72164 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Notices action it takes, i. e., issues, amends, or revokes, a State registration. The Agency has 90 days to disapprove the registration. In such cases, the State is responsible for notifying the affected registrant. Burden Statement: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), `` burden'' means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that is subject to approval under the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's information collections appear on the collection instruments or instructions, in the Federal Register notices for related rulemakings and ICR notices, and, if the collection is contained in a regulation, in a table of OMB approval numbers in 40 CFR part 9. The following is a summary of the burden estimates taken from the ICR: Respondents/ affected entities: State and territorial governments ( the 50 states plus Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, the U. S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the islands of the Pacific Territory, and American Samoa). Estimated total number of potential respondents: 60. Frequency of response: As needed. Estimated total/ average number of responses for each respondent: 5   6. Estimated total annual burden hours: 18,200. Estimated total annual burden costs: $ 1,585,150. Changes in the ICR Since the Last Approval: The Agency revised its burden estimates for both States and applicants based on information received during the public comment period and in consultation with respondents. The average applicant response burden decreased by 29 hours while the average State response burden increased by 11.5 hours, resulting in a net decrease in burden for the activities associated with this ICR. EPA estimates that the overall respondent burden has decreased from 24,604 hours to 18,200 hours, a decrease in burden of 6,404 hours. These changes are described in detail in the ICR. According to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has submitted this ICR to OMB for review and approval. Any comments related to the renewal of this ICR should be submitted within 30 days of this notice, as described above.

Dated: November 22, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   30758 Filed 12   3   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0320; FRL   7417   6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB; Comment Request; EPA ICR No. 0161.09/ OMB No. 2070   0027; Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides; OMB No. 2070   0027; EPA No. 0161.09. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection activity and its expected burden and costs. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 3, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Vogel, Field and External Affairs Division ( 7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6475; fax number: ( 703) 305   5884; e mail address: vogel. nancy@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. The Federal Register document, required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on December 12, 2001 ( 66 FR 64246). EPA received no comments on this ICR during the 60 day comment period. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPP   2002   0320 ( formerly Docket Control No. OPP   00751), which is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to oppdocket epa. gov, or by mail to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0320; and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 04 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEN1. SGM 04DEN1 72165 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Notices restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http;// www. epa. gov./ edocket. ICR Title: Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides ( OMB NO. 2070   0027; EPA No. 0161.09) ICR Status: This is a request for extension of an existing approved collection that is currently scheduled to expire on November 30, 2002. EPA is asking OMB to approve this ICR for three years. Under 5 CFR 1320.12( b)( 2), the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: This information collection program is designed to enable the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to provide notice to foreign purchasers of unregistered pesticides exported from the United States that the pesticide product cannot be sold in the United States. Section 17( a)( 2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) requires an exporter of any pesticide not registered under FIFRA section 3 or sold under FIFRA section 6( a)( 1) to obtain a signed statement from the foreign purchaser acknowledging that the purchaser is aware that the pesticide is not registered for use in, and cannot be sold in, the United States. A copy of this statement must be transmitted to an appropriate official of the government in the importing country. The purpose of the purchaser acknowledgment statement requirement is to notify the government of the importing country that a pesticide judged hazardous to human health or the environment, or for which no such hazard assessment has been made, will be imported into that country. This information is submitted in the form of annual or per shipment statements to the EPA, which maintains original records and transmits copies thereof to appropriate government officials of the countries which are importing the pesticide. Burden Statement: The annual `` respondent'' burden for this ICR is estimated to be 24,753 hours. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), `` burden'' means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that is subject to approval under the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's information collections appear on the collection instruments or instructions, in the Federal Register notices for related rulemakings and ICR notices, and, if the collection is contained in a regulation, in a table of OMB approval numbers in 40 CFR part 9. The following is a summary of the burden estimates taken from the ICR: Respondents/ affected entities: Individuals or entities engaged in activities related to the registration of a pesticide product. Estimated total number of potential respondents: 2,500. Frequency of response: Annual or pershipment Estimated total/ average number of responses for each respondent: 1. Estimated total annual burden hours: 24,753. Estimated total annual burden costs: $ 1,902,400. According to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has submitted this ICR to OMB for review and approval. Any comments related to the renewal of this ICR should be submitted within 30 days of this notice, as described above.

Dated: November 22, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   30759 Filed 12   3   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7417   5]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Title: NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating   40 CFR part 60, subpart WW, OMB Control Number 2060   0001, expiration date January 31, 2003. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR Number 0663.08 and OMB Control Number 2060   0001, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR, contact Susan Auby at ( 202) 566   1672 or by e mail to auby. susan@ epa. gov or download from the Internet at: http:// www. epa. gov/ icr, and refer to EPA ICR Number 0663.08. For technical questions about the ICR, contact Steven Hoover at ( 202) 564   7007, or by e mail to: hoover. steven@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating   40 CFR part 60, subpart WW, OMB Control Number 2060   0001, EPA ICR Number 0663.08, expiration date January 31, 2003. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Surface Coating of Beverage Cans were proposed on November 26, 1980, and promulgated on August 25, 1983. These standards apply to each beverage can surface coating operation in which organic coatings are applied ( exterior base coat operations, over varnish coating operations, and inside spray coating operations) that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after November 26, 1980. Approximately 46 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that 2 sources per year will VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 04 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEN1. SGM 04DEN1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5075]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2512-078]

Hawks Nest Hydro, LLC; Notice of Comment Period Extension

    On December 19, 2018, the Commission issued a notice setting
January 21, 2019, as the end of the formal period to file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests for a Recreation Flow Release Plan
for the Hawks Nest Hydroelectric Project No. 2512. The project is
located on the New River, just upstream of the confluence of the New
and Gauley Rivers, near the Town of Ansted in Fayette County, West
Virginia. Due to the funding lapse at certain federal agencies between
December 22, 2018 and January 25, 2019, the Commission is extending the
comment period until March 13, 2019.

