[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5380-5384]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0567]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Restaurant Menu and
Vending Machine Labeling: Recordkeeping and Mandatory Third Party
Disclosure Under Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by March
2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0665.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Restaurant Menu and Vending Machine Labeling: Recordkeeping and
Mandatory Third Party Disclosure Under Section 4205 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--(OMB Control Number 0910-
0665)--Revision

    On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (``Affordable Care Act'')
(Pub. L. 111-148). Section 4205 of the legislation, which principally
amends sections 403 and 403A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343 and 343-1), requires chain
restaurants and similar retail food establishments (SRFE) with 20 or
more locations doing business under the same name and offering for sale
substantially the same menu items (hereinafter ``chain retail food
establishments''), as well as operators of 20 or more vending machines
(hereinafter ``chain vending machine operators''), to disclose certain
nutrition information for certain food items offered for sale so that
consumers can make more informed choices about the food they purchase.
Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act preempts State and local
governments from establishing menu labeling requirements for chain
retail food establishments and vending machine nutrition labeling
requirements that are not ``identical to'' the section 4205
requirements.
    Section 4205 became effective on the date the law was signed, March
23, 2010. The provisions that went into immediate effect are as
follows:
    For chain retail food establishments:
     Disclosing the number of calories in each standard menu
item on menus and menu boards,
     Making additional written nutrition information available
to consumers upon request,
     Providing a statement on menus and menu boards about the
availability of the written nutrition information, and
     Providing calorie information (per serving or per food
item) for self-service items and food on display, in a sign adjacent to
each food item.

For chain vending machine operators:
     Providing a sign in close proximity to each article of
food (or the selection button) that discloses the number of calories
contained in the article, unless a prospective purchaser is able to
examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article, or
visible nutrition information is otherwise provided at the point of
purchase.

Section 4205 of the legislation requires recordkeeping--for the calorie
analysis--and a third party disclosure--for the menu and vending
machine labeling.
    In the Federal Register of August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52427), FDA
published a notice of availability of the guidance document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Effect of
Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
on State and Local Menu and Vending Machine Labeling Laws.'' The
guidance is intended to clarify section 4205's effect on State and
local menu and vending machine labeling laws, and to ensure that
industry and State and local government understand the immediate
effects of the law. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the
guidance at the following Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/
guidance.html.
    FDA published a second notice of availability in the Federal
Register of August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52426), announcing the availability
of a draft guidance document entitled ''Draft Guidance for Industry:
Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Menu Labeling
Provisions of Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010.'' In the Federal Register of January 25, 2011 (76 FR
4360), FDA announced the withdrawal of this draft guidance and its
intention to complete the notice-and-comment rulemaking process for
section 4205 before initiating enforcement activities based, in part,
on extensive comments on the draft guidance submitted to the Agency.
    Menu and vending machine labeling will be used by consumers to
assess the calorie content of their purchases. The purpose of the
disclosure is to allow consumers to choose foods that are appropriate
for their energy needs. Because consumers do not observe the
preparation of food prepared by restaurants or SRFE, and because many
of these foods were exempted from nutrition labeling requirements under
the National Labeling Education Act (NLEA), consumers were not able to
ascertain the calorie content of this food, and therefore could not
make informed decisions about how that food fits their calorie
requirements without the disclosure. The calorie information will be
collected and recorded by the chain retail food establishments and
chain vending machine operators that are required to disclose calorie
information to their customers. The covered entities will use the
records to ensure that calorie information that they disclose is
accurate.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include chain retail food establishments and chain vending
machine operators.
    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), in the Federal Register of
November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68361) (November 5, 2010 notice), FDA published
a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of
information. FDA received 20 letters in response to the notice, each
containing 1 or more comments.
    (Comment 1) FDA received several comments on the utility of the
vending machine labeling provisions of section 4205 of the Affordable
Care Act. Some comments argued that the Affordable Care Act's vending
machine labeling provisions have very little utility because the
consumer is already familiar with the calorie content of vending
machine products. Other comments stated that vending machine labeling
would be useful to the consumer because grouping items in vending
machines into categories (e.g., beverages, chips, gums) on a menu would
help consumers select items by comparing similar items.
    (Response) As noted previously, section 4205 of the Affordable Care
Act amends section 403(q) of the FD&C Act to, among other things,
require vending machine operators that own or operate 20 or more
vending machines to disclose nutrient content for certain food articles
sold from vending machines; thus, this requirement is imposed by the
law itself. Congress required FDA to publish a proposed rule by March
23, 2011, explaining how it will implement the law. Comments such as
these on the utility of the provisions of the law are being considered
by FDA in developing the proposed rules. FDA will also accept comments
on the proposed rule and will consider them fully in developing final
rules.
    (Comment 2) Several comments suggested ways in which the burden of
disclosing calorie content of vending machine products could be
lessened. One comment suggested that vendors be permitted to post a
sheet or menu on vending machines that lists the caloric contents of
all their products. Another comment proposed electronic posting of
calorie information, similar to the way that some vending machines post
prices (the consumer looks it up by pressing the item number before
making a purchase). Several other comments suggested ways in which the
burden of disclosing calorie content on restaurant menus could be
lessened. For example, comments suggested that restaurants be allowed
flexibility with menu labeling because of the many types of menus and
menu boards, citing the need for different menus for full service vs.
quick service, drive-through service, carryout orders, and self-service
food or buffets. Suggestions for flexibility included permitting the
calorie disclosures on handouts or placards; permitting disclosures to
be brief, only required on one page of the menu or one panel of the
menu board, and combined with other required statements and
disclosures; permitting calorie disclosure for self-service beverages
on the menu board as opposed to at the beverage fountain; and
permitting a standard per ounce calorie disclosure for standardized
beverages such as coffee and orange juice.
    (Response) The requirement that affected chain retail food
establishments and vending machine operators disclose certain nutrition
information for certain food items offered for sale is imposed by
section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act. Comments such as these on
minimizing the burden of the law are being considered by FDA in
developing the proposed rule. FDA will also accept comments on the
proposed rules and will consider them fully in developing final rules.
    (Comment 3) Several comments argued that FDA underestimated the
burden hours and costs associated with complying with the provisions of
section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act. Several comments argued that
the annual burden hours will be higher than FDA's estimate. One comment
argued that FDA did not fully consider the time needed to acquire the
required nutrition information. One comment suggested that FDA provide
estimated burden hours individualized for each industry (i.e.,
convenience stores, restaurants, and grocery stores). Some comments
argued that FDA underestimated the number of affected businesses in the
United States and their rate of growth. Other comments argued that the
percentages of the industries that will be impacted will be higher.
    (Response) FDA appreciates the data and suggestions provided in the
comments. However, the Agency stands by its preliminary estimate of the
paperwork burden resulting from section 4205 of the Affordable Care
Act. Thus, FDA has not changed the burden hour estimates in tables 1
and 2 of this document. This rough estimate of 14 million recurring
hours in annual burden was a preliminary figure designed to cover a
range of possible, non-specific requirements. During the upcoming
rulemaking process, FDA

seeks to minimize the regulatory burden on small businesses, and we
anticipate the actual burden may differ from the preliminary estimate,
depending upon the specific requirements that will be laid out in the
final rules.
    (Comment 4) Several comments had suggestions for the upcoming
rulemaking.
    (Response) FDA appreciates the information provided in the comments
and will consider them in the upcoming rulemakings.
    (Comment 5) One comment identified our inadvertent omission of the
capital costs column in table 2 of the November 5, 2010 notice.
    (Response) We have corrected the table in this document by
inserting the missing capital costs column for comment.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows.
    The burden is described in the following paragraphs in two parts: A
recordkeeping burden associated with discovering and recording the
calorie count for each menu/vending item and the third party disclosure
burden associated with communicating that information to the consumer.
The estimates are also separated for retail food service and vending
operators. FDA estimates a total of 1,388,010 initial burden hours.
This number has been divided by three in the following tables in order
to annualize the burden hours over a 3-year period, yielding 141,222
initial hours for recordkeeping and 312,448 initial hours for third
party disclosure, for a sum of 462,670 initial hours. FDA estimates a
total of 14,068,808 recurring hours, with nearly all of these for
vending machine operators, including 31,408 recurring hours for
recordkeeping and 14,037,400 recurring hours for third party
disclosure.

Recordkeeping Burdens for Chain Retail Food Establishments

    The time burden for calorie analysis on chain retail food
establishments is the time necessary for creating a record, managing
the contracts for analysis, and communicating the results of the
analysis to the outlets. FDA estimates the hourly burden of calorie
analysis on these firms to be 4 hours per menu item.
    FDA estimates that there are approximately 1,069 restaurant chains,
with 231,000 outlets, that will be required to disclose calorie
information. On average, we estimate that a chain has 117 items on its
menu, and that 48 percent of chain restaurants, or 516, do not already
have calorie information. The hourly burden for restaurant chains is
241,488 hours (= 516 chains x 117 items/chain x 4 hours/item).
    FDA estimates that there are 570 covered grocery and convenience
store chains with an average of 40 standard menu items per chain. The
hourly burden for grocery store chains is 91,200 hours ( = 570 chains x
40 items/chain x 4 hours/item).
    FDA estimates that there are 420 other chains that will be covered
by the proposed rule. With 40 menu items on average, the number of
hours required to deal with calorie analysis at these other chains is
67,200 hours ( = 420 chains x 40 items/chain x 4 hours/item).
    FDA has estimated that each of the 1,506 covered chains, on
average, introduces new items or reformulates existing items 4 times
per year. The recurring hourly burden of recordkeeping for new items,
as displayed in the sixth row of table 1 of this document, is 24,096
hours ( = 1,506 chains x 4 items/chain x 4 hours/item).
    FDA estimates that 30 chains will become newly covered under the
requirements of the proposed rule each year. With an average number of
menu items of 60 per chain, this would result in approximately 7,200
hours ( = 30 chains x 60 items/chain x 4 hours/item). This amount is
displayed in the seventh row of table 1 of this document.
    The final column of table 1 of this document gives the estimated
capital costs associated with calorie and nutrition analysis. These are
the costs of acquiring nutrition analyses. FDA has estimated that the
average cost of a full analysis is $269 per menu item. These costs are
calculated by multiplying this per item cost by the number of items in
column three multiplied by the number of recordkeepers in column two.

                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden: Calorie Analysis and Recording \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Annual frequency     Total
             Type of respondent                   Number of            per           annual     Hours per   Total hours        Total capital costs
                                                recordkeepers     recordkeeping     records       record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant chains...........................               516               117       60,372            4      241,488  $16.2 million.
Grocery and Convenience Store chains........               570                40       22,800            4       91,200  $6.1 million.
Other chains................................               420                40       16,800            4       67,200  $4.5 million.
Vending operators...........................               600                20       12,000            2       24,000  $20,000.
Total initial hours.........................  ................  ................  ...........  ...........      423,888  $26.9 million.
New/Reformulated items......................             1,506                 4        6,024            4       24,096  $1.6 million.
New chains..................................                30                60        1,800            4        7,200  $0.5 million.
New vendors.................................                 3                20           60            2          120  $4,000.
    Total recurring hours...................  ................  ................  ...........  ...........       31,416  $2.1 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

Third Party Disclosure Burdens for Chain Retail Food Establishments

    The third party reporting burden for chain retail food
establishments is the time necessary to display calorie information on
menus, menu boards, displayed food, and other required locations. In
practice, this is the time necessary to change out redesigned menu
boards, FDA estimates 2 hours of time per menu board change.
    FDA estimates that limited service restaurant chains have an
average of three menu boards or displays per establishment. With
135,705 outlets having these displays, the total hourly burden
estimated for third party disclosure at restaurants is 814,230 hours (=
135,705 outlets x 3 displays/outlet x 2 hours/display).
    For grocery and convenience store chains, FDA estimates an average
of 1 major menu board or display per establishment. With 41,945
outlets, the total hourly burden is 83,890 hours (= 41,945 outlets x 1
displays/outlet x 2 hours/display).
    For other covered chains, FDA estimates 33,114 covered outlets,
each with an average of one major display or menu board. At 4 hours per
disclosure, FDA estimates an hourly burden of 66,228 hours ( = 33,114
outlets x 1 displays/outlet x 2 hours/display).

