[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79081-79083]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0327]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 16 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 17, 2010. The exemptions
expire on December 17, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On October 21, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (75 FR 65057). That notice listed 16 applicants' case
histories. The 16 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 16 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 16 exemption
applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable
to meet the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, complete loss of vision, loss of an eye, corneal scarring,
histoplasmosis and prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. 12 of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The 4
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 11 to 25 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While
possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 16 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 47
years. In the past 3 years, 2 of the drivers were involved in crashes
or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 21, 2010
notice (75 FR 65057).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or
greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption.
Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to
intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in
interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or
greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of
these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting
him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrates the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers, collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 16 applicants, none of the applicants were convicted for a moving
violation and two of the applicants was involved in a crash. All the
applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision
impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their
driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample
driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of
future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can
be projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 16 applicants listed in the notice of October
21, 2010 (75 FR 65057).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 16 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
    The first comment was from The Kansas Corporate Commission stated
and was in favor of granting a Federal vision exemption to Charlene
Brown.
    The second comment was from Southern Illinois Healthcare, they
recommended that from a safety sensitive point of view, Cynthia K.
Linson should be evaluated by an ophthalmologist rather than an
optometrist.
    In response to the second comment, Cynthia K. Linson was evaluated
by an ophthalmologist in April, 2010 and he certified that she had
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Jeisson Agudelo-Ortiz, Charles L. Alsager, Jr., Eddie A.
Branham,

Charlene Brown, Nathan A. Buckles, Dale H. Dattler, Daryl Jonescheit,
John N. Lanning, Cynthia K. Linson, Charles M. McDaris, Calvin J.
Schaap, Frederick C. Schultz, Jr., Steve C. Sinclair, Eugene J. Smith,
Jr., Daniel M. Veselitza, and John E. Westbrook from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 13, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31774 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 60856-60858]
[DOCID:fr19oc05-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. ICR-1218-0085 (2005)]

13 Carcinogens Standard; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's Approval of Information Collection Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its request for an
extension of the information collection (paperwork) requirements
contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard Copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or received
) by December 19, 2005.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be
received by December 19, 2005.

ADDRESSES:
    You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. [ICR-1218-
0085 (2005)], by any of the following methods:
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service: Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.

    Facsimile: If your comments are 10 or fewer pages, including
attachments, you may fax them to OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://comments.osha.gov
, Follow instructions on the OSHA Web page for

submitting comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read or download comments or
background materials, such as the complete Information Collection
Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement, OMB-83-I Form, and
attachments), go to OSHA's Web page at http://www.OSHA.gov. In