    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02705 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  EPA/OPP Meetings with Stakeholders on Chlorpyrifos  Spring  -  Summer 2019

May 2, 2019: Meeting with Corteva to Discuss Chlorpyrifos Status  The EPA met with representatives of the chlorpyrifos registrant, Corteva, to discuss the status of EPA's registration review, and if any additional information is needed from Corteva.  The agency provided an update and Corteva discussed the uses critical to growers in terms of usage and resistance management.

May 10, 2019 and June 13, 2019: Meetings with Corteva to Discuss Chlorpyrifos Uses The EPA met with representatives of the chlorpyrifos registrant, Corteva, to discuss uses critical to growers in terms of usage and resistance management across different regions of the U.S.  As the EPA continues to work through the registration review of chlorpyrifos, this additional information may be used in refining the drinking water assessment once provided by the registrant.

June 6, 2019: Meetings with California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and the California Almond Board The EPA met with CDPR and the California Almond Board to discuss the review status of certain conventional pesticides at the EPA and CDPR, including chlorpyrifos.  Both the EPA and CDPR provided an update.

July 10, 2019: Meeting with Corteva to Discuss Chlorpyrifos Oxon Study The EPA met with Corteva to discuss Corteva's proposed study designed to investigate whether chlorpyrifos oxon as administered through drinking water to rats has the ability to inhibit cholinesterase activity.  The EPA is always open to receipt of data that may help refine its risk assessments and committed to review a protocol for its proposed study.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58801-58802]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ad18-6-000]

Notice of Availability of the Revised Engineering Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects: Chapter 11--Arch Dams and
Request for Comments

    The staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) is revising
Chapter 11--

Arch Dams of its Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects. The staff has revised Chapter 11--Arch Dams \1\
and comments are now requested on the draft document from federal and
state agencies, licensees whose infrastructure portfolio includes arch
dams, independent consultants and inspectors, and other interested
parties with special expertise with respect dam safety and arch dams. A
60-day public comment period is allotted to collect comments. Please
note that this comment period will close on February 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The existing Chapter 11--Arch Dams is dated October 1999 and
can be found on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) website to use as a reference to see the changes made:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide/chap11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties can help us determine the appropriate updates
and improvements by providing: Meaningful comments or suggestions that
focus on the specific sections requiring clarification; updates to
reflect current laws and regulations; or improved measures for
evaluating the safety of arch dams. The more specific your comments,
the more useful they will be. A detailed explanation of your
submissions and/or any references of scientific studies associated with
your comments will greatly help us with this process. We will consider
all timely comments on the revised Guidelines before issuing the final
version.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the docket number (AD18-6-000) on the first page of your
submission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments up to 6,000 characters. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
eRegister. When selecting the filing type, select General, then chose
Comment (on Filing, Environ. Report or Tech Conf); or
    (3) In lieu of electronic filing, you can mail a paper copy of your
comments to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    The OEP staff provided copies of revised Chapter 11--Arch Dams to
federal and state agencies, licensees whose portfolio includes arch
dams, independent consultants and inspectors, and other interested
parties. In addition, all information related to the proposed updates
to Chapter 11--Arch Dams and submitted comments can be found on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., AD18-
6). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The Commission
also offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets.
This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with electronic notification of these
filings and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. Users must be registered in order to use
eSubscription.
    For assistance with filing or any of the Commission's online
systems, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26927 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9553-9558]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03561]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71530; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
the Qualified Market Maker Incentive Program and NBBO Setter Incentive
Program Under Rule 7014, and the Schedule of Fees and Rebates Under
Rule 7018

February 12, 2014.
    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 January 31, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to make changes to the Qualified Market Maker
(``QMM'') Incentive Program and NBBO Setter Incentive Program under
Rule 7014, and the schedule of fees and rebates for execution and
routing of orders under Rule 7018. NASDAQ will begin assessing the fees
effective February 3, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at NASDAQ's
principal office, 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, 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing several changes to the QMM Incentive Program
and NBBO Setter Incentive Program under Rule 7014, and to its schedule
of fees and credits applicable to execution and routing of orders under
Rule 7018, which is described in detail below.
QMM Incentive Program
    A QMM is a member that makes a significant contribution to market
quality by providing liquidity at the NBBO in a large number of stocks
for a significant portion of the day. In addition, the member must
avoid imposing the burdens on NASDAQ and its market participants that
may be associated with excessive rates of entry of orders away from the
inside and/or order cancellation. The designation reflects the QMM's
commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to market
quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at the NBBO in a large
number of securities. In return for its contributions, certain
financial benefits are provided to a QMM with respect to a particular
MPID (a ``QMM MPID''), as described under Rule 7014(e). These benefits
include a lower rate charged for executions of orders in securities
priced at $1 or more per share that access liquidity on the NASDAQ
Market Center and that are entered through a QMM MPID.\3\ The current
charge assessed on a member for removing liquidity on NASDAQ is $0.0030
per share executed, irrespective of the security's listing venue (i.e.,
NASDAQ, NYSE, or other).\4\ QMM MPIDs, however, receive a lower charge
of $0.0029 per share executed, also irrespective of the securities
listing