Recurring Disclosure Burdens for Chain Retail Food Establishments

    FDA estimates that the annual number of newly covered chains will
be 30. At 20 establishments per chain, there will be 600 establishments
at newly covered chains each year that will need to disclose calorie
content. Taking an average number of displays equal to 2, the total
hourly burden for disclosure due to newly covered chains is 2,400 hours
( = 600 outlets x 2 displays/outlet x 2 hours/display).
    The final column of table 2 of this document gives the estimated
capital costs associated with third party disclosure. These are the
costs of acquiring new menu boards or displays. FDA has estimated that
the average cost of menu board to be $550. These costs are calculated
by multiplying this per menu board cost by the frequency of disclosures
in column three multiplied by the number of respondents in column two.
    The estimated capital cost for Other chains decreased from $22
million to $18.2 million because of an arithmetic error. Correcting
this error caused the Total initial capital costs to fall from $269.1
million to $265.3 million. A rounding error in the capital costs for
''New SRFE outlets'' led to an increase in estimated costs from $0.6
million to $0.7 million. Correcting this error led to an increase in
the Total recurring capital costs of $0.1 million, to $3.5 million.

                                      Table 2--Estimated Annual Third Party Disclosure Burden: Calorie Content \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Annual
                   Type of respondent                        Number of     frequency of    Total annual      Hours per      Total hours    Total capital
                                                            respondents     disclosure      disclosures     disclosure                         costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurants.............................................         135,705               3         407,115               2         814,230   $224 million.
Grocery and Convenience Store chains....................          41,945               1          41,945               2          83,890  $23.1 million.
Other chains............................................          33,114               1          33,114               2          66,228  $18.2 million.
    Total initial hours.................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         964,348          $265.3
                                                                                million.
New SRFE outlets........................................             600               2           1,200               2           2,400    0.7 million.
Vending (ongoing).......................................           5,000          56,000     280,000,000            0.05      14,000,000   $2.8 million.
Vending (growth)........................................           5,000             140         700,000            0.05          35,000         $7,000.
    Total recurring hours...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............      14,037,400   $3.5 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

Burdens for Chain Vending Machine Operators

    Because almost all vending machines sell food that is previously
manufactured and packaged, calorie analysis and production of calorie
analysis displays will be most efficiently done at the manufacturer
level instead of the operator level. Furthermore, most vended foods are
subject to NLEA, which means that calorie content is already collected.
A likely scenario for response to vending machine labeling is that food
manufacturers include a set of calorie label stickers in each case of
product. This would be efficient both because most manufacturers will
already have the calorie information available, and because economies
of scale exist for the manufacturer. In this case, vending machine
operators will not need to keep a record of calorie content. Instead,
the burden for most operators will be limited to that of administering
records and passing the existing information on to consumers.
    FDA estimates that there are approximately 300,000 beverage
machines that sell unpackaged products. The manufacturer of the
ingredients to these foods (hot coffee drinks and sodas) would not
necessarily have calorie information if the products were not subject
to NLEA in some form. There are likely a limited number of
manufacturers of the inputs to the beverage machines. For the purposes
of this document, FDA estimates that there are 10 manufacturers serving
these machines, and 20 drinks per manufacturer, so that approximately
200 drinks would need to have calorie analysis. The cost of this
calorie analysis will be included in the capital costs below. FDA
estimates that the recordkeeping burden for these firms is half that
for restaurants, or two hours per item. If there are 600 firms using
beverage dispensers, then the hourly burden for recordkeeping is 24,000
hours ( = 600 firms x 20 items/firm x 2 hours/item).
    FDA believes that the set of items sold in these dispensary
machines is approximately constant. If there is .5 percent growth in
the number of firms, then approximately three new firms will become
covered in this market in a given year. The burden associated with
these three firms would be 120 hours ( = 3 firms x 20 items/firm x 2
hours/item). This amount is given in the eighth row of table 1 of this
document.
    The third party reporting for chain vending machine operators is
the time necessary to install calorie displays on their vending
machines. Because there is wide variation in the kinds of vending
machines used--in materials, display, mechanism--there likely will be a
variety of solutions. On the high end, a calorie display that is
integrated with the graphics on the machine may cost several hundred
dollars or more. On the low end, a set of calorie stickers affixed to
the front of the machine would cost at most a few dollars per machine.
Given the low margins in the vending machine industry, and given that
nearly all of the regulated operators will be small businesses, FDA
believes that almost all operators will, at least initially, choose the
sticker option. Because stickers do not require any initial investment
and because they are not durable, all burden and costs will be on a
recurring basis. In the long run, the manufacturers of vending
machines, and the larger vending machine operators, such as the soft
drink companies, may use the more integrated, and thus expensive,
solution.
    FDA tentatively estimates a recurring hourly burden of 1 hour per
machine, two times per year to install the displays. If there are an
average of 20 items per machine, then the burden per response is .05
hours ( = 1 hours/machine/20 items/machine). This will be the time
necessary to decide where to put the displays on the machine, and to
sort, remove and affix calorie stickers. FDA expects the stickers to
have a relatively short life, and the mix of product in a machine to
change over time.
    FDA estimates approximately 7 million machines are serviced by
5,000 operators, for an average number of machines per operator of
1,400 machines. If each machine has 20 items, then the average number
of responses per operator is 28,000. Given that

stickers will likely need to be replaced twice per year on average,
this number of responses doubles, to 56,000 responses per operator. The
total recurring hours needed for third party display is then 14 million
hours ( = 5,000 firms x 1,400 machines/firm x 20 displays/machine x .05
hours/display x 2). This amount is recurring in every year, and is
given in row 7 of table 2 of the document.
    If growth in the vending machine industry is .5 percent, then each
of the 5,000 respondents will have an average of 7 additional machines
that would need to report calorie content each year. With an average
number of items per machine of 20, the number of disclosures per
respondent is 140. At .05 hours per response, the hours needed to
disclose calorie content on new machines is 35,000 hours per year ( =
5,000 firms x 7 machines/firm x 20 items/machine x .05 hours/item).
This amount is displayed in row 8 of table 2 of this document.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-1993 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26917-26922]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2017-0553; FRL-9979-06--Region 3]