addition, the ICR, comments and submissions are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.
You may also contact Todd Owen at the address below to obtain a copy of
the ICR. For additional information on submitting comments, please see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the supplementary information
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657).
    The 13 Carcinogens Standard covers the following carcinogens: 4-
Nitrobiphenyl (Sec.  1910.1003), alpha-Naphthylamine (Sec.  1910.1004),
Methyl chloromethyl ether (Sec.  1910.1006), 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
(and its salts) (Sec.  1910.1007), bis-Chloromethyl ether (Sec.
1910.1008), beta-Naphthylamine (Sec.  1910.1009), Benzidine (Sec.
1910.1010), 4-Aminodiphenyl (Sec.  1910.1011), Ethyleneimine (Sec.
1910.1012), beta-Propiolactone (Sec.  1910.1013), 2-Acetylaminofluorene
(Sec.  1910.1014), 4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Sec.  1910.1015), and N-
Nitrosodimethylamine (Sec.  1910.1016). For purposes of this ICR,
reference to 29 CFR 1910.1003 also incorporates the 13 Carcinogens
Standard for Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1003-.1016) and Construction (29
CFR 1926.1103-1116), whose requirements are identical to those
contained in Sec.  1910.1003.
    The information collection requirements specified in the 13
Carcinogens Standard protect employees from the adverse health effects
that may result from exposure to any of the 13 carcinogens. The major
information collection requirements of the 13 Carcinogens Standard
include: establishing and implementing respiratory protection and
medical surveillance programs for employees assigned to or being
considered for assignment to regulated areas; maintaining complete and
accurate records of the respiratory protection programs and medical
surveillance; providing employees with records of all medical
examination results; and posting warning signs and information. In
addition, employers must retain employee medical records for specified
time periods, provide these records to OSHA and the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) upon request, and transfer
them to NIOSH under certain circumstances.
    In 1998, the Standard's respiratory protection program requirements
were revised as part of the Respiratory Protection rulemaking (63 FR
1286 (1/8/1998)). The information collection requirements pertaining to
the respiratory protection requirements in the 13 Carcinogens Standard
and the burden associated with those requirements were included in the
Respiratory Protection final rule (63 FR 1152-54) (OMB Control Number
1218-0099 (2001 and 2004)). Accordingly, they are not included in this
ICR.
    Also, this ICR does not include collection of information
requirements or burden hours and costs for providing operation and
incident reports to OSHA. OSHA deleted these requirements in the
Standards Improvement Project--Phase II final (70 FR 1112 (1/5/2005)).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
approval of the information collection requirements necessitated by the
13 Carcinogens Standard. In its extension request, OSA also is
proposing to increase the total burden hours for these requirements
from 1,634 to 1,657 hours, a total increase of 23 hours. The burden
hour increase results from increasing the estimated number of employees
who will request access to their medical records. The Agency will
summarize the public comments submitted in response to this notice and
will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval
of these information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: 13 Carcinogens Standard.
    OMB Number: 1218-0085.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local or Tribal Government; not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually.
    Average Time Per Response: Time per response ranges from
approximately 5 minutes (for employers to maintain records) to 2 hours
for employees to receive a medical examination.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,657.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $86,226.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security-related

problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
sent by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hard
delivery and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA docket Office for

information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and
for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other
relevant documents are available on OSHA's Web page. Because
submissions become public, private information such as social security
numbers should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008).

    Dated: Signed at Washington, DC, on October 12, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05-20868 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


DRAFT

Supporting Statement

for

Information Collection Request

Motor Vehicle Emissions:

Revisions to Certification of Alternative Fuels Conversions

EPA ICR 0783.55

April 2010

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Part A SUBMISSION Section 1: Identification Of The Information
Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

	Motor Vehicle Emissions: Revisions to Certification of Alternative
Fuels Conversions; EPA ICR number 0783.55, OMB control number 2060-0104.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

	The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes designed to
simplify and lessen the burdens for manufacturers seeking approval to
introduce into commerce in the U.S. light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles and
engines that have been converted for use of fuels that the original
models were not designed for, such as from gasoline to liquid propane
gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG). This ICR covers the
light-duty portion of the proposal. These applications are currently
administratively handled as a part of EPA’s motor vehicle and engine
certification program, covered by the ICR 0783 series. This ICR
addresses the anticipated paperwork burden reduction of the proposal
within the context of the existing baseline from OMB 2060-0104 (ICR
0783.54), which was approved on August 31, 2009.

	These changes would start taking effect with 2011 model year light-duty
vehicles and trucks or upon the effective date of the final rule.
Starting then, manufacturers will be given expanded options for
submitting simplified applications. ICRs normally have a three year time
horizon. This ICR will cover the expected paperwork burden changes for
the three years after the effective date of the final rule.

	Information collected under the existing alternative fuels conversion
program consists of test results and related submissions under existing
procedures for the EPA light-duty vehicle certification program.  All
information from converter applicants is currently submitted
electronically directly to the Verify system.  Subject to
confidentiality claims, this information is made available to interested
parties upon request.  Emission test information is available on the
internet.

	The burden analysis in this ICR differs from the cost analysis in the
preamble to the proposed rule in important respects. First, ICRs are
concerned with paperwork burdens, a subset of all business costs: this
ICR covers the costs and labor hours of providing information to EPA,
including both the paperwork itself and the costs and labor to develop
the information, such as testing to provide test results, and facilities
to carry out that testing. It is not concerned with the costs of
compliance in general, nor with general business overhead or profits.
The preamble, on the other hand, focuses on costs incurred in developing
conversions that comply with the Clean Air Act and subsequent
certification applications through contracts by converters with testing
companies, which include overhead and profit elements not counted in the
0783 series. The analysis in this ICR uses the traditional capital cost,
O&M cost, and labor cost assumptions in this ICR series, so that, for
example, facility costs that would be recovered as part of a consulting
firm's contract are here allocated to capital costs. Second, the
preamble focuses on the burden for a single converter enterprise of
interest (and generalizes this to four such enterprises). This ICR
attempts to generalize the analysis to the industry as a whole. Third,
the ICR does not cover development costs associated with compliance with
the Clean Air Act, but only the paperwork-related costs once such a
conversion has been achieved to the point where the converter submits an
application for certification.

	The existing baseline estimates that certification applications for 36
test groups from five converter respondents are submitted annually. The
most recent model year data available (model year 2008) shows 18
light-duty vehicle conversions. This ICR adjusts the baseline to 18
conversions and calculates industry savings against that number. The
analysis also gives the change in the 0783 ICR overall collection.

	These test groups consist of conversion kits that apply to a specific
certified OEM (original equipment manufacturer) vehicle engine family,
or in some cases group of families. As with OEM certifications, the
biggest paperwork cost component for converters is testing. However,
estimating testing costs under the existing regulations has been
difficult because the alt. fuel converter program encompasses a diverse
range of circumstances. Many of the tests are currently waived in
certain situations. For example, currently, evaporative testing may or
may not be waived depending on whether a closed fuel system is used.
Exhaust and evaporative emission testing can be waived for dual-fueled
gasoline/LPG or gasoline/CNG vehicles if the modification doesn’t
increase the weight more than 500 pounds and no increase in emissions is
expected. (Assumptions for dealing with these complexities both in the
existing program and under the proposal are discussed in Section 6.)

	The current baseline applied to 18 test groups estimates an industry
total paperwork cost of $137,856. As with the main light-duty program,
this does not include development costs (such as repeated testing needed
to perfect a conversion kit that can meet emission and OBD standards),
which are not directly mandated by the Clean Air Act but which can be
considerable. Other elements of the alt. fuels certification process
covered by this ICR are listed in Part 4 below, including paperwork
filing burdens, which are budgeted in the ICR as O&M costs and labor
hours. Converted vehicles are also, as with other certified vehicles,
subject to EPA's confirmatory testing program, durability demonstration,
Vehicle Emission Control Information (VECI) labeling, defect and
voluntary emission recall reporting, and other light-duty requirements
(all covered in ICR 0783). In addition, they are subject to EPA’s
certification fee requirements (ICR2080; OMB 2060-0545) but burden
changes in this program is de minimis (the number of fee forms affected
is small and will be reflected in the next fees ICR renewal). All burden
elements in this ICR are in the Emissions (Certification) IC.

	The proposed changes will recognize three classes of conversions: to
(1) vehicles that are new or relatively new, (2) vehicles within EPA’s
definition of useful life but which are neither new nor relatively new
(“intermediate life vehicles”), and (3) vehicles that are outside
EPA’s definition of useful life.  For the newest vehicles,
certification will still be required, but with some additional
flexibilities and expansion of options.  Conversion of intermediate life
vehicles will be not be certified but audited through reporting of a
simplified testing demonstration that the converted vehicle family still
meets emissions standards certified for the OEM vehicle family. For
conversion of outside useful life vehicles EPA intends to finalize a
single demonstration requirement but is seeking comment on three
options.

	Beginning in model year 2011 or the effective date of these
regulations, the proposed changes will reduce total costs annually on
the regulated manufacturers by $50,667 in non-labor costs and 7,073
labor hours.

	Additional details on the coverage of this ICR are given in Section
2(b), below.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

	Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is
charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle
designs that comply with applicable emission standards set under section
202(a)(1) of the Act.  A manufacturer must have a certificate before
vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce.  To insure compliance
with the Act, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test
results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.

	Section 203 of the Clean Air Act contains “anti-tampering”
provisions prohibiting alteration of OEM vehicle components relevant to
the vehicle’s certification under the Act.  Regulations at 40 CFR,
Part 85, Subpart F, provide exemption for aftermarket conversion systems
from these tampering prohibitions for those converters complying with
the regulations of that Part. