[Federal Register: September 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 55185]
[DOCID:fr24se08-151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
September 18, 2008, at 5:30 p.m.
    Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the
matter will attend the Closed Meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions as set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(8) and (9),
permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 18, 2008, will be:
    Matters related to the financial markets.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22246 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37873-37875]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14958]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69784; File No. SR-BX-2013-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Penny Pilot Program

June 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 11, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Chapter VI,
Section 5 (Minimum Increments) to: extend through December 31, 2013,
the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in certain issues (``Penny
Pilot'' or ``Pilot''), and to change the date when delisted classes may
be replaced in the Penny Pilot.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in June 2012 and extended in
December 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June
26, 2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (order
approving BX option rules and establishing Penny Pilot); and 68518
(December 21, 2012), 77 FR 77152 (December 31, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-
076) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending the
Penny Pilot through June 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
\4\ to the extent needed for timely industry-wide implementation of the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the amended Exchange rule is set forth immediately
below.
    Proposed new language is italicized and proposed deleted language
is [bracketed].

NASDAQ OMX BX Rules

Options Rules

* * * * *

Chapter VI Trading Systems

* * * * *

Sec. 5 Minimum Increments

    (a) The Board may establish minimum quoting increments for options
contracts traded on BX Options. Such minimum increments established by
the Board will be designated as a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the administration of this Section
within the meaning of Section 19 of the Exchange Act and will be filed
with the SEC as a rule change for effectiveness upon filing. Until such
time as the Board makes a change in the increments, the following
principles shall apply:
    (1) If the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5)
cents;
    (2) If the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, ten (10)
cents; and
    (3) For a pilot period scheduled to expire on [June 30] December
31, 2013, if the options series is trading pursuant to the Penny Pilot
program one (1) cent if the options series is trading at less than
$3.00, five (5) cents if the options series is trading at $3.00 or
higher, unless for QQQQs, SPY and IWM where the minimum quoting
increment will be one cent for all series regardless of price. A list
of such options shall be communicated to membership via an Options
Trader Alert (``OTA'') posted on the Exchange's Web site. The Exchange

may replace any pilot issues that have been delisted with the next most
actively traded multiply listed options classes that are not yet
included in the pilot, based on trading activity [for] in the previous
six months [period beginning June 1, 2012, and ending November 30,
2012]. The replacement issues may be added to the pilot on the second
trading day following [January] July 1, 2013.
    (4) No Change.
    (b) No Change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Chapter VI, Section 5 to
extend the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2013, and add a procedure
for replacing any Penny Pilot issues that have been delisted.
    Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all
participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock (``QQQQ''), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and
the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), is $0.01 for all
quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per
contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted
at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot is currently
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013.
    The Exchange proposes to extend the time period of the Penny Pilot
through December 31, 2013, and to provide a procedure for adding
classes that have been delisted from the Penny Pilot. The Exchange
proposes that any Penny Pilot Program issues that have been delisted
may be replaced on the second trading day following July 1, 2013. The
replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity in the
previous six months.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The replacement issues will be announced to the Exchange's
membership via an Options Trader Alert (OTA) posted on the
Exchange's Web site. To conform with rules of other exchanges (e.g.
NYSE Arca's options rule 6.72), the Exchange proposes in its Penny
Pilot rule that replacement issues will be selected based on trading
activity in the previous six months. The replacement issues would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from December 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013. The month
immediately preceding the replacement issues' addition to the Pilot
Program (i.e. June) would not be used for purposes of the six-month
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny
Pilot Program; all classes currently participating in the Penny Pilot
will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged.
The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the potential increase
in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. In particular, the proposed rule
change, which extends the Penny Pilot for an additional six months
through December 31, 2013 and changes the date for replacing Penny
Pilot issues that were deleted to the second trading day following July
1, 2013, will enable public customers and other market participants to
express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of
all market participants. This is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a
determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and
will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby
reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. The Pilot is an industry wide initiative supported by all
other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot
will allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\12\
However,

pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission may designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because doing so will allow the Pilot
Program to continue without interruption in a manner that is consistent
with the Commission's prior approval of the extension and expansion of
the Pilot Program and will allow the Exchange and the Commission
additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2013-039 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-BX-2013-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-BX-2013-039 and should be
submitted on or before July 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-14958 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 375-376]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-27-000; CP18-28-000]

High Point Gas Gathering, L.L.C., High Point Gas Transmission,
LLC; Notice of Joint Application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and for a Limited Jurisdiction Certificate

    Take notice that on December 12, 2017, High Point Gas Transmission,
LLC (HP Transmission) and High Point Gas Gathering, L.L.C. (HP
Gathering), both at 2103 CityWest Blvd., Bldg. #4, Houston, TX 77042,
filed an abbreviated joint application under section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations.
    In Docket No. CP18-27-000, HP Transmission seeks a certificate of
public convenience and necessity authorizing it to:
    (i) Lease capacity on the non-jurisdictional facilities of HP
Gathering to enable HP Transmission to provide transportation service
for its shippers from Main Pass Block 289 Platform and then on to the
Main Pass Block 260 Platform where HP Gathering interconnects with
Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Destin); and,
    (ii) amend its tariff to:
    (a) Allow HP Transmission to obtain interruptible off-system
transportation service on other pipelines including interruptible
transportation service on Destin;
    (b) specify that the transportation service provided by HP
Transmission through utilization of the leased capacity on HP Gathering
will be firm or interruptible transportation and of the transportation
service on Destin will be interruptible service only;
    (c) include the initial incremental rates (including fuel, lost and
unaccounted-for gas) to be paid by HP Transmission's shippers that
utilize the HP Transmission service effected through the capacity
leased from HP Gathering and, if desired, the interruptible service
subscribed on Destin;
    (d) change the price index in its imbalance cash-out mechanism to
add the price indices used by Destin to reflect markets that it serves;
and
    (e) incorporate changes necessary to effectuate the transactions
contemplated by this application, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    HP Transmission further requests waivers of certain Commission

