[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57501-57505]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82168; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Amended, To Amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11,
Position Limits, To Increase the Position Limits for Options on Certain
Exchange Traded Products

November 29, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On August 15, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position
Limits, to increase the position limits for options on the following
exchange traded funds (``ETFs'') and exchange traded note (``ETN''):
iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (``EFA''),
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (``EEM''), iShares Russell 2000 ETF
(``IWM''), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (``EWZ''), iShares 20+ Year
Treasury Bond Fund ETF (``TLT''), iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures
ETN (``VXX''), PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ''), and iShares MSCI Japan
ETF (``EWJ''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on August 31, 2017.\3\ On

October 11, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ The Commission received no comments regarding the
proposal. On November 22, 2017, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is publishing this
notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant
to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81483 (August 25,
2017), 82 FR 41457 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81853, 82 FR 48300
(October 17, 2017). The Commission designated November 29, 2017 as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange provided additional
justification and analysis in support of the proposal, which is
summarized below. The full text of Amendment No. 1 has been placed
in the public comment file for SR-CBOE-2017-57 and is available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-057/cboe2017057-2715774-161526.pdf.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Amended

    Currently, position limits for options on ETFs and ETNs, such as
those subject to this proposal, are determined pursuant to Exchange
Rule 4.11, and, with certain exceptions, vary according to the number
of outstanding shares and past six-month trading volume of the
underlying stocks, ETFs, or ETNs. Options on the securities with the
largest numbers of outstanding shares and trading volume have an option
position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-
capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and stocks,
ETFs, and ETNs with fewer outstanding shares and lower trading volume
have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000, or 25,000 contracts
(with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same
side of the market. Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ are
currently subject to the standard position limit of 250,000 contracts
as set forth in Exchange Rule 4.11.\8\ Interpretation and Policy .07 of
Exchange Rule 4.11 currently sets forth separate position limits for
options on certain ETFs, including 500,000 contracts for options on EEM
and IWM, and 900,000 contracts for options on QQQQ.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41457. The Exchange states that
FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is
composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks and EFA tracks the
performance of MSCI EAFE Index, which has over 900 component
securities. Id. at 41458. The Exchange also states that the MSCI
EAFE Index ``is designed to represent the performance of large and
mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including countries
in Europe, Australasia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and
Canada.'' Id. According to the Exchange, EWZ tracks the performance
of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is composed of shares of large
and mid-size companies in Brazil and TLT tracks the performance of
ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which is composed of long-
term U.S. Treasury bonds. Id. The Exchange also states that VXX
tracks the performance of S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index Total
Return. Id. According to the Exchange, ``the Index is designed to
provide access to equity market volatility through CBOE Volatility
Index futures. The Index offers exposure to a daily rolling long
position in the first and second month VIX futures contracts and
reflects market participants' views of the future direction of the
VIX index at the time of expiration of the VIX futures contracts
comprising the Index.'' Id. The Exchange also states that EWJ tracks
the MSCI Japan Index, which tracks the performance of large and mid-
sized companies in Japan. Id.
    \9\ The Exchange states that EEM tracks the performance of the
MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which is composed of approximately 800
component securities. According to the Exchange, the MSCI Emerging
Markets Index ``consists of the following 21 emerging market country
indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and
Turkey.'' Id. The Exchange also states that IWM tracks the
performance of the Russell 2000 Index, which is composed of 2,000
small-cap domestic stocks, and QQQQ tracks the performance of the
Nasdaq-100 Index, which is composed of 100 of the largest domestic
and international nonfinancial companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change, as amended, is to amend
Interpretation and Policy .07 to Exchange Rule 4.11 to increase the
position and exercise limits for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX,
and EWJ to from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts.\10\ The
Exchange further proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to
Exchange Rule 4.11 to increase the position limits for options on EEM
and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, and to increase
the position limits for options on QQQQ from 900,000 contracts to
1,800,000 contracts.\11\ The Exchange states its belief that increasing
position limits for the options subject to this proposal will lead to a
more liquid and competitive market environment for these options that
will benefit customers interested in this product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy
.02, which is not being amended by the proposed rule change, the
exercise limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ options would
be similarly increased.
    \11\ Pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy
.02, which is not being amended by the proposed rule change, the
exercise limits for EEM, IWM, and QQQQ options would be similarly
increased. The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive
corrections to the names of IWM and EEM in Rule 4.11, Interpretation
and Policy .07.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ
to 1,800,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading
characteristics of QQQQ to that of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY''),
which currently has no position limits.\13\ The Exchange states that
the average daily trading volume through August 14, 2017 for QQQQ was
26.25 million shares compared to 64.63 million shares for SPY.\14\ The
total shares outstanding for QQQQ were 351.6 million compared to 976.23
million for SPY.\15\ The fund market cap for QQQQ was $50,359.7 million
compared to $240,540 million for SPY.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. at 41458. See also Exchange Rule 4.11,
Interpretation and Policy .07. The Commission notes that the lack of
position limits for SPY is currently subject to a pilot program. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September 27, 2012), 77
FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091) (eliminating position
and exercise limits for SPY options on a pilot basis); and 81017
(June 26, 2017), 82 FR 29960 (June 30, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-050)
(extending the SPY pilot program to July 12, 2018).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41458.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM
and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, the Exchange
compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ,
which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts.\17\ The
Exchange states that the average daily trading volume through July 31,
2017 for EEM was 52.12 million shares and IWM was 27.46 million shares
compared to 26.25 million shares for QQQQ.\18\ The total shares
outstanding for EEM were 797.4 million and for IWM were 253.1 million
compared to 351.6 million for QQQQ.\19\ The fund market cap for EEM was
$34,926.1 million and IWM was $35,809.1 million compared to $50,359.7
million for QQQQ.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. See also Exchange Rule 4.11, Interpretation and
Policy .07.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41458-59.
    \19\ See id. at 41459.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI,
EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000
contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of FXI,
EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ to that of EEM and IWM, both of which
currently have a position limit of 500,000 contracts.\21\ The Exchange
states that the average daily

trading volume through July 31, 2017 for FXI was 15.08 million shares,
EFA was 19.42 million shares, EWZ was 17.08 million shares, TLT was
8.53 million shares, VXX was 55.04 million shares, and EWJ was 6.06
million shares compared to 52.12 million shares for EEM and 27.46
million shares for IWM.\22\ The total shares outstanding for FXI was
78.6 million, EFA was 1178.4 million, EWZ was 159.4 million, TLT was 60
million, VXX was 96.7 million, and EWJ was 303.6 million compared to
797.4 million for EEM and 253.1 million for IWM.\23\ The fund market
cap for FXI was $3,343.6 million, EFA was $78,870.3 million, EWZ was
$6,023.4 million, TLT was $7,442.4 million, VXX was $1,085.6 million,
and EWJ was $16,625.1 million compared to $34,926.1 million for EEM and
$35,809.1 million for IWM.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. See also Exchange Rule 4.11, Interpretation and
Policy .07.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41459.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the options reporting requirements of
Exchange Rule 4.13 would continue to be applicable to the options
subject to this proposal.\25\ As set forth in Exchange Rule 4.13(a),
each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') must report to the Exchange
certain information in relation to any customer who, acting alone, or
in concert with others, on the previous business day maintained
aggregate long or short positions on the same side of the market of 200
or more contracts in any single class of option contracts dealt in on
the Exchange.\26\ Further, Exchange Rule 4.13(b) requires each TPH
(other than an Exchange market-maker or Designated Primary Market-
Maker) \27\ that maintains a position in excess of 10,000 non-FLEX
equity option contracts on the same side of the market, on behalf of
its own account or for the account of a customer, to report to the
Exchange information as to whether such positions are hedged, and
provide documentation as to how such contracts are hedged.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ The report must include, for each such class of options,
the number of option contracts comprising each such position and, in
the case of short positions, whether covered or uncovered. See
Exchange Rule 4.13(a).
    \27\ According to the Exchange, market-makers (including
Designated Primary Market-Makers) are exempt from the referenced
reporting requirement because market-maker information can be
accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 41459.
    \28\ According to the Exchange, this information would include,
but would not be limited to, the option position, whether such
position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the
collateral used to carry the position, if applicable. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and
reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at
the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual
and/or illegal trading activity.\29\ According to the Exchange, its
surveillance procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements
via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in
both options and underlying stocks.\30\ In addition, the Exchange
states that its surveillance procedures have been effective for the
surveillance of trading in the options subject to this proposal, and
will continue to be employed.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id. at 41459 n.23. The Exchange represents that more
than 50% of the weight of the securities held by the options subject
to this proposal are also subject to a comprehensive surveillance
agreement (``CSA''). See id. at 41458. Additionally, the Exchange
states that the component securities of the MSCI Emerging Markets
Index on which EEM is based for which the primary market is in any
one country that is not subject to a CSA do not represent 20% or
more of the weight of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. See id.
Further, the Exchange states that the component securities of the
MSCI Emerging Markets Index on which EEM is based for which the
primary market is in any two countries that are not subject to CSAs
do not represent 33% or more of the weight of the MSCI Emerging
Markets Index. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further states its belief that the current financial
requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately
address concerns that a TPH or its customer may try to maintain an
inordinately large unhedged position in the options subject to this
proposal.\32\ Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies, the
Exchange states, serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any
one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a TPH must
maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer.\33\ In
addition, the Exchange notes that the Commission's net capital rule,
Rule 15c3-1 under the Act,\34\ imposes a capital charge on TPHs to the
extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin
requirement.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 41459.
    \33\ See id. at 41459-60.
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \35\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment No.1