venue. NASDAQ is proposing to limit the reduced charged [sic] provided
to QMM MPID orders that remove liquidity to only securities listed on
venues other than NASDAQ (i.e., NYSE or other). When NASDAQ adopted the
current rate, it noted that the changes it was making were intended to
encourage members to promote price discovery and market quality by
quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in a large
number of securities, thereby benefitting NASDAQ and other investors by
committing capital to support the execution of orders.\5\ NASDAQ notes
that the program with respect to NASDAQ-listed has not been successful
in providing material improvement in market quality in such securities
and believes that applying the current default rate of $0.0030 should
not affect the quality of the market given current market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 7014(e)(3) further requires, however, that after the
first month in which an MPID becomes a QMM MPID, the QMM's volume of
liquidity added, provided, and/or routed through the QMM MPID during
the month (as a percentage of Consolidated Volume) is not less than
0.05% lower than the volume of liquidity added, provided, and/or
routed through such QMM MPID during the first month in which the
MPID qualified as a QMM MPID (as a percentage of Consolidated
Volume).
    \4\ NASDAQ provides lower charges for removing liquidity from
the NASDAQ Market Center, as described in Rule 7018(a).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70361 (September 10,
2013), 78 FR 56962 (September 16, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-114); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68905 (February 12, 2013),
78 FR 11716 (February 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBBO Setter Incentive Program
    The NBBO Setter Incentive Program provides incentive to members to
set the NBBO or quote at the NBBO on NASDAQ, thus improving the quality
of the market. Under Rule 7014(f) and unlike other members, a QMM may
not receive both an Investor Support Program (``ISP'') credit and NBBO
Setter Incentive credit, but rather receives only the greater credit of
the two. The Exchange is proposing to expand the limitation on
receiving only the greater of an ISP credit or NBBO Setter Incentive
Program credit under Rule 7014(f) to all members. Specifically, the
Exchange is deleting text in Rule 7014(f) that limits only QMMs to a
single credit under the programs and is adding text to apply the
limitation to all members that participate in the programs. As a
consequence, members that are eligible to receive credits under both
programs will only receive the larger credit of the two.
Amended Fees for Execution and Routing of Securities Listed on NASDAQ
(Tape C)
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify certain charges assessed and credits
provided under Rule 7018(a)(1). First, under Rule 7018(a)(1), NASDAQ
assesses a charge of $0.0029 per share executed on members that enter
Market-on-Close (``MOC'') and/or Limit-on-Close (``LOC'') orders
executed in the NASDAQ Closing Cross, entered through a single MPID
that represent more than 0.06% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
NASDAQ originally introduced the discount charge because it believed
that members that participate in the NASDAQ Closing Cross to a
significant extent through the use of MOC and/or LOC orders are
frequently acting on behalf of institutional investor customers.\6\ At
the time, NASDAQ believed that members may have been giving NASDAQ
lower relative priority in their order routing decisions due to its
relatively high fees for accessing liquidity, as compared with lower
cost exchanges. As a consequence, liquidity providers on NASDAQ may
have been receiving larger orders that had already attempted to access
liquidity elsewhere, such that the order was more likely to have an
impact on the price of the stock. NASDAQ hoped that lowering the fees
for these members they would be encouraged [sic] to give greater
priority to NASDAQ in their routing decisions, thereby lowering their
cost and improving the execution experience of liquidity providers.
Moreover, NASDAQ hoped to encourage greater use of its Closing Cross
through the reduction in the charge. NASDAQ notes that [sic] reduced
rate has not materially improved the market in Tape C securities and
therefore is proposing to increase the charged assessed from $0.0029 to
$0.0030 per share executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68421 (December 13,
2012), 77 FR 75232 (December 19, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge assessed a
member that enters a TFTY order \7\ that executes on a venue other than
NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') or NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX''). Currently, NASDAQ
assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share executed for such TFTY orders
and NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge to $0.0007 per share
executed. Third, NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge for QDRK,
or QCST orders \8\ that execute in a venue other than the NASDAQ Market
Center. NASDAQ currently assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share
executed for such QDRK, or QCST orders and NASDAQ is proposing to
increase the charge to $0.0007 per share executed. Lastly, NASDAQ is
proposing to eliminate the $0.0011 per share credit provided to members
that enter QCST orders in NASDAQ-listed securities that execute on BX,
and provide no charge or credit for such orders. These changes will
reduce costs in a period of reduced trading volumes and are unlikely to
have a significant impact on members that use NASDAQ's routing
services, as the charges remain relatively low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TFTY is a routing option under which orders check NASDAQ for
available shares only if so instructed by the entering firm and are
thereafter routed to destinations on the applicable routing table.
If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted to the
book. Once on the book, if the order is subsequently locked or
crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center.
    \8\ QDRK is a routing option under which orders check NASDAQ for
available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to
destinations on the applicable routing table that are not posting
Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS. If shares
remain un-executed after routing, they are posted on the book. Once
on the book, if the order is subsequently locked or crossed by
another market center, NASDAQ will not route the order to the
locking or crossing market center.
     QCST is a routing option under which orders check NASDAQ for
available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to
destinations on the applicable routing table that are not posting
Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS and to
certain, but not all, exchanges. If shares remain un-executed after
routing, they are posted on the book. Once on the book, if the order
is subsequently locked or crossed by another market center, NASDAQ
will not route the order to the locking or crossing market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Fees for Execution and Routing of Securities Listed on NYSE
(Tape A)
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify certain charges assessed and credits
provided under Rule 7018(a)(2). Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to
amend fees assessed for routing orders in New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE'') -listed securities. First, NASDAQ is proposing to increase
the charge assessed a member that enters a TFTY order that executes on
a venue other than NYSE, NASDAQ OMX BX or NASDAQ OMX PSX. Currently,
NASDAQ assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share executed for such TFTY
orders and NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge to $0.0007 per
share executed. Second, NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge for
QDRK, or QCST orders that execute in a venue other than the NASDAQ
Market Center. NASDAQ currently assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share
executed for such QDRK, or QCST orders and NASDAQ is proposing to
increase the charge to $0.0007 per share executed. Third, NASDAQ is
proposing to eliminate the $0.0011 per share credit provided to members
that enter QCST orders in NYSE-listed securities that execute on NASDAQ
OMX BX, and provide no charge or credit for such orders. Lastly, the
Exchange is proposing to eliminate the $0.0004 credit provided for DOTI
orders that orders [sic] that execute in NASDAQ OMX BX, and provide no
charge or credit for such orders. These changes

will reduce costs in a period of reduced trading volumes and are
unlikely to have a significant impact on members that use NASDAQ's
routing services, as the charges remain relatively low.
Amended Fees for Execution and Routing of Securities Listed on
Exchanges Other Than NASDAQ and NYSE (Tape B)
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify certain charges assessed and credits
provided under Rule 7018(a)(3). Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to
amend fees assessed for routing orders in securities listed on
exchanges other than NASDAQ or NYSE. First, NASDAQ is proposing to
increase the charge assessed a member that enters a TFTY order that
executes on a venue other than NASDAQ OMX BX or NASDAQ OMX PSX.
Currently, NASDAQ assesses a charge of $0.0005 per share executed for
such TFTY orders and NASDAQ is proposing to increase the charge to
$0.0007 per share executed. Second, NASDAQ is proposing to increase the
charge for QDRK, or QCST orders that execute in a venue other than the
NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ currently assesses a charge of $0.0005 per
share executed for such QDRK, or QCST orders and NASDAQ is proposing to
increase the charge to $0.0007 per share executed. Third, NASDAQ is
proposing to eliminate the $0.0011 per share credit provided to members
that enter QCST orders in securities listed on exchanges other than
NASDAQ or NYSE that execute on NASDAQ OMX BX, and provide no charge or
credit for such orders. Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate
the $0.0004 credit provided for DOTI orders that orders [sic] that
execute in NASDAQ OMX BX, and provide no charge or credit for such
orders. These changes will reduce costs in a period of reduced trading
volumes and are unlikely to have a significant impact on members that
use NASDAQ's routing services, as the charges remain relatively low.
Amended Fees for Execution in the Closing, Opening and IPO/Halt Crosses
    The Exchange is proposing to charge a fee for all other quotes and
orders executed in the NASDAQ Closing Cross, other than MOC and LOC
orders. Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.0010 per share
executed \9\ for MOC and LOC orders that execute in the Closing Cross,
and charges no fee for all other quotes and orders executed in the
Closing Cross. The Exchange is proposing to assess a fee of $0.0002 per
share executed for all other quotes and orders executed in the NASDAQ
Closing Cross, other than MOC and LOC orders. This change will help the
Exchange recapture some of the costs it incurs operating the cross
system, while maintaining relatively low fees for the execution of
orders in the Closing Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Except as provided in Rule 7018(d)(2), which provides that
High Volume MPIDs pay a discounted fee of $0.0001 per share executed
with respect to executions of ``Market-On-Close'' and ``Limit-on-
Close'' orders when the same High Volume MPID is on both sides of
the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to charge a fee for all other quotes and
orders executed in the Nasdaq Opening Cross, other than MOC, LOC, Good-
till-Cancelled (``GTC''), and Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') orders.
Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.0005 per share executed
for the net number of buy and sell shares up to a maximum of $15,000
per firm per month for MOC and LOC, GTC, and IOC orders that execute in
the Opening Cross, and charges no fee for all other quotes and orders
executed in the Opening Cross. The Exchange is proposing to assess a
fee of $0.0002 per share executed for all other quotes and orders
executed in the NASDAQ Closing [sic] Cross, other than MOC, LOC, GTC,
and IOC orders. The Exchange is also proposing to increase the fee
assessed for MOC, LOC, GTC, and IOC orders executed in the Opening
Cross from $0.0005 per share executed, to $0.0010 per share executed
for the net number of buy and sell shares up to a maximum of $15,000
per firm per month. These changes will help the Exchange recapture some
of the costs it incurs operating the cross system and will simplify the
Exchange's fee schedule, while maintaining relatively low fees for the
execution of orders in the Opening Cross.
    The Exchange is proposing to increase the fee assessed for quotes
and orders executed in the NASDAQ IPO/Halt Cross. Currently, the
Exchange assesses a fee on all quotes and orders executed in the IPO/
Halt Cross of $0.0005 per share executed. The Exchange is proposing to
increase this fee to $0.0010 per share executed. The increased fee will
help the Exchange recapture some of the costs it incurs operating the
cross system and will simplify the Exchange's fee schedule, while
maintaining relatively low fees for the execution of orders in the IPO/
Halt Cross.
Amended Fees for Designated Liquidity Providers
    The Exchange is proposing to amend language in Rule 7018(i), which
concerns the applicability of fees and credits for execution of a
Qualified Security \10\ by one of its Designated Liquidity Providers
(``DLP''). As defined in Rule 7018(i)(2), a DLP is a registered NASDAQ
market maker for a Qualified Security that has committed to maintain
minimum performance standards.\11\ Under Rule 7018(i), a DLP is
assessed a charge for removing liquidity from NASDAQ and a credit for
adding liquidity thereto in its Qualified Securities. The charge and
credit is meant to apply to DLPs in their Qualified Securities, to the
exclusion of other charges and credits for execution under the rules.
As currently drafted, only charges and credits provided under the
preceding paragraphs of Rule 7018 are excluded from applying to DLPs in
their Qualified Securities. The rebate programs under Rule 7014,
however, are not excluded from applying to DLPs in their Qualified
Securities. The Exchange is proposing to add language to Rule 7018(i)
that also excludes the rebate programs under Rule 7014 from applying to
DLPs in their Qualified Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 7018(i)(1) defines Qualified Security as an exchange-
traded fund or index-linked security listed on Nasdaq pursuant to
Nasdaq Rules 5705, 5710, or 5720, and it has at least one Designated
Liquidity Provider.
    \11\ The rule further provides that a DLP shall be selected by
NASDAQ based on factors including, but not limited to, experience
with making markets in exchange-traded funds and index-linked
securities, adequacy of capital, willingness to promote NASDAQ as a
marketplace, issuer preference, operational capacity, support
personnel, and history of adherence to NASDAQ rules and securities
laws. Moreover, the rule permits NASDAQ to limit the number of
Designated Liquidity Providers in a security, or modify a previously
established limit, upon prior written notice to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate the current charge
assessed DLPs for entering an order that executes in the NASDAQ Market
Center or attempts to execute in the NASDAQ Market Center prior to
routing. NASDAQ assesses DLPs a charge of $0.003 per share executed for
securities priced at $1 or more per share for an order that executes in
the NASDAQ Market Center or attempts to execute in the NASDAQ Market
Center prior to routing. For such orders in securities priced at less
than $1 per share, the normal execution fees under 7018(a) apply.
NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate this charge so that the normal charges
apply to all orders that a DLP enters in one of its Qualified
Securities that executes in the NASDAQ Market Center or attempts to
execute in the NASDAQ Market Center prior to routing. As a consequence,
DLPs will be eligible to receive reduced fees for such orders under
other provisions of Rule 7018.

    Lastly, NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate the cap on the credit
provided to DLPs under Rule 7018(i). Currently, NASDAQ limits the
credit a DLP may receive to 10 million shares average daily volume and
applies normal credits under 7018(a) to shares greater than 10 million
average daily volume and nondisplayed liquidity. NASDAQ is deleting the
limitation in its entirety, which may promote greater participation in
the program.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the changes to the QMM Program are
reasonable because they serve to maintain an incentive structure
designed to benefit all market participants by encouraging quoting at
or near the NBBO in a wide range of securities that are not listed on
NASDAQ, while also removing the incentive with respect to NASDAQ-listed
securities priced at $1 or more per share that access liquidity on the
NASDAQ Market Center. As noted, the QMM program is intended to
encourage members to promote price discovery and market quality by
quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in a large
number of securities, thereby benefitting NASDAQ and other investors by
committing capital to support the execution of orders. NASDAQ's
observation has been that the lower charge of the program has not
materially increased the quality of the market in the NASDAQ Market
Center with respect to NASDAQ-listed securities. As such, NASDAQ
believes that applying the normal rate in the absence of the desired
improvement in the market at the lower rate is an equitable allocation
of a reasonable fee. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that the removal of the
reduced fee is not unfairly discriminatory because it applies the
default rate to Tape C securities, while maintaining a lower incentive
rate in securities in Tape A and B securities, where the reduced fee
has been effective in improving the market in such securities in
NASDAQ. NASDAQ believes that the current market quality in Tape C
securities in the NASDAQ Market Center should continue, notwithstanding
the elimination of the reduced charge. Accordingly, NASDAQ's proposed
change is designed to maintain the benefits associated with the QMM
program while reducing its cost, thereby making the program sustainable
in the longer term.
    The changes to the NBBO Setter Incentive program are consistent
with a fair allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are intended to encourage members to add
liquidity at prices that benefit all NASDAQ market participants and the
NASDAQ market itself, and enhance price discovery, by establishing a
new NBBO or allowing NASDAQ to join the NBBO established by another
trading center. As the rule is currently written, only QMMs are
precluded from receiving both a credits under the NBBO Setter Incentive
program and the ISP. NASDAQ believes that it is an equitable allocation
of a reasonable fee to extend the restriction on receiving multiple
credits currently imposed on QMMs to all members because both QMMs and
non-QMM members participating in the NBBO Setter Incentive program and
ISP are providing the same market improvement under the two programs.
Likewise, the Exchange believes that removing the distinction between
QMMs and non-QMM members is not unfairly discriminatory because the
change eliminates a distinction currently made in the rules applied to
members that provide the same improvement to market quality under the
ISP and NBBO Setter Incentive program.
    The proposed increase to the charge assessed on members with MOC
and/or LOC orders in securities listed on NASDAQ, which are executed in
the NASDAQ Closing Cross and entered through a single MPID that
represents more than 0.06% of Consolidated Volume during the month is
reasonable because it aligns the fee assessed with the default rate
assessed for orders that execute in the NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ
notes that current lower charge is designed to attract buyers to the
NASDAQ Closing Cross and to incentivize members to use MOC and LOC
orders, thereby providing a deep market and greater participation in
the Closing Cross. NASDAQ is increasing the charge to cover costs
associated with maintaining and improving the Closing Cross system.
Accordingly, NASDAQ believes it is reasonable to assess the default fee
of $0.0030 per share executed of a NASDAQ-listed security on members
that remove liquidity in the NASDAQ Closing Cross. Moreover, NASDAQ
believes that the fee is equitably allocated because all members with
MOC and/or LOC orders in Tape C securities listed on NASDAQ that are
executed in the NASDAQ Closing Cross and entered through a single MPID
that represents more than 0.06% of Consolidated Volume during the month
are assessed the same charge. The Exchange believes that increasing the
charge does not discriminate unfairly because it is a modest increase
tied to the benefit derived from participating in the Closing Cross.
    NASDAQ believes that the increase in the charge for TFTY orders
that execute in venues other than NASDAQ OMX BX, NASDAQ OMX PSX, and in
the case of Tape A securities, also venues other than NYSE is
reasonable because the Exchange is raising the fee [sic] modest amount
to account for costs associated with routing such orders to other
venues. In this regard, NASDAQ notes that the fee is lower than fees
assessed for routing and execution of other orders in securities of
each of the three Tapes. NASDAQ believes that the proposed increase is
equitably allocated because it will apply to all members that receive
an execution in a TFTY order in the venues noted above. Lastly, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase is not unfairly
discriminatory because it represents a modest increase in the charge
assessed, which continues to be lower than the charges assessed for the
execution of TFTY orders at other venues.
    The increase in the charge for QDRK, or QCST orders in securities
of all three Tapes that execute in a venue other than the NASDAQ Market
Center is reasonable because it represents a modest increase in the fee
to account for increased costs associated with routing orders to other
venues than NASDAQ. The proposed increase in the charge is equitably
allocated because all members that enter QDRK or QCST orders in any
security of the Tapes that executes in another venue [sic]. The
proposed increase in the charge is not unfairly discriminatory because
it raises an already significantly reduced rate for certain routed
orders that execute in a venue other than the NASDAQ Market Center as
compared to charges assessed for other routed orders.
    The elimination of the $0.0011 per share credit provided to members
entering QCST orders that execute in BX is reasonable because NASDAQ is
merely eliminating the credit provided for such an execution, and in
its place assessing no charge. A QCST order