regulatory requirements as set forth in the application.
    In Docket No. CP18-28-000, HP Gathering seeks a limited
jurisdiction certificate to enable HP Gathering to lease 150,000 Dth
per day of capacity on the relevant portion of the HP Gathering to HP
Transmission while, at the same time, ensuring that the Commission's
jurisdiction will be asserted only over the Capacity Lease Agreement
and not its non-jurisdictional gathering facilities and services and
that all Commission jurisdictional filing and reporting requirements
that might otherwise apply to HP Gathering will be waived.
    Questions regarding this filing may be directed to Dennis J. Kelly,
Senior Counsel of HP Transmission and HP Gathering at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
2103 CityWest Blvd., Bldg. #4, Houston, TX 77042.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission's Washington,
DC offices, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.214, 385.211 (2016), by the comment date below. A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission, and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit filings made with the Commission by mail, hand delivery, or
internet, in accordance with Rule 2001 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, id. 385.2001. A copy must be served on every
other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask
for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The
Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to
make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's website under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue
another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's
review process, a final Commission order approving or denying the
requested authorizations will be issued.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, January 12, 2018.

    Dated: December 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28322 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Mr. Mayhew,

As a follow up to our call yesterday, here are answers to the two questions you raised about the Ohio River 316( b) case study:

Q1: How did EPA convert daily mortality rates to mortalities by stage?

Answer: To obtain mortalities by stage, EPA multipled the daily mortality rate by the stage duration ( in days). The stage durations used for these calculations are presented in the EXCEL workbooks of input data for the Ohio facilities included in the case study, available in the docket on the CD ROM at DCN # 4 1305.

Q2: How did EPA use life history data presented in the 1999 Salem Permit Renewal Application given that the species impinged and entrained at Salem are primarily estuarine species, whereas Ohio species are all freshwater species:

Answer: EPA used the Salem data in a few limited cases for which information was unavailable for the Ohio River species. As indicated in Appendix C1 to the Ohio case study report, this included estimated size at age for alewife and striped bass and egg mortality for yellow perch.

I hope this information is helpful. Please don't hesitate to call if you have additional questions.

Liz Strange Elizabeth M. Strange, Ph. D. Manager Stratus Consulting Inc. P. O. Box 4059 Boulder, CO 80306 4059 E mail: estrange@ stratusconsulting. com Phone: 303 381 8000 FAX: 303 381 8200


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52580-52582]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Newark
Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2020 Scheduling Season

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

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of October 3, 2019, for Summer 2020 flight schedules at Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR). The deadline coincides with the schedule
submission deadline for the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) Slot Conference for the Summer 2020 scheduling season.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than October 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Meilus, Manager (Acting), Slot
Administration Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides routine notice to
carriers serving EWR, one of the capacity-constrained airports in the
United States, of the upcoming schedule submission deadline for Summer
2020. The FAA has designated EWR as an IATA Level 2 airport consistent
with the Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG).1 2 A separate
schedule submission notice for John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Chicago O'Hare
International Airport (ORD), and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2019 (84
FR 51222).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This designation remains effective until the FAA announces a
change in the Federal Register.
    \2\ The FAA applies the WSG to the extent there is no conflict
with U.S. law or regulation. The FAA is reviewing recent substantive
amendments to the WSG adopted in version 10 (Aug. 1, 2019) and
considering whether to implement certain changes in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Information for EWR in the Summer 2020 Season

    For the Summer 2020 scheduling season at EWR, the FAA is primarily
concerned about scheduled and other regularly conducted commercial
operations from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time (1000 to 0300 UTC). Carriers
may submit schedules for the entire day in addition to the identified
hours. Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail
including, at minimum, the marketing or operating carrier, flight
number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, aircraft equipment, and
effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data
elements for communications at Level 2 airports in the IATA Standard
Schedules Information Manual (SSIM) Chapter 6 may be used. The WSG
provides additional information on schedule submissions at Level 2
airports.
    The U.S. Summer 2020 scheduling season is from March 29, 2020,
through October 24, 2020, in recognition of the IATA northern Summer
scheduling period.
    As stated in the WSG, schedule facilitation at a Level 2 airport is
based on the following: (1) Schedule adjustments are mutually agreed
upon between the airlines and the facilitator; (2) the intent is to
avoid exceeding the airport's coordination parameters; (3) the concepts
of historic precedence and series of slots do not apply at Level 2
airports; although WSG recommends giving priority to approved services
that plan to operate unchanged from the previous equivalent season at
Level 2 airports; and (4) the facilitator should adjust the smallest
number of flights by the least amount of time necessary to avoid
exceeding the airport's coordination parameters. Consistent with the
WSG, the success of Level 2 in the U.S. depends on the voluntary
cooperation of all carriers.
    The FAA considers several factors and priorities as it reviews
schedule

requests at Level 2 airports, which are consistent with the WSG,
including--services from the previous equivalent season over new demand
for the same timings, services that are unchanged over services that
plan to change time or other capacity relevant parameters, introduction
of year-round services, effective period of operation, regularly
planned operations over ad hoc operations, and other operational
factors that may limit a carrier's timing flexibility. In addition to
applying these Level 2 priorities from the WSG, the U.S. Government has
adopted a number of measures and procedures to promote competition and
new entry at U.S. slot controlled and schedule facilitated airports.
    At Level 2 airports, the FAA seeks to improve communications with
carriers and terminal schedule facilitators on potential runway
schedule issues or terminal and gate issues that may affect the runway
times. The FAA also seeks to reduce the time that carriers consider
proposed offers on schedules. Retaining open offers for extended
periods of time may delay the facilitation process for the airport.
Reducing this delay is particularly important to allow the FAA to make
informed decisions at airports where operations in some hours are at or
near the scheduling limits. The agency recognizes that there are
circumstances that may require some schedules to remain open. However,
the FAA expects to substantially complete the review process on initial
submissions each scheduling season within 30 days of the end of the
Slot Conference. After this time, the agency would confirm the
acceptance of proposed offers, as applicable, or issue a denial of
schedule requests.
    Slot management in the United States differs in some respect from
procedures in other countries. In the United States, the FAA is
responsible for facilitation and coordination of runway access for
takeoffs and landings at Level 2 and Level 3 airports; however, the
airport authority or its designee is responsible for facilitation and
coordination of terminal/gate/airport facility access. The process with
the individual airports for terminal access and other airport services
is separate from, and in addition to, the FAA schedule review based on
runway capacity. Approval from the FAA for runway availability and the
airport authority for airport facility availability is necessary before
implementing schedule plans. Carriers seeking terminal approval at EWR
may contact the terminal facilitator at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Generally, the FAA uses average hourly runway capacity throughput
for airports and performance metrics in its schedule review at Level 2
airports.\3\ The FAA also considers other factors that can affect
operations, such as capacity changes due to runway, taxiway, or other
airport construction, air traffic control procedural changes, airport
surface operations, and historical or projected flight delays and
congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA typically determines an airport's average adjusted
runway capacity or typical throughput for Level 2 airports by
reviewing hourly data on the arrival and departure rates that air
traffic control indicates could be accepted for that hour, commonly
known as ``called'' rates. The FAA also reviews the actual number of
arrivals and departures that operated in the same hour. Generally,
the FAA uses the higher of the two numbers, called or actual, for
identifying trends and schedule review purposes. Some dates are
excluded from analysis, such as during periods when extended airport
closures or construction could affect capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that it remains committed to the implementation of
reference IDs for administrative tracking at EWR, as discussed in the
Notice of Schedule Submission for the Winter 2019/2020 Scheduling
Season, 84 FR 18630 at 18632 (May 1, 2019), and will continue working
with carriers to implement this tracking tool.
    Finally, the FAA notes that the schedule information submitted by
carriers to the FAA may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The WSG also provides for release of
information at certain stages of slot coordination and schedule
facilitation. In general, once it acts on a schedule submission or slot
request, the FAA may release information on slot allocation or similar
slot transactions or schedule information reviewed as part of the
schedule facilitation process. The FAA does not expect that practice to
change and most slot and schedule information would not be exempt from
release under FOIA. The FAA recognizes that some carriers may submit
information on schedule plans that is both customarily and actually
treated as private. Carriers that submit such confidential schedule
information should clearly mark the information as ``PROPIN''. The FAA
will take the necessary steps to protect properly designated
information to the extent allowable by law.

EWR Operational Performance

    The FAA regularly monitors operations and performance metrics at
EWR to identify ways to improve operational efficiency and achieve
delay reductions in a Level 2 environment. Demand for access to EWR and
the New York City area remains high. Requests for flights at EWR have
exceeded the scheduling limits in the early morning and for multiple
hours in the afternoon and evening. The FAA has regularly advised
carriers that it would not be able to accommodate requests for new or
retimed operations into peak hours and worked with carriers to identify
alternative times that were available. In some cases, carriers have
been able to swap with other carriers for their preferred times.
Carriers may continue to seek swaps in order to operate within the
peak, but are ultimately expected to operate according to the FAA's
approved runway times. The FAA also continues to seek the voluntary
cooperation of all carriers operating in peak hours to retime
operations out of the peak to meet the scheduling limits described
below and improve performance at EWR, benefitting all carriers,
passengers, and other customers.
    For the Summer 2020 season, the hourly scheduling limit remains at
79 operations and 43 operations per half-hour.\4\ Based on historical
demand and recent schedule changes, the FAA anticipates limited or no
availability in the 0700 to 0859 and 1330 to 2159 local hours for new
flights within the applicable scheduling limits. In addition,
consistent with FAA's usual practices, availability in shoulder/
adjacent periods may be limited in order to offset peak demand. To help
with a balance between arrivals and departures, the maximum number of
scheduled arrivals or departures, respectively, is 43 in an hour and 24
in a half-hour. This would allow some higher levels of operations in
certain periods (not to exceed the hourly limits) and some recovery
from lower demand in adjacent periods. Consistent with past practice at
EWR, the FAA will accept flights above the limits if the approved
flights were operated by the same carrier on a regular basis in the
previous corresponding season (i.e., Summer 2019). However, as
previously explained, the FAA's preference is for carriers to
voluntarily retime operations out of the peak periods and to smooth
schedules in other hours to ensure operations are within the applicable
limits. Absent such adjustments, the operational performance of the
airport is unlikely to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 83 FR 21335 (May 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes there are periods when the demand in half-hours and
consecutive half-hours exceeds the optimum runway capacity and the
scheduling limits in this notice.\5\ The

imbalance of scheduled arrivals and departures in certain periods has
contributed to increased congestion and delays when the demand exceeds
the arrival or departure rates. In particular, retiming a minimal
number of arrivals in the early afternoon hours such as 1400 to instead
be scheduled during the 1300 and 1200 hours could have significant
delay reduction benefits, as early afternoon delays continue to impact
operations into the evening hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Following the Level 2 designation effective with the winter
2016/2017 scheduling season, the FAA has rolled out reduced hourly
scheduling limits from 81 per hour to 79 and applied additional
half-hour and arrival and departure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the WSG, carriers should be prepared to adjust
schedules to meet the scheduling limits in order to minimize potential
congestion and delay. Carriers are reminded that runway approval must
be obtained from the FAA in addition to any requirements for approval
from the airport terminal or other facilities prior to operating
flights at the airport. As the FAA has previously stated, if voluntary
schedule adjustments are not achievable, consideration may be given to
whether a Level 3 designation is necessary and whether a schedule
reduction meeting pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41722 is necessary. If the FAA
reinstates Level 3 at EWR, historic precedence would not be granted for
any operation conducted without FAA approval under Level 2.

Southwest's EWR Station Closure

    On July 25, 2019, Southwest Airlines (Southwest) announced that it
will cease operations at EWR effective November 3, 2019.\6\ The FAA has
received numerous inquiries from various public and private entities
concerning the effects of Southwest's plans, including multiple
requests for approval of new operations to replace the operations
previously conducted by Southwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Southwest Airlines Press Release https://www.swamedia.com/releases/release-424146113c6f2a2eebe84fb61d59a4ff-southwest-reports-record-second-quarter-revenues-and-earnings-per-share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a peak summer weekday, Southwest operated up to 40 operations at
EWR, a portion of which (approximately 16) were in the peak periods. As
noted previously, several hours in the high demand periods at EWR are
above the FAA's stated scheduling limits. In an effort to improve
performance at EWR, the FAA has consistently stated in prior seasonal
schedule submission notices that new operations will not be approved
unless the period is below the FAA scheduling limits.\7\ Consistent
with this approach, the FAA will not be approving new flights in peak
hours for the Summer 2020 scheduling season if operations are at or
above the applicable scheduling limits. The FAA plans to assess the
impacts of the peak period Southwest reductions and other schedule
changes at EWR on performance, as well as the impacts on competition in
close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
in the upcoming Winter 2019/2020 and Summer 2020 scheduling seasons.
The FAA intends to publish additional information on the outcome of
this assessment in future notices related to these airports. However,
the FAA will not during that assessment period be replacing or
``backfilling'' the peak morning and afternoon/evening operations that
Southwest conducted during Winter 2018/2019 and Summer 2019, to the
extent the new operations would exceed the current scheduling limits.
New operations are being approved by the FAA, subject to terminal and
gate availability, in off-peak hours in which operations are below the
scheduling limits, including any offsets for periods above the limits,
consistent with established FAA policy and procedures as described in
seasonal notices and the WSG.\8\ In addition, the FAA is tracking unmet
schedule requests at EWR for future consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e.g., Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2019/
2020 Scheduling Season, 84 FR 18630 at 18632 (May 1, 2019); Notice
of Submission Deadline for the Summer 2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR
49155at 49156-49157 (Sep. 28, 2018); and, Notice of Submission
Deadline for the Winter 2018/2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR 21335 at
21337-21338 (May 9, 2018).
    \8\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA will continue to follow the established schedule
facilitation process at EWR consistent with the IATA WSG and as
described in prior schedule submission notices.\9\ In periods with
limited availability, new entrant carriers may be prioritized
consistent with the IATA WSG, as appropriate. Carriers requesting new
operations in off-peak periods with sufficient availability may be
approved. The FAA will continue to closely monitor demand in each hour
at EWR and, based on recent requests or inquiries for additional
flights, the FAA expects availability to change in some off-peak
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EWR Runway 4R/22L Preliminary Construction Plans

    The FAA is aware of preliminary plans by the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) to reconstruct Runway 4R/22L at EWR. The
FAA is closely monitoring the scope and timing of this project. Once
the details of this project are available, the FAA plans to work with
the PANYNJ and carriers to assess operational impacts and potential
changes in delays and to develop mitigation strategies, as appropriate.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 27, 2019.
Virginia Boyle,
Deputy Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-21485 Filed 10-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4938-4941]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 12d1-1, SEC File No. 270-526, OMB Control No. 3235-0584

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    An investment company (``fund'') is generally limited in the amount
of securities the fund (``acquiring fund'') can acquire from another
fund (``acquired fund''). Section 12(d) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (the ``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ provides that a
registered fund (and companies it controls) cannot:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Acquire more than three percent of another fund's
securities;
     invest more than five percent of its own assets in another
fund; or
     invest more than ten percent of its own assets in other
funds in the aggregate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1)(A). If an acquiring fund is not
registered, these limitations apply only with respect to the
acquiring fund's acquisition of registered funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a registered open-end fund, its principal underwriter,
and any registered broker or dealer cannot sell that fund's shares to
another fund if, as a result:
     The acquiring fund (and any companies it controls) owns
more than three percent of the acquired fund's stock; or
     all acquiring funds (and companies they control) in the
aggregate own more than ten percent of the acquired fund's stock.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 12d1-1 under the Act provides an exemption from these
limitations for ``cash sweep'' arrangements in which a fund invests all
or a portion of its available cash in a money market fund rather than
directly in short-term instruments.\4\ An acquiring fund relying on the
exemption may not pay a sales load, distribution fee, or service fee on
acquired fund shares, or if it does, the acquiring fund's investment
adviser must waive a sufficient amount of its advisory fee to offset
the cost of the loads or distribution fees.\5\ The acquired fund may be
a fund in the same fund complex or in a different fund complex. In
addition to providing an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act,
the rule provides exemptions from section 17(a) of the Act and rule
17d-1 thereunder, which restrict a fund's ability to enter into
transactions and joint arrangements with affiliated persons.\6\ These
provisions would otherwise prohibit an acquiring fund from investing in
a money market fund in the same fund complex,\7\ and prohibit a fund
that acquires five percent or more of the securities of a money market
fund in another fund complex from making any additional investments in
the money market fund.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 17 CFR 270.12d1-1.
    \5\ See rule 12d1-1(b)(1).
    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a), 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d); 17 CFR
270.17d-1.
    \7\ An affiliated person of a fund includes any person directly
or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with such other person. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3) (definition of
``affiliated person''). Most funds today are organized by an
investment adviser that advises or provides administrative services
to other funds in the same complex. Funds in a fund complex are
generally under common control of an investment adviser or other
person exercising a controlling influence over the management or
policies of the funds. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(9) (definition of
``control''). Not all advisers control funds they advise. The
determination of whether a fund is under the control of its adviser,
officers, or directors depends on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. See Investment Company Mergers, Investment Company
Act Release No. 25259 (Nov. 8, 2001) [66 FR 57602 (Nov. 15, 2001)],
at n.11. To the extent that an acquiring fund in a fund complex is
under common control with a money market fund in the same complex,
the funds would rely on the rule's exemptions from section 17(a) and
rule 17d-1.
    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3)(A), (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule also permits a registered fund to rely on the exemption to
invest in an unregistered money market fund that limits its investments
to those in which a registered money market fund may invest under rule
2a-7 under the Act, and undertakes to comply with all the other
provisions of rule 2a-7.\9\ In addition, the acquiring fund must