    As noted above, on November 22, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change to provide additional justification
and support for the proposal. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange states
that it submitted the proposal at the request of market participants
whose on-exchange activity has been ``hindered by existing position
limits, causing them to be unable to provide additional liquidity not
just on the Exchange, but also on other options exchanges on which they
participate.'' \36\ In further support of its proposed increases in
position limits, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange describes at length:
(i) The creation and redemption process for ETFs (and a similar process
for the ETN to which the proposal relates \37\); (ii) the arbitrage
activity that ensues when such instruments are overpriced or are
trading at a discount to the securities on which they are based and
helps to keep the instrument's price in line with the value of its
underlying portfolio; and (iii) how these processes serve to mitigate
the potential price impact of the ETF or ETN shares that might
otherwise result from increased position limits.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Amendment No. 1 at 4-5. The Exchange reiterates its
understanding that certain market participants are opting to execute
trades involving large numbers of options contracts in the symbols
subject to the proposal in the over-the-counter market, and argues
that these large trades do not contribute to the price discovery
process performed on a lit market. See id. at 5.
    \37\ With regard to the ETN option included in the proposal--
VXX--the Exchange acknowledged that there is no direct analogue to
ETF ``creation,'' but observed that the ETN issuer may sell
additional VXX shares from its inventory. Regardless of whether VXX
shares are redeemed or new VXX shares are issued, the Exchange
stated, an issuer may transact in VIX futures in order to hedge its
exposure, resulting in an arbitrage process similar to the one
described for ETFs described above, thereby helping to keep an ETN's
price in line with the value of its underlying index. See Amendment
No. 1 at 7-8.
    \38\ See id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes that some of
the ETFs and the ETN to which the proposal relates are based on broad-
based indices that underlie cash-settled options that are economically
equivalent to the relevant ETF or similar to the relevant ETN, but
where the option on the index is either subject to no position limit or
is subject to a position limit reflecting a notional value that is
larger than the position limit for the option on the ETF absent the
proposed increase.\39\ For the other ETFs in the proposal where this
does not apply, the Exchange argues that, based on the liquidity,
breadth, and depth of the underlying market, the index referenced by
the ETF would be considered a broad-based index under the Exchange's
rules.\40\ According to the Exchange, if certain position limits are
appropriate for the options overlying the

same index or is an analogue to the basket of securities that the ETF
tracks, then those same economically equivalent position limits should
be appropriate for the option overlying the ETF.\41\ The Exchange
believes that the new position limits it is proposing meet this
criterion.\42\ The Exchange also cites data in support of its argument
that the market capitalization of the underlying index or reference
asset of each of the ETFs and the ETN is large enough to absorb any
price movements that may be caused by an oversized trade.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. at 8, and the Exchange's discussion of QQQQ, IWM,
VXX, and EEM, and EFA, id. at 8-11.
    \40\ See id. at 8, and the Exchange's discussion of FXI, EWZ,
TLT, and EWJ, id. at 12-14.
    \41\ See id. at 8.
    \42\ See id. at 8-14. For each of the ETFs and the ETN subject
to the proposal, the Exchange cites specific data to illustrate its
argument.
    \43\ See id. at 8-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2017-057, as Amended, and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \44\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposal, as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons
to provide comment on the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\45\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission notes that position and exercise limits serve as a
regulatory tool designed to address manipulative schemes and adverse
market impact surrounding the use of options.\46\ As discussed above,
the Exchange has proposed to increase the position and exercise limits
for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts
to 500,000 contracts, for options on EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts
to 1,000,000 contracts, and for options on QQQQ from 900,000 contracts
to 1,800,000 contracts. The proposed increase in position and exercise
limits for each marks a substantial increase from current levels, for
which the Exchange recently has provided additional justification and
analysis.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
    \46\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68086
(October 23, 2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
066).
    \47\ The Commission notes that the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1 to provide additional justification and analysis in support of the
proposed position and exercise limits on November 22, 2017. See
supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency
of the proposed rule change, as amended, with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\48\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5), or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data,
views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4 under the Act,\49\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \50\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-
regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975,
Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, as
amended, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit
about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the position and exercise limit for each option as
proposed could impact markets adversely.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as amended,
should be approved or disapproved by December 26, 2017. Any person who
wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file
that rebuttal by January 9, 2018. 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 protected]. Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2017-057 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 No. SR-CBOE-2017-057. The file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change, as
amended, that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change, as amended,
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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 No. SR-CBOE-2017-057 and
should be submitted by December 26, 2017.

Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January 9, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-26122 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   Mining Technology | Mining News and Views Updated Daily is using cookies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Form
Mining Safety
7 OCTOBER 2019

ANALYSIS
Can behavioural science create a safer mining industry?
By Andrew Tunnicliffe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A team of behavioural scientists spoke to thousands of people working in mining in order to identify factors that impact cultures around safety. Andrew Tunnicliffe spoke to Dr Emily Haas of NIOSH to found out how their research can improve communication, and ultimately save lives.
Coming to the end of a five-year project looking at ways mining incidents can be reduced, NIOSH behavioural scientist, Dr Emily Haas, believes there are practical steps mining operators can take to help mitigate risk and better communicate health and safety practices with their workforces.
Mining remains one of, if not the, most dangerous industries in the world. In 2018, more than 15,000 deaths were reported globally according to The World Counts, a figure many believe drastically under-represents its reality. The Denmark-based project, which collects official data on a myriad of issues, says miners are more at risk of injury or death than any other profession the world over.
In the US, numbers of mining deaths and injuries has plateaued in recent years, with 27 fatalities and 4,035 injuries recorded in 2017, according to figures from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The number of deaths remained the same in 2018 according to US Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
NIOSH study on miners' behaviour
Coming to the end of a five-year project looking at ways mining incidents can be reduced, NIOSH behavioural scientist, Dr Emily Haas, believes there are practical steps mining operators can take to help mitigate risk and better communicate health and safety practices with their workforces.
Working for NIOSH at its Human Factors Branch of the Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, Haas and her team looked to identify factors impacting safety cultures and how they could be addressed, with the aim of further improving safety, workplace interventions and communication. Working across tens of mining sites, researchers spoke and worked with thousands of mining professionals.
"The first objective was to assess the current safety climate in the mining industry," she explains. The aim was to understand how mining companies' focus could be shifted from simply trying to ensure best practice in health and safety, to making real change on the ground and not simply assuming policies implemented on the direction of company leaders were received and acted upon as intended.
"We went to approximately 40 mines and surveyed 2,700 workers from quite a few different mining subsectors," says Haas. "We designed the survey around specific, external and internal factors that were really significant indicators of how workers were making decisions on the job."
Interviewees ranged from managers to supervisors, rank and file miners to health and safety professionals; the full spectrum of today's mining sector.
However, Haas says the team were mindful not to be seen as going to tell site managers and miners what they were and weren't doing right. In fact, companies welcomed the opportunity to work on the project, becoming integral to the study, which wouldn't have been possible without them she adds.
Haas wanted to know how workers and their managers were communicating, how co-workers were communicating and how workers engaged with site health and safety policies and the training given.
"We really found a lot of gaps in communication. There were three things really prevalent, one was management visibility on site. Is management visible throughout the day or is it just a pre-shift meeting? This included following through on things that they said they would do."
Another factor was management consistency, she continues: "Are they treating everyone the same, communicating the same messages across different shifts?" Finally, were managers involving workers in key decision making over safety, ensuring all were aware of their responsibilities?
Video footage enables miner buy-in
Added to this, during the project the team assessed something never before considered. "We also looked at things like someone's risk tolerance, what's their thoroughness and adaptability, and their knowledge of the job?"
Researchers asked some workers to take part in a further element of the study; reviewing them in their working environment to see how their job tasks and work practices impacted their risk and that of their colleagues, with a particular focus on their exposure to dust.
"Another aim of the project was to look at technology and its role in a health and safety management system, related to dust controls, specifically." Before miners went to work, they would answer a survey about their understanding of their exposure levels and how they manage them, as well as their role in ensuring mine safety. As they went on shift, each would be equipped with NIOSH's Helmet-CAM to wear for a few hours, with footage to be reviewed at the end of their work that was linked up to monitors examining their exposure to dust.
"After they wore these devices, our software could actually link the two together. Workers could see what they were doing and what their exposure was and we could identify hot spots around the dust exposure on that site," Haas adds. The exercise was really well received, she adds, with miners often taking control of the computer to view the footage in their own time and assess what the camera had recorded.
How can mining companies use behavioural science?
"We could share these results with management and give recommendations, both in terms of supporting the workforce and making changes to engineering controls on site," says Haas. "We came back a couple months later and did everything again. Then we followed up with managers six months later to see what work practices were maintained; we found that overall, workers were really maintaining practices they had control over to reduce their exposure. It was really empowering for them."
Haas says the work her team has done has provided real benefits to the mining industry and the companies involved. "We could actually show companies, here are the things that, on your side, have the biggest impact on worker performance and decision making on the job."
Presented in a matrix, researchers were able to identify the areas mining companies and their workforce's were particularly good in, and areas that might need attention. This approach would allow managers to focus on areas where significant change could happen and how workers might respond to it.
This knowledge could then be fed up the chain to more senior decision makers, meaning better choices could be made on equipment procurement, safety practices or fixes to engineering controls that might otherwise have been missed.
Being able to understand worker tolerance to risk is, the research suggests, a significant step towards enabling mining companies to better understand the challenges they face on worker safety and communication. "We really saw we need to take a step back and figure out, how are we even communicating about this in the first place," Haas says.
Communication is key to good health and safety
"Because we know that a health and safety management system is not a one size fits all, we developed communication cards for managers and workers to track how they were communicating with each other about health and safety." Haas says in addition to the scorecards, companies took the initiative to use study results to develop their own new, updated training modules, rolling them out across all of their sites, not just the ones involved in the study.
She also believes ensuring workers are able to influence health and safety learning and policy is an essential part of their buy-in. "One thing everyone had in common was the idea that there's not much more that they can really do. Participating in this work and then being able to see that there are actually things that they can do, and they do have some control over their health destiny, was really helpful for them. They actually became way more invested in their health."
Good health and safety practices in mining are essential, communicating them is, however, arguably more important. And not just among each other, today, warns Haas: "Right now, one of the biggest challenges the industry is facing is turnover. You could have really great people who have established some great programmes, then they retire or go somewhere else and those programmes go too."
Communicating good practice across a shift, a mine, a company and standardising them is, therefore, vital says Haas.
"We just want them to be engrained there and part of the daily routine, so they don't leave when the person does. It's also why it's important to start at the top of a company, so that stuff is built into their culture too."


SF-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB)
(Renewal)

	1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),
for semiconductor manufacturing were proposed on May 8, 2002, (67 FR
30848), and promulgated on May 22, 2003, (68 FR 27925).  These
regulations apply to each new, reconstructed, or existing affected major
source that emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in
the aggregate, any single hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at a rate of 10
tons per year (typ) or more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
typ or more.  Semiconductor manufacturing process units are used to
manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-state
devices from a water substrate, including research and development
activities integrated into a semiconductor manufacturing process unit.
A semiconductor manufacturing process unit includes the equipment
assembled and connected by ductwork or hard-piping including furnaces
and associated unit operations; associated wet and dry work benches;
associated recovery devices; feed, intermediate, and product storage
tanks; product transfer racks and connected ducts and piping; pumps,
compressors, agitators, pressure-relief devices, sampling connecting
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems; and control devices.

	In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
compliance status report, and performance tests by the owners/operators
of the affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
(SSM) in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during
which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications,
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are
required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.  Semiannual
summary reports are also required.

	Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an
average of one affected facility at each plant site and that each plant
site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant
site).

	There is only one respondent that will be subject to the regulation
over the period covered by this ICR, and it is estimated that no
additional respondents will become subject to the regulation in the next
three years.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from facilities in
semiconductor manufacturing cause or contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for the source category at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBB.

	2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

	The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the
Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the
requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then
inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and
repaired, and that the standards are being met.  The performance test
may also be observed.

	The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify
operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBB.

	3(a)  Nonduplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to
implement the federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 55368) on September 20,
2005.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal
Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

	Consultation with an industry representative (i.e., respondent) was
conducted to determine if there is anyway for EPA to reduce the
recordkeeping and reporting burden or improve the language in the
standard to make it easier to comply.  Our contact was Mr. Douglas
Andrey, from Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), at (408)
573-6608.