simultaneously accesses the NASDAQ book and routes to other venues,
including BX.\14\ Elimination of the credit is equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory because all members that receive a QCST
execution on BX will continue to receive the benefit of reduced fees
for such executions in a security of any of the three Tapes. NASDAQ
notes that the proposed elimination of the credit balances the desire
to provide certain incentives with the costs the Exchange incurs in
providing such incentives, which ultimately affect the ability to
sustain them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xiii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The elimination of the $0.0004 per share credit provided to members
entering DOTI orders that execute on BX is reasonable because NASDAQ is
merely eliminating the credit provided for such an execution, and in
its place is assessing no charge. A DOTI order attempts to execute
against orders in the NASDAQ book at a price equal to or better than
the NBBO. If unfilled, the order will then route to BX where it will
also attempt to execute at the NBBO or better. If still unfilled, the
order will route to NYSE or NYSE Amex where the order will remain until
it is executed or cancelled. Elimination of the credit is equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because all members that
receive a DOTI order execution on BX will continue to receive the
benefit of reduced fees for such executions. NASDAQ notes that the
proposed elimination of the credit balances the desire to provide
certain incentives with the costs the Exchange incurs in providing such
incentives, which ultimately affect the ability to sustain them.
    NASDAQ believes that the changes to the fees assessed for
participation the NASDAQ Opening, Closing and IPO/Halt Crosses are
consistent with a fair allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory. NASDAQ believes that the fees are reasonable because
supporting the crosses requires capital investment to maintain a system
that facilitates an orderly auction process. Specifically, NASDAQ is
proposing a modest fee increase for MOC, LOC, GTC and IOC orders
executed in the Opening Cross, which will bring the charge in line with
the charge assessed for MOC and LOC orders that are executed in the
Closing Cross. Similarly, NASDAQ is proposing to assess a new charge on
orders that execute in the Opening and Closing Crosses for orders that
are not MOC, LOC, GTC or IOC, with respect to the Opening Cross, and
not MOC and LOC orders with respect to the Closing Cross. The Exchange
is also modestly increasing the charge assessed for all orders that
execute in an IPO/Halt Cross. The proposed fees are equitably allocated
because they apply a fee on all members that benefit from participation
in the Opening, Closing and IPO/Halt Crosses, and are based on the type
of order entered and contribution to market quality. Similarly, the
proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on
the type of order executed in the cross and the benefit to market
quality that such orders provide.
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed exclusion of the availability of
credits provided under Rule 7014 to DLPs in Qualified Securities is
consistent with a fair allocation of a reasonable fee because the
program is designed to supersede other pricing applicable to the
execution of securities provided in Rule 7018, and extension of the
exclusion to the rebate programs under 7014 is consistent with the
nature of the program. As described above, the DLP is specifically
designed to apply to NASDAQ market makers in certain Qualified
Securities. DLPs receive specific credits and charges based on the
nature of their transactions in their Qualified Securities.
Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that it limiting the benefits a DLP
receives to the DLP program is reasonable and a fair allocation of
credits. Likewise, the Exchange believes that removing the distinction
between Rule 7018 credits and charges, and those provided under Rule
7014 is not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the
exclusive nature of the DLP program.
    The Exchange also believes that eliminating the charge assessed
DLPs for entering an order that executes in the NASDAQ Market Center or
attempts to execute in the NASDAQ Market Center prior to routing is
reasonable because it permits DLPs to achieve a better rate for such a
routed orders to the extent that the order is eligible for a lower
charge under other provisions of the fee schedule, thus making
participation in the program more attractive. The Exchange believes the
elimination of the charge is an equitable allocation of the fee because
it will make DLPs eligible to achieve reduced rates in the same manner
as other members are under Rule 7018. NASDAQ believes that elimination
of the charge is not unfairly discriminatory because it allows DLPs to
receive a benefit that other members currently enjoy.
    Lastly, the elimination of the cap on the credit provided in Rule
7018(i) is reasonable and an equitable allocation of the credit because
it is designed to promote greater participation in the program thereby
improving market quality in Qualified Securities, which benefits all
market participant in NASDAQ. Similarly, NASDAQ does not believe that
the removal of the credit cap is unfairly discriminatory because the
greater participation in the DLP program that the change is designed to
encourage will benefit all market participants to the extent that the
change is effective.

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.\15\ NASDAQ notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, NASDAQ believes that the degree to which fee
changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. In this instance, although the change to the QMM
program may limit the benefits of the program in NASDAQ-listed
securities, the incentive program in question remains in place and is
itself reflective of the need for exchanges to offer significant
financial incentives to attract order flow. The changes to routing fees
and credits do not impose a burden on competition because NASDAQ's
routing services are optional and are the subject of competition from
other exchanges and broker-dealers that offer routing services, as well
as the ability of members to develop their own routing capabilities.
The new and increased fees for execution in the NASDAQ crosses are
reflective of a need to support and improve NASDAQ systems, which in
turn benefit market quality and ultimately, competition. Finally, the
changes to DLP program are reflective of the need for the Exchange to
offer incentives to market participants balanced with the need to keep
costs

associated with providing the incentives at a level that will ensure
the sustainability of the programs. NASDAQ is eliminating a charge
under the program that will allow DLPs to be eligible to receive
reduced rates for removing liquidity. NASDAQ is also removing a fee
[sic] cap, which may attract more participation in the program. The DLP
program is entirely voluntary, and as a consequence members may elect
to participate in other incentive programs under which they may receive
benefits for improving the market. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that
NASDAQ will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, NASDAQ does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\16\ and paragraph (f) \17\ of Rule 19b-4,
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2014-015 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-2014-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-015, and should
be submitted on or before March 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03561 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47625-47626]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-2232]

Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act--Compliance Policy; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled ``Product
Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act--
Compliance Policy.'' This guidance describes FDA's intention with
regard to enforcement of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)
provision requiring manufacturers to begin affixing or imprinting
product identifiers on their products beginning November 27, 2017. This
guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on July 3, 2017.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on September 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency Guidance at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-2232 for ``Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug
Supply Chain Security Act--Compliance Policy.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed

except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure
law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public
dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information
at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. You may submit comments on any guidance
at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Building 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Jung, Office of Compliance,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act--Compliance Policy.'' On November 27, 2013, the DSCSA
(Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the
DSCSA added section 582 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) which established product tracing,
product identifier, authorized trading partner and verification
requirements for manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors,
and dispensers to facilitate the tracing of products through the
pharmaceutical distribution supply chain. Among its provisions, section
582 of the FD&C Act requires that each package and homogenous case of
product in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain bear a product
identifier that is encoded with the product's standardized numerical
identifier, lot number, and expiration date by specific dates. Under
the statute, manufacturers were required to begin affixing or
imprinting a product identifier to each package and homogenous case of
a product intended to be introduced into commerce no later than
November 27, 2017. Failure to comply with this and other requirements
of section 582 is prohibited under section 301(t) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 331(t)) and subject to enforcement action under the FD&C Act.
    In the Federal Register of July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30868), FDA issued a
notice announcing the availability of the draft version of this
guidance. As described in the guidance, in the years since the passage
of DSCSA, FDA had received comments and feedback from manufacturers and
other trading partners expressing concern with industry-wide readiness
for implementation of the DSCSA provision requiring manufacturers to
begin putting product identifiers on their products by November 27,
2017. Given the implementation challenges that industry has
encountered, FDA recognized that some manufacturers would need
additional time beyond November 27, 2017, to ensure that their products
bear a product identifier as required by the DSCSA. To minimize
possible disruptions in the distribution of prescription drugs in the
United States, FDA does not intend to take action against manufacturers
who do not affix or imprint a product identifier to packages or
homogenous cases of product that are packaged before November 27, 2018.
This includes packages and homogenous cases of product that are
packaged by a manufacturer on or after November 27, 2017. The comment
period for the draft guidance ended September 1, 2017. FDA received 19
comments on the draft guidance.
    FDA made several changes to the guidance. We streamlined the
guidance to remove information that is portions of the draft version of
this guidance because they were repetitive of the information in the
final guidance for industry entitled, ``Grandfathering Policy for
Packages and Homogenous Cases of Product Without a Product
Identifier.'' In addition, FDA removed the language in the draft
version of this guidance on wholesale distributor and dispenser
responsibilities to ensure product purchased from repackagers after
November 27, 2018, is affixed or imprinted with a product identifier.
Finally, FDA removed the recommendations in the draft version of this
guidance related to the documentation for determining when a product
without a product identifier was introduced in a transaction into
commerce by a manufacturer. The topic of documentation is addressed in
the final grandfathering policy guidance.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Product Identifier Requirements Under the
Drug Supply Chain Security Act--Compliance Policy.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance
is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-20444 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41799]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

July 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Capacity Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2423-024.
    c. Date Filed: March 13, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Riverside Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Androscoggin River, in
Coos County, New Hampshire.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Bernier, Environmental and FERC
Compliance Specialist, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, 1014 Central
Street, Millinocket, ME 04462, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mrs. Anumzziatta Purchiaroni at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: July 31, 2006.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed an amendment
application to delete an additional 4.5 MW turbine unit, which was
approved in the new license issued in 1992, but was never installed.
The proposed amendment would decrease the authorized installed capacity
of the project from 12.4 MW to 7.9 MW.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about this filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, 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 Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11662 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 17386-17387]
[DOCID:fr01ap08-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57557; File No. SR-ISE-2008-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, and Amendment No. 1
Thereto, Relating to the Rescission of the ``No MPM'' Order Type

March 26, 2008.
    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 March 5, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On March 17, 2008, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its rules to rescind the ``No MPM'' order
type. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets.
* * * * *

Rule 2104. Types of Orders

    (a)-(g) No change.
    [(h) No MPM. Market or limit orders that should not be executed
against orders residing in the Midpoint Match. (See Rule 2129)]
    [(i)](h) No further change.
    [(j)](i) No further change.
    [(k)](j) No further change.
    [(l)](k) No further change.
    [(m)](l) No further change.
    [(n)](m) No further change.
    [(o)](n) No further change.
* * * * *

2106. Opening Process

    (a) No change.
    (1) All order types other than Stop/Stop Limit, [No MPM,] Post
Only, FOK and IOC may participate in the opening transaction. Reserve
orders may participate to the full extent of their size. Discretionary
orders may participate at their most aggressive prices. Pegged orders
will have limit prices based upon the NBBO that is required for the
opening transaction to occur.
    (2)-(3) No change.
    (b)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

2107. Priority and Execution of Orders

    (a) No change.
    (b) Order Execution. All orders are handled automatically by the
ISE Stock Exchange. All orders are available for price improvement at
the midpoint of the NBBO if contra-side interest exists in Midpoint
Match[, unless marked ``No MPM'']. Except as specified below in
paragraph (c), orders will not be executed at prices that are inferior
to

Protected Quotations available at other Trading Centers.
* * * * *

Rule 2129. MidPoint Match

    The MidPoint Match (``MPM'') is a process by which Members [can
seek] may receive an execution price that is at the midpoint of the
NBBO.
    (a)-(g) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The best bids and offers on the ISE Stock Exchange are displayed to
the marketplace on a continuous basis. Additionally, the ISE offers
incoming orders an opportunity to receive price improvement at the
midpoint of the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') through its
MidPoint Match (``MPM'') process. Specifically, before executing
incoming orders against the ISE's displayed bid or offer, the System
checks MPM to see if there is contra-side interest that can provide
price improvement. However, under ISE's current rules, Equity
Electronic Access Members may specify on orders that they do not want
the orders to execute against MPM interest, thereby denying such orders
the opportunity for price improvement.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the ``No MPM'' order qualifier
so that all inbound orders will be exposed to MPM interest and be
afforded price improvement, when available, before executing against
the ISE's displayed quotations. The Exchange believes that elimination
of the ``No MPM'' order qualifier is appropriate to assure that
customers are provided the opportunity to interact with this additional
source of liquidity and to receive price improvement whenever possible.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section
6(b)(5)\3\ of the Act, requiring that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2008-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-ISE-2008-25 and should be
submitted on or before April 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6609 Filed 3-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    US EPA NEW ENGLAND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
                    ON THE NO DISCHARGE AREA APPLICATION FOR
                                OUTER CAPE COD

INTRODUCTION:
In April 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region (EPA) received an application from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to Section 312 (f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1322 (f)(3), for the approval to designate waters of the Outer Cape Cod as a No Discharge Area (NDA) for sewage from vessels.  The Outer Cape Cod is a collective term for the towns of Chatham, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet, Truro, and Provincetown. After a preliminary review of the application, EPA published a Receipt of Petition in the Federal Register on April 29, 2011.  A 30-day comment period ran from April 29, 2011 through May 31, 2011.  The Receipt of Petition was mailed or e-mailed to approximately 600 recipients, which included federal and state agencies, municipalities, Marine Trades Associations, marine facilities, and other interested organizations and individuals.