reasonably believe that the unregistered money market fund (i) operates
in compliance with rule 2a-7, (ii) complies with sections 17(a), (d),
(e), 18, and 22(e) of the Act \10\ as if it were a registered open-end
fund, (iii) has adopted procedures designed to ensure that it complies
with these statutory provisions, (iv) maintains the records required by
rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-1(b)(9);
\11\ and (v) preserves permanently, the first two years in an easily
accessible place, all books and records required to be made under these
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 17 CFR 270.2a-7.
    \10\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a), 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d), 15 U.S.C.
80a-17(e), 15 U.S.C. 80a-18, 15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e).
    \11\ See 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(1), 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 17
CFR 270.31a-1(b)(2)(iv), 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2a-7 contains certain collection of information requirements.
An unregistered money market fund that complies with rule 2a-7 would be
subject to these collection of information requirements. In addition,
the recordkeeping requirements under rule 31a-1 with which the
acquiring fund reasonably believes the unregistered money market fund
complies are collections of information for the unregistered money
market fund. The adoption of procedures by unregistered money market
funds to ensure that they comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), 18, and
22(e) of the Act also constitute collections of information. By
allowing funds to invest in registered and unregistered money market
funds, rule 12d1-1 is intended to provide funds greater options for
cash management. In order for a registered fund to rely on the
exemption to invest in an unregistered money market fund, the
unregistered money market fund must comply with certain collection of
information requirements for registered money market funds. These
requirements are intended to ensure that the unregistered money market
fund has established procedures for collecting the information
necessary to make adequate credit reviews of securities in its
portfolio, as well as other recordkeeping requirements that will assist
the acquiring fund in overseeing the unregistered money market fund
(and Commission staff in its examination of the unregistered money
market fund's adviser).
    The number of unregistered money market funds that are affected by
rule 12d1-1 is an estimate based on the number of private liquidity
funds reported on Form PF as of the fourth calendar quarter 2016.\12\
The hour burden estimates for the condition that an unregistered money
market fund comply with rule 2a-7 are based on the burden hours
included in the Commission's 2013 PRA submission regarding rule 2a-
7.\13\ The estimated average burden hours in this collection of
information are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act
and are not derived from a quantitative, comprehensive or even
representative survey or study of the burdens associated with
Commission rules and forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Annual Staff
Report Relating to the Use of Form PF Data, Private Fund Statistics,
Fourth Calendar Quarter 2016, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/im-private-fund-annual-report-101617.pdf.
    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Commission, Request for OMB
Approval of Extension for Approved Collection for Rule 2a-7 under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (OMB Control No. 3235-0268)
(approved Aug. 28, 2013). This was the most recent rule 2a-7
submission that includes certain estimates with respect to aggregate
annual hour and cost burdens for collections of information for each
existing registered money market fund, fund complexes with
registered money market funds, registered money market funds that
experience an event of default or insolvency, and newly registered
money market funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff made the following
estimates with respect to aggregate annual hour and cost burdens for
collections of information for each existing registered money market
fund:
    Record of credit risk analyses, and determinations regarding
adjustable rate securities, asset backed securities, securities subject
to a demand feature or guarantee, and counterparties to repurchase
agreements:

85 responses
680 hours of professional time
Cost: $178,160 \14\

    \14\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (680
burden hours x $262 per hour for professional time) = $178,160 per
fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public website posting of monthly portfolio information:

12 responses
7 hours of professional time
Cost: $17,304 \15\

    \15\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (12 x
7 burden hours x $206 per hour for a webmaster) = $17,304 per fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of procedures and guidelines of any investment adviser to
whom the fund's board has delegated responsibility under rule 2a-7 and
amendment of such procedures:

1 response
5 hours of professional and director time
Cost: $5,960 \16\

    \16\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1
hour x $4,500 per hour for board time) + (4 hours x $365 per hour
for professional time) = $5,960 per fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on census data available on Form PF, the staff believes that
the number of private liquidity funds reported on Form PF (69) is the
most current and accurate estimate the number of unregistered money
market funds affected by rule 12d1-1.\17\ Each of these unregistered
money market funds engages in the collections of information described
above. Accordingly, the staff estimates that unregistered money market
funds complying with the collections of information described above
engage in a total of 6,762 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,\18\ the
aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is
47,748,\19\ and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $13,898,256.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 12. The staff notes, however, that this
estimate may be overstated to the extent that a private liquidity
fund reported on Form PF does not follow all of rule 2a-7's
requirements (that include collections of information) or because no
registered investment companies invest in such a fund. The staff
also notes, however, that this estimate may be understated to the
extent that there are additional unregistered money market funds
that are not required to be reported on Form PF (because Form PF is
filed only by certain investment advisers to private funds that have
$150 million in private fund assets under management).
    \18\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (69
funds x 85 responses for documentation of credit analyses and other
determinations) = 5,865 responses. (69 funds x 12 responses for
public website posting) = 828 responses. (69 funds x 1 response for
policies and procedures related to delegation to an investment
adviser) = 69 responses. 5,865 responses + 828 responses + 69
responses = 6,762 responses.
    \19\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (69
funds x 680 hours for documentation of credit analyses and other
determinations) = 46,920 hours. (69 funds x 7 hours for public
website posting) = 483 hours. (69 funds x 5 hours for policies and
procedures related to delegation to an investment adviser) = 345
hours. 46,920 hours + 483 hours + 345 hours = 47,748 hours.
    \20\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (69
funds x $178,160) = $12,293,040. (69 funds x $17,304) = $1,193,976.
(69 funds x $5,960) = $411,240. $12,293,040 + $1,193,976 + $411,240
= $13,898,256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the
aggregate annual hour and cost burdens for collections of information
for fund complexes with registered money market funds as follows:
    Review, revise, and approve procedures concerning stress testing:

1 response
12 burden hours of professional and director time

Cost: $8,021 \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1
hour x $4,500 per hour for board time) + (5 hours x $322 per hour
for a portfolio manager) + (3 hours x $259 per hour for a risk
management specialist) + (3 hours x $378 per hour for an attorney) =
$8,021 per response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Report to fund boards on the results of stress testing:

5 responses
10 burden hours of professional and support staff time
Cost: $15,490 \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (5
responses x 5 hours x $322 per hour for a portfolio manager) + (5
responses x 2 hours x $279 per hour for a compliance manager) + (5
responses x 2 hours x $378 per hour for an attorney) + (5 responses
x 1 hour x $174 per hour for support staff) = $15,490 per fund
complex.

    Reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions: \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 CFR 270.17a-9.

1 response
1 burden hour of legal time
Cost: $378 \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
response x $378 per hour for an attorney) = $378 per response.

    Based on the number of liquidity fund advisers reported on Form PF,
the staff estimates that there are 39 fund complexes with unregistered
money market funds invested in by mutual funds in excess of the
statutory limits under rule 12d1-1.\25\ Each of these fund complexes
engages in the collections of information described above. Accordingly,
the staff estimates that these fund complexes complying with the
collections of information described above engage in a total of 273
annual responses under rule 12d1-1,\26\ the aggregate annual burden
hours associated with these responses is 897,\27\ and the aggregate
annual cost to funds is $931,671.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 12.
    \26\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (39
fund complexes x 1 response for revision of procedures concerning
stress testing) = 39 responses. (39 fund complexes x 5 responses to
provide stress testing reports) = 195 responses. (39 fund complexes
x 1 response for reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions) = 39
responses. 39 responses + 195 responses + 39 responses = 273
responses.
    \27\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (39
fund complexes x 12 hours for revision of procedures concerning
stress testing) = 468 hours. (39 fund complexes x 10 hours to
provide stress testing reports) = 390 hours. (39 fund complexes x 1
hour for reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions) = 39 hours. 468 hours
+ 390 hours + 39 hours = 897 hours.
    \28\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (39
fund complexes x $8,021 for revision of procedures concerning stress
testing) = $312,819. (39 fund complexes x $15,490 to provide stress
testing reports) = $604,110. (39 fund complexes x $378 for reporting
of rule 17a-9 transactions) = $14,742. $312,819 + $604,110 + $14,742
= $931,671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the
aggregate annual burdens for registered money market funds that
experience an event of default or insolvency as follows:
    Written record of board determinations and actions related to
failure of a security to meet certain eligibility standards or an event
of default of default or insolvency:

2 responses
1 burden hour of legal time
Cost: $378

    Notice to Commission of an event of default or insolvency:

1 response
0.5 burden hours of legal time
Cost: $189

    Consistent with the estimate in the rule 2a-7 submissions,
Commission staff estimates that approximately 2 percent, or 1,
unregistered money market fund experiences an event of default or
insolvency each year. Accordingly, the staff estimates that one
unregistered money market fund will comply with these collections of
information requirements and engage in 3 annual responses under rule
12d1-1,\29\ the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these
responses is 1.5,\30\ and the aggregate annual cost to funds is
$567.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
fund x 2 responses) + (1 fund x 1 response) = 3 responses.
    \30\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
fund x 1 hour) + (1 fund x 0.5 hours) = 1.5 hours.
    \31\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
fund x $378) + (1 fund x $189) = $567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the
aggregate annual burdens for newly registered money market funds as
follows:
    Establish written procedures and guidelines designed to stabilize
the fund's net asset value and establish procedures for board
delegation of authority:

1 response
15.5 hours of director, legal, and support staff time
Cost: $6,328 \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0.5
hours x $4,500 per hour for board time) + (7.2 hours x $378 per hour
for an attorney) + (7.8 hours x $174 per hour for support staff) =
$6,328 per response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adopt procedures concerning stress testing:

1 response per fund complex
22 burden hours of professional and director time per fund complex
Cost: $19,373 per fund complex \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3
hours x $4,500 per hour for board time) + (8 hours x $378 per hour
for an attorney) + (11 hours x $259 per hour for a risk management
specialist) = $19,373 per response. See also infra note 34.

    Commission staff estimates that the proportion of unregistered
money market funds that intend to newly undertake the collection of
information burdens of rule 2a-7 will be similar to the proportion of
money market funds that are newly registered. Based on a projection of
10 new money market funds per year (in the most recent rule 2a-7
submission), the staff estimates that, similarly, there will be 10 new
unregistered money market funds that undertake the above burden to
establish written procedures and guidelines designed to stabilize the
fund's net asset value and establish procedures for board delegation of
authority.\34\ Accordingly, the staff estimates that 10 unregistered
money market funds will comply with this collection of information
requirement and engage in 10 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,\35\
the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is
155,\36\ and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $62,380.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The staff's estimate is based on historical data provided
in Lipper Inc.'s LANA database and projections about the growth of
the money market mutual fund industry going forward. The actual
number of new money market funds launched may vary significantly
from our estimates depending upon developments in market interest
rates and other factors. The staff does not estimate any new fund
complexes being launched in the next year.
    \35\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x 1 response) = 10 responses.
    \36\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x 15.5 hours) = 155 hours.
    \37\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x $6,238) = $62,380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the estimated total number of annual responses under
rule 12d1-1 for the collections of information described in the rule
2a-7 submissions is 7,048, the aggregate annual burden hours associated
with these responses is 48,801.5, and the aggregate cost to funds is
$14,892,874.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ These estimates are based upon the following calculations:
(6,762 + 273 + 3+ 10) = 7,048 annual responses; (47,748 + 897 + 1.5
+ 155) = 48,801.5 burden hours; and ($13,898,256 + $931,671 + $567 +
$62,380) = $14,892,874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-
1(b)(9) require registered funds to keep certain records, which include
journals and general and auxiliary ledgers, including ledgers for each
portfolio security and each shareholder of record of the fund. Most of
the records required to be maintained by the rule are the type that
generally would be maintained as a matter of good business practice and
to prepare the unregistered money market fund's financial statements.
Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that the requirements under
rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-1(b)(9)
would not impose any additional burden because the costs of maintaining
these records would be incurred by unregistered money market funds in
any case to keep books and records that are necessary to prepare
financial statements for shareholders, to prepare

the fund's annual income tax returns, and as a normal business custom.
    Rule 12d1-1 also requires unregistered money market funds in which
registered funds invest to adopt procedures designed to ensure that the
unregistered money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e),
and 22(e) of the Act. This is a one-time collection of information
requirement that applies to unregistered money market funds that intend
to comply with the requirements of rule 12d1-1. As discussed above,
based on a projection of 10 new money market funds per year, the staff
estimates that, similarly, there will be 10 new unregistered money
market funds that undertake the above burden to establish written
procedures and guidelines designed to ensure that the unregistered
money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), and 22(e) of
the Act. The staff estimates the burden as follows:
    Establish written procedures and guidelines designed to ensure that
the unregistered money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d),
(e), and 22(e) of the Act:

1 response
15.5 hours of director, legal, and support staff time
Cost: $6,328 \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0.5
hours x $4,500 per hour for board time) + (7.2 hours x $378 per hour
for an attorney) + (7.8 hours x $174 per hour for support staff) =
$6,328 per response.

    Accordingly, the staff estimates that 10 unregistered money market
funds will comply with this collection of information requirement and
engage in 10 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,\40\ the aggregate
annual burden hours associated with these responses is 155,\41\ and the
aggregate annual cost to funds is $62,380.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x 1 response) = 10 responses.
    \41\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x 15.5 hours) = 155 hours.
    \42\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
funds x $6,238) = $62,380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff also estimates that unregistered money market
funds will incur costs to preserve records, as required under rule 2a-
7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds, depending
on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the fund
preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has
developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve
compliance records. In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff
estimated that the amount an individual money market fund may spend
ranges from $100 per year to $300,000. We have no reason to believe the
range is different for unregistered money market funds. Based on Form
PF data as of the fourth calendar quarter 2016, private liquidity funds
have $293 billion in gross asset value.\43\ The Commission does not
have specific information about the proportion of assets held in small,
medium-sized, or large unregistered money market funds. Because private
liquidity funds are often used as cash management vehicles, the staff
estimates that each private liquidity fund is a ``large'' fund (i.e.,
more than $1 billion in assets under management). Based on a cost of
$0.0000009 per dollar of assets under management (for large funds),\44\
the staff estimates compliance with rule 2a-7 for these unregistered
money market funds totals $263,700 annually.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 12.
    \44\ The recordkeeping cost estimates are $0.0051295 per dollar
of assets under management for small funds, and $0.0005041 per
dollar of assets under management for medium-sized funds. The cost
estimates are the same as those used in the most recently approved
rule 2a-7 submission.
    \45\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($293
billion x $0.0000009) = $263,700 billion for small funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with estimates made in the rule 2a-7 submission,
Commission staff estimates that unregistered money market funds also
incur capital costs to create computer programs for maintaining and
preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7 of $0.0000132 per dollar of
assets under management. Based on the assets under management figures
described above, staff estimates annual capital costs for all
unregistered money market funds of $3.87 million.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($293
billion x 0.0000132) = $3.87 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the
requirements of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half
of the amounts described above for record preservation ($131,850) and
for capital costs ($1.94 million). Commission staff concludes that the
aggregate annual costs of compliance with the rule are $131,850 for
record preservation and $1.94 million for capital costs.
    The collections of information required for unregistered money
market funds by rule 12d1-1 are necessary in order for acquiring funds
to be able to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the
Commission will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02118 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18923-18924]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3370-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Washington; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Washington (FEMA-3370-EM), dated March 24, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 28, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Washington is hereby amended to include grant assistance
for the area determined to have been adversely affected by the event
declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of March 24,
2014.