	We also referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of
the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data
available.  We reviewed information available from the United States
Census Bureau, the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS), which is the primary
source of information regarding the number of existing sources, and
websites covering semiconductor manufacturing.  We also consulted with
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer
and Program Integration Division.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information
required by these standards was collected less frequently, the
likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control
equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e)  General Guidelines

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  Also, the retention of records
for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a
source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the
appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found
that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending
beyond the five years.  If records were retained for less than five
years, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to
the destruction or nonexistence of records.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
semiconductor manufacturing.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for the respondent affected by the standards
is 3674, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 334413 for semiconductor manufacturing.

	4(b)  Information Requested

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

		(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by
NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Initial notification	63.9(b)(2)-(3), and 63.7189(b)-(c)

Notification of performance test	63.7(b)-(c), 63.9(e), and 63.7189(d)

Notification of compliance status	63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2), and 63.7189(e)

Performance evaluation reports	63.8(e)(5), and 63.7191(a)(3)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction	63.6(e)(3), and 63.7190(a)(2)

Semiannual summary report	63.7190

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Initial notification or notification of compliance status
63.10(b)(2)(xiv), and 63.7191(a)(1)

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	63.6(e)(3), and
63.7191(a)(2)

Records of performance tests and performance evaluations
63.10(b)(2)(viii), and 63.7191(a)(3)

Records are required to be retained for five years	63.10(b)(1)

Electronic Reporting

	At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at the plant site.

	Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the responses are done
electronically.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 320, 26, 26A test,
and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that
provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources still need
to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might
inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices
are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the
owner/operator for five years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum
needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further
for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use
economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be
reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for
Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.  The 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.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 37
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of this
regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the
previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$100.99 ($48.09 + 110%)

		Technical	$87.97   ($41.89 + 110%)

		Clerical	$43.81   ($20.86 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are labor costs which are addressed
elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one time costs when a
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	$50.00	1	$50.00

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are zero.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.  These costs are shown on the OMB
83-I form in block 14(a), Total annualized capital/startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $50.00.
 This is the total of column G.  These costs are shown on the OMB 83-I
form in block 14(b), Total annual costs (O&M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the
addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and
maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and
operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of
the ICR is estimated to be $50.  This cost will not be shown on the OMB
83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  It is too
minuscule a total to be used, since block 14 of the OMB 83-I form are
rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis
of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as the examination of records
maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of
emission, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $1,428.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor
rate as follows:

		Managerial	$57.20   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6)

		Technical	$42.45   (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.96   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2006
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon
which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden, NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBB).

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately one existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondent per year will
become subject.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in
the table below is one per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	1	0	0	1

2	0	1	0	0	1

3	0	1	0	0	1

Average	0	1	0	0	1

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is one.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block
13(a), Number of respondents.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification	0	1	0	0

Notification of performance evaluation	0	1	0	0

Notification of compliance status	0	1	0	0

Performance evaluation reports	0	1	0	0

Startup, shutdown/malfunction report	0	4	0	0

Semiannual summary report	1	2	0	2

	Total	2

	The number of Total Annual Responses is two.  This number is shown on
the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden and Cost Tables

	The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).
The total annual labor costs are $3,117.  The annual labor costs are not
shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates may be
found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for, NESHAP
for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart BBBBB).
Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 18 hours per
response.

	The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $50 (rounded).  This number is not shown on the OMB 83-I form in
block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The cost calculations are
detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is
estimated to be 34 labor hours at a cost of $1,428.  See Table 2. Annual
Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBB).

	6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to
the requirements of the rule.  In the first year of the previous ICR,
the source category consisted of an estimated 127 facilities, which
included area sources, synthetic minor sources and major sources.  Of
these, only one facility is considered a major source subject to the
semiconductor manufacturing NESHAP, and the other 126 non-major sources
only read the rule for the first year.  There are no new sources
expected over the three years of this ICR.

	There are no changes in the capital/startup and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs from the previous ICR, even though there is an
O&M cost for the one source, it is not enough for conversion to the
thousand dollar requirement.

	6(g)  Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 18 hours per response.
 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 valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
OECA-2005-0069, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
 The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the
public docket is available through Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.  Use FDMS to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0069 and OMB Control Number 2060-0519 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting Requirements

   A. Read instructions c	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

   B. Process/Review information  d	4	2	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$779.21

   C. Write reports

           Initial notification c	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of performance                       evaluation
c	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of compliance status c	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Performance evaluation reports c	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Startup, shutdown/malfunction                   (SSM) report
e	1	4	4	0	0	0	0	$0

           Semiannual summary report f	4	2	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$779.21

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

   A. Read instructions 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

   B. Plan activities	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$779.21

   C. Implement activities

       Control devices

           Design analysis	15	1	15	0	0	0	0	$0

           Performance evaluation	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

           Equipment inspection	1	52	52	0	0	0	0	$0

           Monitoring activities	1	52	52	0	0	0	0	$0

           Maintenance	2	52	104	0	0	0	0	$0

   D. Develop record system

           Develop startup, shutdown,                        malfunction
plan	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

           Control equipment/maintenance                 plan	12	1	12	0
0	0	0	$0

   E. Time to enter information

           Control equipment testing	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	$0

           Control equipment inspection	0.5	52	26	0	0	0	0	$0

           Control equipment monitoring	0.5	52	26	0	0	0	0	$0

   F. Time to train personnel

           Acquisition, installation and use                 of
technology and systems	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

           Control equipment inspection and              monitoring	40	1
40	0	0	0	0	$0

  G.  Store, file and maintain records  g	2	2	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$389.60

  H.  Retrieve records/reports	2	2	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$389.60

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	32	1.6	3.2	$3,116.83

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	37	$3,117

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondent that will be
subject to the rule will be one.  There will be no additional new source
that will become subject to the rule over the three-year period of this
ICR.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $100.99 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $87.97 per hour for
Technical labor, and $43.81 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 19, 2005, (Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational

and industry group.(  The rates are from column 1, (Total compensation.(
 The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit
packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  This is a one-time only activity.

d We have assumed that it will take 4 hours twice a year to process and
review information.

e  We have assumed that it will take one hour four times a year for
respondent to write reports.

f  We have assumed that each respondent will take four hours two times
per year to write semiannual summary reports.

g  We have assumed that it will take respondent two hours twice a year
to store, file and maintain records.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Synthetic Fiber
Production Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHH)

	Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

 per year

(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant  per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ b

Review initial notification reports	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

Review notification of compliance status	10	1	10	0	0	0	0	$0

Review semiannual summary reports c	15	2	30	1	30	1.5	3	$1,428.18

Review notifications of performance tests	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

Attend initial performance tests d	120	1	120	0	0	0	0	$0

Review test results e 	10	1	10	0	0	0	0	$0

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	30	1.5	3	$1,428.18

 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND     COST (rounded)

	34	$1,428

Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will
be subject to the rule will be one.  There will be no additional new
source that will become subject to      the rule over the three-year
period of this ICR.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a
1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses:  Managerial rate of $57.20 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6),
Technical rate of $42.45 (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6), and Clerical
rate of $22.96 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 x 1.6).  These rates are from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2005 General Schedule( which
excludes locality rates of pay.

    c  We have assumed that each respondent will take four hours two
times per year to write semiannual summary reports.

    d  We have assumed that it will take 120 hours to complete an
initial performance tests.

    e  It will take 10 hours to review test results.

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   11


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28122-28124]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0016; OMB No. 1660-0086]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program--Mortgage Portfolio
Protection Program (MPPP); Ask the Advocate Web Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a previously approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
an amendment to a currently-approved collection of information related
to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Mortgage Portfolio
Protection Program (MPPP), which is an option that companies
participating in the NFIP can use to bring their mortgage loan
portfolios into compliance with the flood insurance purchase
requirements. This notice seeks comments concerning the collection of
information related to the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate
(OFIA).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2021-0016. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information related to the NFIP
Mortgage Portfolio Protection Program