District of Columbia: Proposed Authorization of District
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The District of Columbia (the District) has applied to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final
authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed the
District's application, and has determined that these revisions satisfy
all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. As a
result, by this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to authorize the
District's revisions and is seeking public comment prior to taking
final action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 11,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
RCRA-2017-0553, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Mail: Sara Kinslow, U.S. EPA Region III, RCRA Waste Branch,
Mailcode 3LC32, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    4. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    You may view and copy the District's application from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at the following locations: District
of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment, Environmental
Services Administration, Hazardous Waste Branch, 1200 First Street NE,
5th Floor, Washington, DC, Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attn: Barbara
Williams; and EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by July 11, 2018.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-RCRA-2017-0553. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included

in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. The Federal regulations website, http://www.regulations.gov, is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Kinslow, U.S. EPA Region III,
RCRA Waste Branch, Mailcode 3LC32, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program is revised to become
more stringent or broader in scope, States must revise their programs
and apply to EPA to authorize the revisions. Authorization of revisions
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other revisions occur.
Most commonly, States must revise their programs because of revisions
to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What decisions are proposed in this rule?

    On August 15, 2012, the District submitted a final program revision
application (with subsequent corrections) seeking authorization of
revisions to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain
Federal rules promulgated between January 14, 1985 and July 1, 2004.
EPA concludes that the District's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C.
6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA proposes to authorize
revisions to the District's hazardous waste program with the revisions
described in its authorization application, and as listed below in
Section G of this document.
    The District has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the
aspects of the RCRA program described in its application, subject to
the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and
prohibitions for which the District has not been authorized, including
issuing HSWA permits, until the District is granted authorization to do
so.

C. What is the effect of today's proposed authorization decision?

    This proposal to authorize revisions to the District's authorized
hazardous waste program will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which the District has
requested federal authorization are already effective under District
law and are not changed by today's action. The District has enforcement
responsibilities under its District hazardous waste program for
violations of its program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others,
authority to:
     Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses, or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits;
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the
District has taken its own actions.

D. What happens if EPA receives comments on this proposed action?

    If EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address
those comments in our final action. If you want to comment on this
proposed action, you must do so at this time. You may not have another
opportunity to comment.

E. What has the District of Columbia previously been authorized for?

    The District initially received final authorization effective March
22, 1985 (50 FR 9427, March 8, 1985) to implement its base hazardous
waste management program. EPA granted authorization for revisions to
the District's regulatory program on September 10, 2001, effective
November 9, 2001 (66 FR 46961).
    The District's previously-authorized hazardous waste program was
administered through the District of Columbia Department of Health.
However, on February 15, 2006, the District established the District
Department of Environment (DDOE) and reassigned the hazardous waste
program to DDOE. On July 23, 2015, DDOE was renamed as the Department
of Energy and Environment (DOEE). This name change occurred after the
District submitted a program revision application. As such, both DDOE
and DOEE appear in the District's final program revision application
(and subsequent corrections). The DOEE's Hazardous Waste Branch within
its Toxic Substances Division has authority to implement the District's
hazardous waste program.

F. What revisions is EPA proposing with this proposed action?

    On August 15, 2012, the District submitted a final program revision
application (with subsequent corrections), seeking authorization of
additional revisions to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
As described in Section F, the District has proposed to transfer the
authority to administer the approved program from

the District of Columbia Department of Health to DOEE. The District's
revision application also includes the District's statutory and
regulatory changes to the District's authorized hazardous waste
program, including adoption of the Federal hazardous waste regulations
published through July 1, 2004 (RCRA Cluster XIV), with certain
exceptions described in Section H. The District's revised statutes and
regulations are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, the
analogous Federal requirements.
    The District seeks authority to administer the Federal requirements
that are listed in Table 1 below. Effective October 28, 2005, the
District incorporates by reference these Federal provisions. This table
lists the District's analogous requirements that are being recognized
as no less stringent than the analogous Federal requirements.
    The District's regulatory references are to Title 20 of the
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), Chapters 42 and 43,
as amended effective October 28, 2005. The District's statutory
authority for its hazardous waste program is based on the District of
Columbia Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1977, DC Official Code Sec.
8-1301 et seq. The District's application also includes a revised
Program Description, which provides a description of the hazardous
waste regulatory program in the District.
    In this proposed rule, EPA proposes, subject to public review and
comment, that the District's hazardous waste program revision
application satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize the
District for the following program revisions:

 Table 1--The District of Columbia's Analogs to the Federal Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Analogous District of Columbia
         Federal requirement                       authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 260--Hazardous Waste       Title 20 District of Columbia
 Management System: General, as of      Municipal Regulations (20 DCMR)
 July 1, 2004.                          4200, 4202.1, 4260.1 through
                                        4260.7 (except 4260.4(e)). (More
                                        stringent provisions: 4206.2).
40 CFR part 261--Identification and    20 DCMR 4261.1 through 4261.6,
 Listing of Hazardous Waste, as of      and 4261.8 through 4261.10.
 July 1, 2004.                          (More stringent provisions:
                                        4204.1, 4206.2, and 4261.7).
40 CFR part 262--Standards Applicable  20 DCMR 4201.9, 4204.1, 4204.3
 to the Generators of Hazardous         through 4204.5, 4262.1 through
 Waste, as of July 1, 2004.             4262.3, 4262.5, and 4262.7.
                                        (More stringent provisions:
                                        4205.1, 4206.1, 4206.2, 4262.4,
                                        and 4262.6).
40 CFR part 263--Standards Applicable  20 DCMR 4204.1, 4204.2, 4204.5,
 to the Transporters of Hazardous       and 4263.1. (More stringent
 Waste, as of July 1, 2004.             provisions: 4205.1, 4206.2, and
                                        4263.2 through 4263.5).
40 CFR part 264--Standards for Owners  20 DCMR 4201.9, 4204.2, 4264.1
 and Operators of Hazardous Waste       through 4264.2(a)(3), and
 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal       4264.2(b) through 4264.12. (More
 Facilities, as of July 1, 2004.        stringent provisions: 4202.3
                                        introduction and (a) through
                                        (e), (h), and (k), 4205.1,
                                        4206.1, 4206.2, and
                                        4264.2(a)(4)).
40 CFR part 265--Interim Status        20 DCMR 4201.9, 4265.1 through
 Standards for Owners and Operators     4265.2(a)(3), 4265.2(b) through
 of Hazardous Waste Treatment,          4265.6, and 4265.8 through
 Storage, and Disposal Facilities, as   4265.11. (More stringent
 of July 1, 2004.                       provisions: 4202.3 introduction
                                        and (a) through (e), (h), and
                                        (k), 4205.1, 4206.2,
                                        4265.2(a)(4), 4265.7.
40 CFR part 266--Standards for the     20 DCMR 4201.9 and 4266.1 through
 Management of Specific Hazardous       4266.3. (More stringent
 Wastes and Specific Types of           provisions: 4206.2).
 Hazardous Waste Management
 Facilities, as of July 1, 2004.
40 CFR part 268--Land Disposal         20 DCMR 4268.1 through 4268.3.
 Restrictions, as of July 1, 2004.      (More stringent provisions:
                                        4202.2, 4202.3(e), and 4206.2).
40 CFR part 270--The Hazardous Waste   20 DCMR 4270.1, 4270.2, 4270.4
 Permit Program, as of July 1, 2004.    through 4270.14, 4271.1 through
                                        4271.4(a), 4271.6 through
                                        4271.9(a), 4316. (More stringent
                                        provisions: 4206.2, 4270.3,
                                        4271.4(b), 4271.5, 4271.9(b).
40 CFR part 273--Standards for         20 DCMR 4273.1 and 4273.5. (More
 Universal Waste Management, as of      stringent provisions: 4206.2 and
 July 1, 2004.                          4273.2 through 4273.4).
40 CFR part 279--Standards for the     20 DCMR 4279.1, 4279.2, 4279.4,
 Management of Used Oil, as of July     4279.7(c), 4279.9, and 4279.10.
 1, 2004.                               (More stringent provisions:
                                        4202.3 (introduction), and (i),
                                        4205.1, 4206.1, 4206.2, 4279.3,
                                        4279.5 through 4279.7(b), and
                                        4279.8).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Where are the revised District rules different from the Federal
rules?

1. District of Columbia Requirements That Are Broader in Scope

    The District hazardous waste program contains certain provisions
that are broader than the scope of the Federal program. These broader
in scope provisions are not part of the program EPA is proposing to
authorize. EPA cannot enforce requirements that are broader in scope,
although compliance with such provisions is required by District law.
Examples of broader in scope provisions of the District's program
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (a) 20 DCMR 4260.4(e) defines, and 20 DCMR Section 4203 identifies
specific procedures for listing, solid wastes that are not considered
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR part 261, but which the District may
determine to regulate as hazardous wastes under 20 DCMR Chapters 42 and
43. Such District-only wastes would make the District's universe of
regulated hazardous waste larger than EPA's and, therefore, broader in
scope.
    (b) At 20 DCMR Section 4390, the District requires permit
application fees from generators, owners or operators of transfer
facilities, and hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities.

2. District of Columbia Requirements That Are More Stringent Than the
Federal Program

    The District hazardous waste program contains several provisions
that are more stringent than the RCRA program as codified in the July
1, 2004 edition of Title 40 of the CFR. More stringent provisions are
part of a Federally-authorized program and are, therefore, Federally-
enforceable. Under this proposed action, EPA would authorize the
District program for each more stringent provision. The specific more
stringent provisions are also noted in Table 1. They include, but are
not limited to, the following:
    (a) At 20 DCMR 4261.7, the District subjects generators of no more
than 100 kilograms in a calendar month to the

notification requirements at 20 DCMR 4204.1, rather than the reduced
requirements in the Federal regulations for this group of generators.
Additionally, the District does not incorporate the Federal provision
at 40 CFR 261.5(j) that allows conditionally exempt small quantity
generator waste that is mixed with used oil to be managed as used oil.
Instead, the District requires such a mixture to be managed as
hazardous waste.
    (b) In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart I,
20 DCMR 4265.7 requires generators storing waste in containers to also
comply with the containment system requirements of 40 CFR 264.175 and
the closure requirements of 40 CFR 264.178.
    (c) At 20 DCMR 4262.4, the District limits hazardous waste
satellite accumulation to 90 days (180 days or 270 days for generators
of greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms), and
requires that containers in satellite accumulation areas are marked
with an accumulation start date. The Federal requirements do not have a
dating requirement or time limit for satellite accumulation as long as
no more than 55 gallons of non-acute waste or one quart of acute waste
is accumulated.
    (d) In the District, transfer facilities are considered to be
storage facilities and subject to full regulation under 20 DCMR
Chapters 42 and 43, rather than the reduced requirements of the federal
regulations. The District requirements are found at 20 DCMR
4264.2(a)(4) and 4265.2(a)(4).
    (e) The District has a prohibition at 20 DCMR 4202.3 on any land-
based treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste within the
District. This prohibition includes surface impoundments, waste piles,
landfills, road treatment, and any other land application of hazardous
waste. The District also prohibits land disposal, incineration, and
underground injection of hazardous waste, and prohibits burning,
processing, or incineration of hazardous waste, hazardous waste fuels,
or mixtures of hazardous wastes and other materials in any type of
incinerator, boiler, or industrial furnace. The Federal program does
not include such prohibitions.
    (f) Unlike the Federal program, the District (at 20 DCMR 4202.3)
prohibits the burning of both on- and off-specification used oil in the
District, and prohibits the use of used oil as a dust suppressant.