    Snohomish County for emergency protective measures [Category B],
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program (already designated for emergency protective measures
[Category B], limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

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. 2014-07592 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


DATE:	August 11, 2016
SUBJECT:	Summary of Requirements in Area Source Foundries NESHAP
            EPA Contract No.:  EPD11084
            EPA Project No.:  4-02
            RTI Project No.:  0213199.004.002
FROM:	Sandra Pierce, RTI International
TO:	Phil Mulrine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

1.	Purpose
This memorandum provides a summary of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources, 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ promulgated January 2, 2008.
2.	Background
Please refer to the Memo summarizing the NESHAP for Major Sources dated August 9, 2016 for a description of the processes and emission points at iron and steel foundries.
3.	Subpart ZZZZZ Emission Standards
This subpart applies to iron and steel foundries that are an area source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. Under the new area source rule, EPA defined large and small area source foundries according to the parameters in Table 1.
         Table 1. Definition of Large and Small Area Source Foundries

                     Small Foundry: Annual melt production
                     Large Foundry: Annual melt production
                        Existing Area Source Foundries
20,000 tons or less
Greater than 20,000 tons
                           New Area Source Foundries
10,000 tons or less
Greater than 10,000 tons

If a facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), the facility must comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years before reclassifying as a small foundry, even if the annual metal melt production falls below 20,000 tons (10,000 tons for new sources). After 3 years, the foundry may be reclassified as a small foundry provided the annual metal melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or less (10,000 tons or less for new foundries). If a large foundry is reclassified as a small foundry a notification of reclassification must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days and the requirements for a small foundry must be complied with no later than the date the Administrator is notified of the reclassification.
If the annual metal melt production exceeds 20,000 tons (10,000 tons for new sources) during a subsequent year, a notification of reclassification must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days and the requirements for a large foundry must be complied with no later than the date the Administrator is notified of the reclassification.
3.1 Pollution Prevention Management Practices
3.1.1 Metallic Scrap Management Program
Each segregated metallic scrap storage area, bin or pile must comply with the materials acquisition requirements in §63.10885. A copy of the material specifications must be kept onsite and readily available to all personnel with material acquisition duties, and provided to each scrap provider. Segregated metallic scrap must classified as either restricted metallic scrap or  general iron and steel scrap, as summarized below.
 Restricted metallic scrap. Must have written material specifications for the purchase and use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, postconsumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free liquids. The requirements for no free liquids do not apply if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted from scrap exposure to rain.
 General iron and steel scrap. Must written material specifications for the purchase and use of only iron and steel scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by the iron and steel foundry. The materials specifications must include at minimum:
 For scrap charged to a preheater or metal melting furnace: Specifications for metallic scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible lead-containing components (such as batteries and wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
 For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with an afterburner: specifications for metallic scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components (such as batteries and wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.

3.1.2 Mercury Requirements
For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap (i.e., scrap storage area, bin or pile), each facility must certify in their notification of compliance status and maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap, scrap must be procured pursuant to one of the following compliance options for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment.
 Site-specific plan for mercury switches. This includes a requirement in scrap specifications for the removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap; operating according to a plan which demonstrates how the facility will implement the scrap specification for removal of mercury switches; a means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper management of the mercury switches removed from the scrap; provisions for: obtaining assurance from scrap providers that they meet the specifications; periodic inspections or other means of corroboration; and taking corrective action, if needed. Detailed requirements can be found in §63.10885(b)(1).
 Option for approved mercury programs. Requires certification in notification of compliance status that the facility participates in and purchases motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator based on the criteria below.  If motor vehicle scrap is purchased from a broker, a facility must certify that all scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for the removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator based on the following criteria:
 The program includes outreach the dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance for removing mercury switches;
 The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of mercury switches from motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider processes; and
 The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at facilities with permits.
      Also requires the development of a plan which demonstrates the manner through which the facility is participating in the EPA-approved program.
 Option for specialty metal scrap. Requires certification in notification of compliance status that the only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy (including, but not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys) content (such as certain exhaust systems) and, based on the nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, that the type of scrap is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.
3.1.3 Binder Formulations
Each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line at a new or existing iron and steel foundry, must use a binder chemical formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst formulation. This requirement does not apply to the resin portion of the binder system.
3.2 Management Practices and Compliance Requirements
All foundries (small and large) must comply with pollution prevention management practices for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder formulations.  Small foundries are not subject to emission limits or compliance tests.
The following are required for all large new and existing foundries:
 Must operate a capture and collection system for each metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry unless that furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part of an emissions averaging group. Each capture and collection system must meet accepted engineering standards, such as those published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
 Must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions from any metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that exceed the applicable limit below. When an alternative emissions limit is provided for a given emissions source, facilities are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative emissions limit is used to demonstrate compliance.
 For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of particulate matter (PM) per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.
 For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.
 A new iron and steel foundry must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions from foundry operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30 percent.
 New affected (large) sources must comply with each control device parameter operating limit in §63.10895(d) that applies.
 Must prepare and operate at all times according to a written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, or opacity emissions limit [detailed requirements for contents of O&M plan can be found in §63.10896(a)(1-5)].
 Must conduct various initial, daily, and monthly inspections of emissions control equipment as specified in §63.10897.

 Conduct initial compliance tests and performance tests as specified in §63.10898 and Table 1 of subpart ZZZZZ.