This document represents EPA - New England's Response to Comments on the Massachusetts application.  Two comments were received; copies may be requested from EPA by writing Ann Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - New England, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Oceans and Coastal Protection Unit, Five Post Office Square, Suite 100, OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

DETERMINATION:
The decision to approve or disapprove a No Discharge Area (NDA) proposed by the state is based on the standards set forth in Section 312 (f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1322 (f)(3), and EPA regulations found at 40 C.F.R. § 140.4 (a).  Section 312 (f)(3) of the Clean Water Act provides the following:  "... if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the waters within such State require greater environmental protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such water to which such prohibition would apply."  EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. §140.4 (a) mirror the statute's provisions and dictates the type of information that must be included in a state application for approval of a NDA.  The Administrator's authority for determining the adequacy of facilities for handling vessel sewage has been delegated to the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region in which the proposed NDA is located.

It is the state's role and authority to determine whether a NDA is required to enhance environmental protection of its waters beyond that provided by existing federal and state standards.  In accordance with EPA regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 140.4 (a)(1), the state must certify that such enhanced protection is required.  On the basis of this state determination, the state is authorized to designate some or all of its waters as a NDA, except that such designation will not take effect unless and until EPA determines that adequate facilities are reasonably available for removing and treating the vessel sewage in a safe and sanitary way.  Thus, EPA's role is to determine whether or not adequate facilities are reasonably available.  If EPA determines that they are, then the state's NDA shall take effect.

In its application to EPA, Massachusetts has certified that its waters require the enhanced protection of the NDA.  The resource description portion of the application explains the various types of resources in the area.

Massachusetts believes that its coastal waters need greater protection and the NDA will help in that regard because: (1) vessel sewage contributes to pollution problems, including aesthetic concerns; (2) experience has shown that a NDA can help improve water quality; and (3) cleaner water will help the recreational and commercial economy, which relies heavily on the use and enjoyment of these waters.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long-term commitment to improve state water quality.

Before the state's NDA can take effect, EPA must determine that adequate facilities for vessel sewage are "reasonably available" in the area proposed.  EPA has evaluated compliance with this requirement, and has determined that the one facility is adequate and reasonably available to the boating public.  Massachusetts's application provided information on the number, location, and operating hours of the vessel sewage pumpout facility.  The application also provided information concerning vessel draught requirements that could exclude certain vessels from using the pumpout facilities, information indicating the waste from the pumpout facilities will be treated in conformance with federal standards, and information on the vessel population and vessel usage of the subject waters.  EPA staff reviewed this information and discussed these issues with state personnel, and conducted site visits in May 2011 to verify the existence and operation of the pumpout facility.

EPA received four comments on the "Receipt of Petition" published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2011.  Below are the names and addresses of individuals who submitted comments, a summary of their comment, and EPA's response, when appropriate.

   1. Dave Dabay - e-mail
Mr. Dabay requests EPA allow the discharge of treated sewage to continue, because it is cleaner than using a pumpout shoreside system, and no discharge zones make pollution worst.   Boat Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) provide a better level of treatment than Waste Water Treatment  Plants (WWTP).  He requested that regulations for shoreside systems be enforced.

Region 1 has been implementing its No Discharge Area (NDA) Program since 1991, and there is no evidence to support these comments.  The use of pumpouts by boaters improves water quality.  Studies conducted in Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, North Carolina, and Chesapeake Bay have shown that boats can be a source of fecal coliform bacteria in areas with high boat densities and poor flushing (EPA 841-B-01-005, Nov. 2001).
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) do not treat sewage as well as WWTP, MSDs do not remove nutrients, and nutrients are a pollutant of concern in Massachusetts.  The level of treatment provided by an MDS is heavily dependent on the individual boat owner's operation and maintenance of the system, which is highly variable.  Conversely, a WWTP has daily operation and maintenance, permit limits, enforcement, and better quality effluent.
EPA is unaware of regulations regarding shoreside systems other than the Clean Vessel Act requires pumpouts be maintained in good working order for the life of the grant, and users can only be charged five dollars.  In Massachusetts, if a marina, boatyard or a yacht club wants to expand,   it must install a pumpout.

  2.	Lynn M. Muench - Letter
  Senior Vice President  -  Regional Advocacy
  Midcontinent Office
  1113 Mississippi Avenue
  Suite 108
  St Louis, MO  63104

American Waterways Operators neither supported or opposed the designation but requested EPA recommit to encouraging states to engage in early and open communication with the tugboat and barge industry prior submitting a petition for an NDA.

Our understanding is that the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management did not contact the tug and barge industry for this designation because no large commercial vessels (excluding fishing boats) operate within NDA boundary.  However, EPA will continue to encourage and engage the New England states and other affected entities early in the process, and encourage other states to do the same.

3.	Association to Preserve Cape Cod - Letter
Maggie Geist, Executive Director
3010 Main Street
P.O. Box 398
Barnstable, MA  02630-0398

Supports this designation.

4.	Pleasant Bay Resource Management Alliance
Carole Ridley, Coordinator
P.O. Box 1584
Harwich, MA  02645

Supports this designation.

In conclusion, EPA's responsibility in deciding to approve designation of an area as a NDA under the Clean Water Act, is to determine that there are reasonably available pumpout and dump station facilities for the vessels berthed and/or moored in the area.  EPA has determined that adequate facilities are reasonably available for removing and treating the vessel sewage in a safe and sanitary manner.  Therefore, Massachusetts may designate the waters of the Outer Cape Cod: Chatham to Provincetown, within state boundaries as described in its application as a No Discharge Area.


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Conference Call with Kevin McKenney of National Demolition Association (NDA) and EPA on Risk Management under TSCA Section 6, Aliphatic Cyclic Bromide Cluster (HBCD)

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On March 15, 2021, EPA held a conference call with Kevin McKenney, Director of Government Affairs at NDA, to discuss the information EPA is seeking for the HBCD rulemaking and the need for input from small businesses. EPA presented an overview of the HBCD Risk Evaluation, an explanation of the planned rulemaking, and technical background.

Attendees
EPA:
Susan Slotnick
Sarah Cox
Tim Lehman

National Demolition Association:
Kevin McKenney