3. Federal Requirements for Which the District of Columbia Is Not
Seeking Authorization

    A number of the District's regulations are not part of the program
revisions EPA is proposing to authorize. Those provisions include, but
are not limited to, the following:
    (a) The District has regulations defining how program information
is to be shared with the public, but is not seeking authorization for
the Availability of Information requirements relative to RCRA section
3006(f).
    (b) The District is not seeking authority for the Federal
corrective action program. EPA will continue to administer this part of
the program.
    (c) The District has incorporated the Federal hazardous waste
export provisions as codified in the July 1, 2004 edition of Title 40,
parts 262 and 264 of the CFR into 20 DCMR Sections 4262 and 4264.
However, the District is not seeking authorization for these provisions
at this time. EPA will continue to implement those requirements as
appropriate.
    (d) 20 DCMR Section 4266 incorporates the mixed waste provisions as
codified in the July 1, 2004 edition of Title 40 of the CFR, but the
District has not yet been authorized, nor is the District now seeking
authorization, to implement the mixed waste regulations. The provisions
at 20 DCMR 4266.1 and 4266.3 will become effective in the District when
the District is authorized for the mixed waste rules.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    The District will continue to issue permits covering all the
provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits
it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste
permits or portions of permits that EPA issued prior to the effective
date of this authorization in accordance with the signed Memorandum of
Agreement, dated March 10, 2017, which is included with this program
revision application. Until such time as formal transfer of EPA permit
responsibility to the District occurs and EPA terminates its permit,
EPA and the District agree to coordinate the administration of permits
in order to maintain consistency. EPA will not issue any new permits or
new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Section G after
the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which the
District is not yet authorized.

I. How would this proposed action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115)
in the District of Columbia?

    The District is not seeking authority to operate the program on
Indian lands, since there are no Federally-recognized Indian Lands in
the District.

J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This authorization revises the District's authorized hazardous
waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes
no requirements other than those currently imposed by District law.
This authorization complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'', and therefore subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the E.O. The E.O. defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. EPA has
determined that this authorization is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this authorization does not establish or modify any information
or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community and only
seeks to authorize the pre-existing requirements under State law and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this authorization on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by
the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. I certify that this authorization will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the authorization will only have the effect of authorizing pre-
existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. This authorization contains no Federal mandates (under
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this authorization contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, this authorization is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This authorization does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This document
authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not apply to
this authorization. In the spirit of E.O. 13132, and consistent with
EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on this authorization
from State and local officials.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This authorization
does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 because
EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, E.O. 13175 does
not apply to this authorization.

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

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

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

    This authorization is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under E.O. 12866,
as discussed in detail above.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this
authorization will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
This authorization does not affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment because this document authorizes pre-
existing State rules which are equivalent to and no less stringent than
existing Federal requirements.

11. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This proposed action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 2, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-12507 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54652-54655]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87224; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Make
Minor Updates and Consolidate Various Exchange Rules in Connection
Generally With Options Trading on the Exchange, Including Those
Regarding Trading Halts and the Plan To Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility, and Move Those Rules From the Currently Effective Rulebook
to the Shell Structure for the Exchange's Rulebook That Will Become
Effective Upon the Migration of the Exchange's Trading Platform to the
Same System Used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges

October 4, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 1, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to make minor updates and consolidate various Exchange Rules in
connection generally with options trading on the Exchange, including
those regarding trading halts and the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility (the ``Plan''), and move those Rules from the
currently effective Rulebook (``current Rulebook'') to the shell
structure for the Exchange's Rulebook that will become effective upon
the migration of the Exchange's trading platform to the same system
used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges (as defined below) (``shell
Rulebook''). The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align
certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences,
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to the
same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange
expects to complete on October 7, 2019. In connection with this
technology migration, the Exchange has a shell Rulebook that resides
alongside its current Rulebook, which shell Rulebook will contain the
Rules that will be in place upon completion of the Cboe Options
technology migration.
    The Exchange proposes to consolidate various rules in connection
generally with trading on the Exchange into sections of proposed
Chapter 5 (Options Trading) in the shell Rulebook. The

