors may only have contractual control over the data and may
not be able to verify how Managed Data Recipients are actually using
the data at least without involvement of the Managed Data Recipient.
Some Distributors have even held-off on deployment of new Nasdaq
product offerings, pending the resolution to this matter. Thus,
offering a Managed Data Solution fee schedule would not only result in
Nasdaq offering lower fees for existing Managed Data Recipients
utilizing a Managed Data Solution, but will allow new Distributors to
deliver Managed Data Solutions to new clients, thereby increasing
transparency of the market.
    Nasdaq proposes to establish a program to offer the Managed Data
Solution to Distributors that assist in the management of the
uncontrolled data product on behalf of their Managed Data Recipients by
contractually restricting the data flow and monitoring the delivery.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of Nasdaq
data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges

to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act
and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free
market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-
dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold
should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    Nasdaq believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. Nasdaq
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, we
believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (DC
Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' ''
NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. For the
reasons discussed above, Nasdaq believes that the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the Commission's
review of future market data filings, by creating a presumption that
all fees may take effect immediately, without prior analysis by the
Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the absence of this
important statutory change, however, Nasdaq believes that a record may
readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the
market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to
another in response to order execution price differentials would both
reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need
to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform
increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost
of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including ten self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end

users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such
as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable
them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising
revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer
their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and
generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models
may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can
simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to
provide sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary
data products must understand and respond to these varying business
models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data
products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
Nasdaq believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. For
example, as of July 2010, 92 of the top 100 broker-dealers by shares
executed on Nasdaq consumed NQDS and 80 of the top 100 broker-dealers
consumed TotalView. During that month, the NQDS-users were responsible
for 94.44% of the orders entered into Nasdaq and TotalView users were
responsible for 92.98%.
    Competition among platforms has driven Nasdaq continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, Nasdaq has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. Nasdaq offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. Nasdaq has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView ITCH and
Level 2, because offering data in multiple formatting allows Nasdaq to
better fit customer needs. Nasdaq offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. Nasdaq has developed an online administrative system to
provide customers transparency into their data feed requests and
streamline data usage reporting. Nasdaq has also expanded its
Enterprise License options that reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, Nasdaq's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as
a percent of total customer costs, Nasdaq data fees have fallen
relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth, programming,
and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true for execution
services; despite numerous enhancements to Nasdaq's trading platform,
absolute and relative trading costs have declined. Platform competition
has intensified as new entrants have emerged, constraining prices for
both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for depth information is significant and
the Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. Nasdaq is offering a new pricing model in order to keep
pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is
entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as
well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
Nasdaq continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with Nasdaq or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this depth information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-138 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-NASDAQ-2010-138. This

file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-138, and should be submitted on or before
December 6, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28548 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 39972]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14447]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78063; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating
to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the PowerShares Variable
Rate Investment Grade Portfolio, a Series of the PowerShares Actively
Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust

June 14, 2016.
    On April 13, 2016, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and
trade shares of the PowerShares Variable Rate Investment Grade
Portfolio, a series of the PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded
Fund Trust. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 2, 2016.\3\ On May 5, 2016, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77715 (April 26,
2016), 81 FR 26285.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange amended certain
representations regarding the holdings of the Fund, made numerous
technical and clarifying changes, and added where closing price
information for certain assets held by the Fund could be found.
Amendment No. 1 is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2016-056/nasdaq2016056-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 16, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates July 29, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NASDAQ-2016-056), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14447 Filed 6-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51615]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1858-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Georgia; Amendment No. 6 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 Georgia (FEMA-1858-DR), dated September 24, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, 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 Georgia is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 24, 2009.

    Heard and Rockdale Counties for Public Assistance, including
direct Federal assistance (already designated for Individual
Assistance).
    Dawson, Dooly, Houston, Peach, and Taylor Counties for Public
Assistance, including direct Federal assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-24151 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P