(MPPP), contact Kelly Bronowicz, Industry Management Branch Chief,
FIMA, FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information related to the Ask the Advocate web form, contact
Joe Cecil, Advocate Representative Team Lead, Office of the Flood
Insurance Advocate, FIMA, FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Requests for additional information or copies of the information
collection should be made to the Forms & Information Collections
Manager, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington,
DC 20472, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pertaining to the MPPP, federal lenders and
Federally-regulated or sponsored lending institutions may not make,
increase, extend, or renew any loan secured by improved real property
located in a special flood hazard area (SFHA) unless the building and
any personal property securing the loan is covered by flood insurance
for the life of the loan. See Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(FDPA) Sec.  102 (Pub. L. 93-234; 42 U.S.C. 4012a). The FEMA
Administrator carries out the NFIP to enable interested persons to
purchase insurance against loss resulting from physical damage to or
loss of real or personal property arising from flood in the United
States. See National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (Pub. L. 90-
448, title XIII; 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
    In general, individual mortgagees subject to the requirements of
the FDPA obtain and maintain flood insurance for their individual
properties. When individual mortgagees do not obtain required flood
insurance, the NFIP's MPPP allows covered lenders to ensure compliance
with the requirements of FDPA by making available special coverage for
the lender's entire mortgage portfolio. See 44 CFR 62.23(l). To sell
MPPP policies, private insurance companies participating in the NFIP's
Write Your Own (WYO) Program must apply for and annually renew their
election to voluntarily participate in the MPPP.
    This information collection expires on December 31, 2021. FEMA is
requesting a revision of this currently approved collection. The
purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance.
    Pertaining to the Ask the Advocate Web Form, Section 24 of the
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 4033),
Public Law 113-89, 128 Stat. 1030, requires FEMA to designate a Flood
Insurance Advocate that would advocate for the fair treatment of NFIP
policyholders and property owners by: (1) Providing education and
guidance on all aspects of the NFIP, (2) identifying trends affecting
the public, and (3) making recommendations for NFIP program
improvements to FEMA leadership. Pursuant to this authority, FEMA
established OFIA on December 22, 2014.
    Members of the public regularly contact OFIA seeking assistance on
the NFIP. OFIA seeks to facilitate the timely and effective management
of these inquiries by creating a web form on OFIA's web page at https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/advocate. The web form will allow users
to provide information that includes all the data necessary for OFIA to
perform its Congressionally mandated duties and responsibilities.
    Consumers who submit an inquiry to OFIA will be required to fill-
out ten (10) informational fields on the Ask the Advocate web form.
These fields include: (1) First name, (2) Last name, (3) Email address,
(4) Confirm email address, (5) How did you hear of Advocate's office
(pull-down list), (6) Contact role (list field), (7) State (pull-down
list), (8) ZIP code, (9) Subject (of inquiry) and (10) Questions/
Comment (regarding inquiry). An eleventh (11th) field is a security
CAPTCHA field intended to distinguish human from machine input as a way
of thwarting spam and automated extraction of data from websites.
    When a consumer submits this information, the data will be
collected and stored on OFIA's Department of Homeland Security/FEMA-
approved Customer Relationship Management cloud-based environment
hosted by Salesforce.
    Once OFIA receives this information, the inquiry will be assigned a
system-generated ``Case number'', and then the case is then assigned to
an OFIA Advocate Representative (FEMA employee). Using the data
collected from the Ask the Advocate web form, the Advocate
Representative will research the customer's inquiry and offer education
and guidance to help the customer navigate the NFIP process.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program--Mortgage Portfolio
Protection Program (MPPP).
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0086.
    FEMA Forms: Ask the Advocate Web Form (form number pending OMB
approval).
    Abstract: Regarding the MPPP, FEMA needs the information to ensure
that private insurance companies that join the NFIP's WYO Program meet
all state and Federal requirements for insurance companies.
Requirements include a good business record and satisfactory rating in
their field. There is no other way to obtain this information because
it is specific to each company that applies to join the NFIP.
    Regarding the Ask the Advocate Web Form, the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 requires FEMA to designate a Flood
Insurance Advocate that would advocate for the fair treatment of NFIP
policyholders and property owners. Pursuant to this authority, FEMA
established OFIA on December 22, 2014.
    Members of the public regularly contact OFIA seeking assistance on
the NFIP. OFIA seeks to facilitate the timely and effective management
of these inquiries through a web form on OFIA's web page. The web form
will allow users to provide information that includes all the data
necessary for OFIA to fulfill its duties and responsibilities.
    Affected Public: Individuals, households, businesses, or other for-
profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,041.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,041.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 227.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $11,856.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.00.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.00.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $71,930.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Senior Manager, Records Management Branch, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-11058 Filed 5-52-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 25648]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO, SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No.
3235-0625

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and
Instructions to Form NRSRO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).\1\ The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and the Instructions to Form NRSRO contain
certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements for nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations (``NRSROs''). Currently,
there are 10 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the
Commission. Based on staff experience, NRSROs are estimated to spend
annually a total industry-wide burden of 2,527 hours and external cost
of $4,000 to comply with the requirements.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 30, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11466 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P