Exchange notes that it has already submitted (or will submit) other
rule filings that update, consolidate, and move many of the current
Exchange Rules to Chapter 5 of the shell Rulebook. This proposed rule
change now seeks to update, consolidate, and move the remaining
Exchange Rules (and subsequently delete these rules from the current
Rulebook) intended to be housed under Chapter 5 of the shell Rulebook
upon migration. The proposed rule change moves and, where applicable,
consolidates the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed rule for shell rulebook             Current rule(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.10 Give Up of Clearing TPH...........  6.21 Give Up of Clearing TPH.
5.11 Binding Transactions:
    5.11(a) (General)..................  6.48(a) Contract Made on
                                          Acceptance of Bid or Offer.
    5.11(a) (Erroneous Report).........  6.52 Price Binding Despite
                                          Erroneous Report.
    5.11(b) (Comparison)...............  6.66 Comparison Does Not Create
                                          Contract.
5.12 Transactions Off the Exchange.....  6.49 Transactions Off the
                                          Exchange (including its
                                          Interpretations and Policies).
5.20 Trading Halts.....................  6.3 Trading Halts.
                                         21.12 (halts for Government
                                          securities options).
                                         22.12 (halts for binary
                                          options).
                                         23.8 (halts for interest rate
                                          options).
                                         24.7 (halts for index options).
                                         28.10 (halts for Corporate Debt
                                          Securities options).
                                         29.13 (halts for Credit
                                          Options).
5.21 Equity Market Plan to Address       6.3A Equity Market Plan to
 Extraordinary Market Volatility.         Address Extraordinary Market
                                          Volatility.
5.22 Market-wide Trading Halts due to    6.3B Market-wide Trading Halts
 Extraordinary Market Volatility.         due to Extraordinary Market
                                          Volatility.
                                         22.12 (halts for binary
                                          options).
                                         24.7 (halts for index options).
                                         29.13 (halts for Credit
                                          Options).
5.23 Unusual Market and Emergency        6.6 Unusual Market Conditions.
 Conditions.
                                         6.17 Authority to Take Action
                                          Under Emergency Conditions.
5.59 Firm Disseminated Market Quotes...  8.51 Firm Disseminated Market
                                          Quotes.
5.85 Order and Quote Allocation,
 Priority, and Execution:
    5.85(g) (Stock-Option Orders and     6.48(b)-(d) Contract Made on
     Security Future Option Orders).      Acceptance of Bid or Offer.
    5.85(h) (Cabinet Orders)...........  5.12 (in current shell
                                          Rulebook) Cabinet Orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to the rules indicated in the table above
does not make any substantive changes to the rules. The proposed rule
change makes only non-substantive changes to the rules in the table
above to simplify rule language, update the rule text to read in plain
English, update headings, update references to terms or other rule text
that will be implemented upon migration (e.g., in proposed Rule
5.21(b)), reformat the paragraph lettering and/or numbering, and update
cross-references to rules not yet in the shell Rulebook but that will
be in the shell Rulebook and implemented upon migration. The paragraphs
below provide a description of the more detailed, non-substantive
changes made.
    In particular, regarding proposed Rule 5.20, the proposed rule
change moves: Current Rule 24.7, in part, to proposed Rule 5.20(a)(3),
as well as incorporates current Rule 24.7.03 into proposed Rule
5.20(a)(3) and current Rule 24.7.01 into proposed Rule 5.20(a)(6);
current Rule 23.8 to proposed Rule 5.20(a)(7)(A); current Rule 21.12 to
proposed Rule 5.20(a)(7)(B); current Rule 29.13 to proposed Rule
5.20(a)(7)(C); and current Rule 28.10 to proposed Rule 5.20(a)(7)(D).
The proposed rule change also updates proposed 5.20(a) and (b) (current
6.3(a) and (b)) to eliminate the distinction between who may declare a
halt for two days and for more than two days, and who may resume
trading. As proposed under 5.20(a), two Floor Officials and a senior
executive officer may halt trading for any number of days and, under
proposed Rule 5.20(b), may resume trading. This is the same manner in
which current Rule 24.7 (halts for index options) governs trading halts
and resumptions.\5\ The proposed rule change incorporates reference to
Rule 5.31(g), which is currently in the shell Rulebook and governs the
opening process following a trading halt, into proposed Rule 5.20(b)
(current Rule 6.3(b)). This does not alter the post-halt opening
process but merely adds clarity by incorporating the appropriate cross-
reference. The proposed rule change also moves the remainder of current
Rule 24.7, which governs trading halts in connection with index
options, to proposed Rule 5.20(d) and (e), and removes current Rule
24.7.02 as it is redundant of the resumption provision already provided
for in current Rule 6.3 (proposed Rule 5.20(b)) and the determination
of the Exchange to reopen using a different method already provided for
in Rule 5.31(h), currently in the shell Rulebook. The proposed rule
also deletes references to ``suspension'', as this is the same as a
halt.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also incorporates into proposed
Rule 5.20(a) the rule language from current Rule 27.4(a) that
trading may be halted ``to protect investors'' (in addition to the
language that trading may be halted in the interests of a fair and
orderly market).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39292 (November 3,
1997), 62 FR 60738 (November 12, 1997) (Order Granting Approval to
Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Trading
Halts and Suspensions) (SR-CBOE-97-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again notes that the proposed changes do not make any
substantive changes to the current rules, but instead consolidate the
rules in connection with trading halts into one, concise rule governing
trading halts. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule removes
language throughout the current rules where it states that Rules 6.3
and/or 6.3B are applicable to binary options, index options, and credit
options, as this is redundant of the rules referenced which currently
govern all such securities and options on securities. The proposed rule
combines Rule 6.3.01 and .04 into proposed Rule 5.20(c). It removes
current Rule 6.3.02 because it is redundant of the reasons already
enumerated in current Rule 6.3(a) (proposed Rule 5.20(a). Rule 6.3.02
states that generally, in the case of an option on a security, trading
will be halted when a regulatory halt in the underlying security has
occurred in the primary market for that security. The

Exchange notes that during a Regulatory Halt an underlying security has
halted trading across the industry, and during a non-Regulatory Halt
the primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the
underlying security continues to trade on other equities platforms.
Proposed Rule 5.20(a)(1) provides that in the case of an option on a
security trading in the underlying security has been halted in the one
or more of the markets trading the underlying security, thereby
covering a Regulatory Halt that may occur across all markets, but not
necessarily halting trading when a halt occurs only in the primary
market. Accordingly, when the primary market halts trading for non-
regulatory matters and the security continues to trade on other equity
exchanges, Cboe Options may continue to trade options on that security.
    The proposed rule change also removes current Rule 22.12 as it
states only that current Rules 6.3, 6.3B and 24.7 shall be applicable
to binary options, which is redundant of the cross-referenced rules
themselves (as proposed). Indeed, proposed Rule 5.20 (current Rule 6.3)
incorporates the applicability of current Rules 27.7 [sic] and 6.3
(proposed subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6)) via proposed
subparagraph (a)(8), and proposed Rule 5.22(e) makes it explicit that
proposed Rule 5.22 (current Rule 6.3B) applies to binary options (as
well as Credit Options and index options). The proposed rule change
removes the term market-if-touched order from current Rule 6.6
(proposed Rule 5.23) as this order is no longer available on the
Exchange pursuant to Rule 5.6, which governs order types, order
instructions, and times-in-force and is currently in the shell
Rulebook. The proposed rule change also removes current Rule 6.5 which
states that no regular Trading Permit Holder shall bid, offer, purchase
or write (sell) on the Exchange any security other than an option
contract that is currently open for trading in accordance with the
provisions of current Chapter 5 (shell Chapter 4). This rule is
redundant of the provisions of current Chapter 5, which provide that an
option contract will not be listed or open for trading if it does not
meet the required listing criteria under the relevant rules of current
Chapter 5. This, in turn, would result in a Trading Permit Holder's
inability to transact at all on such an option contract.
    The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 5.22 merely moves the
Interpretation and Policy section to current Rule 6.3B to the body of
the proposed rule. As stated above, proposed Rule 5.22(e) states that
Rule 5.22 applies to binary options (provided for in current Rule
22.12), Credit Options (provided for in current Rule 29.13), and index
options (provided for in current Rule 24.7). It also deletes current
Rule 6.3C (which expired on February 4, 2014 in accordance with Rule
6.3C.03) regarding individual stock trading pauses due to extraordinary
market volatility and Rule 6.3.03 also regarding trading pauses (as it
was implemented in connection with the, now expired, Rule 6.3C ``Pause
Pilot''),\7\ because current Rule 6.3B (proposed Rule 5.22) already
governs trading halts in both stock and stock options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62272 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34509 (June 17, 2010) Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Individual Equity
Options Overlying Stocks Subject to Trading Pauses Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility) (SR-CBOE-2010-055); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64434 (May 6, 2011) 76 FR 27687 (May 12,
2011) (Notice of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Individual
Trading Pause Pilot and CBSX Market-Maker Quoting Obligations) (SR-
CBOE-2011-049); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June
23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (Order Approving Proposed
Rule Changes Relating To Expanding the Pilot Rule for Trading Pauses
Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility to All NMS Stocks) (SR-CBOE-
2011-049). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82646
(February 7, 2018), 83 FR 6294 (February 13, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-
010). The Exchange notes that SR-CBOE-2018-010 had been implemented
to delete Exchange Rules that no longer applied to the Exchange and,
at the time, should have deleted current 6.3.03 (what was then
6.3.06) as it was no longer applicable to the Exchange, however, it
inadvertently left this provision under Rule 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, proposed Rule 5.59 makes minor, non-substantive
changes to current Rule 8.51. The proposed changes update the current
Rule 8.51 definitions by removing language that references optional
classes on the Cboe Hybrid System, as all classes currently trade on
the System. The Exchange notes that the classes trading on the System
are made available to the floor (i.e., made available to the trading
crowd), and an interest that trades on the floor is systemized
according to Exchange Rules through approved systems. It also removes
from the current Rule 8.51 definition, language references
Interpretation and Policy .01, as this Interpretation and Policy has
been previously removed, and this language was inadvertently maintained
in the rules. The proposed change moves footnote 1 and 2 to the body of
proposed Rule 5.59, and updates references to SEC Rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed Rule change updates references to SEC Rules in
proposed Rule 5.12, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is generally intended to consolidate and
update the Exchange's rules in anticipation of the technology migration
on October 7, 2019. The proposed rule change does not make any
substantive changes to the Exchange Rules or Exchange functionality.
The Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes to update terms
and references, simplify rule language, make the rule provisions plain
English, consolidate and reorganize rules and rule paragraphs and/or
Interpretations and Policies, and remove rules that are redundant or
have since expired and are no longer applicable to trading on the
Exchange will foster cooperation and coordination with those
facilitating transactions in securities and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system by simplifying the Exchange Rules and Rulebook as a whole, and
making them easier to understand. The Exchange also believes that
simplifying the Exchange Rules will protect investors by resulting in
less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance.

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

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

context of a technology migration of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, and
not as a competitive filing. As stated, the proposed changes to the
rules are consistent with the shell Rulebook that will be in place come
October 7, 2019 and provide clear, consistent rules for all market
participants upon the completion of migration. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition because it does not in any way substantively
alter the current rules of the Exchange. It merely intends to provide
simplified, consolidated rules upon migration. Likewise, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition because the proposed rules are substantively
the same as the Exchange's current rules, which have all been
previously filed with the Commission.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative prior to the Exchange's proposed
system migration on October 7, 2019, in order to permit the Exchange to
provide a complete Rulebook upon the completion of the migration.
According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change simplifies,
reorganizes, and updates its rule text and does not substantively alter
any of its rules. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposal does not raise any new or novel
issues and makes only non-substantive changes to the rules. Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on
upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-081 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-081. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-081 and should be submitted on
or before October 31,  2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22138 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 28340]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport
Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Transport Airplane and Engine
(TAE) Subcommittee to discuss TAE issues.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 03, 2015, starting
at 9:00 a.m. EST. The public must make arrangements by June 01, 2015,
to present oral statements at the meeting.

ADDRESSES: 929 Long Bridge Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-
209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone
(202) 267-3168, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. 2), notice is
given of an ARAC Subcommittee meeting to be held on Wednesday, June 03,
2015.
    The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

 FAA Report
 ARAC Report
 Transportation Canada Report
 EASA Report
 Engine Harmonization Working Group Report--Engine Endurance
Testing
 Airworthiness Assurance Working Group Report
 Flight Test Harmonization Working Group Report
 Materials Flammability Working Group Report
 Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group Report
 Any other business

    Participation is open to the public, but will be limited to the
availability of teleconference lines.
    To participate, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION by email or phone for the teleconference call-in number and
passcode. Please provide the following information: Full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are participating as a public citizen,
please indicate so. Anyone calling from outside the Arlington, VA,
metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must make arrangements by June 01, 2015, to present oral
or written statements at the meeting. Written statements may be
presented to the Subcommittee by providing a copy to the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Copies of the documents
to be presented to the Subcommittee may be made available by contacting
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for
the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-11881 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P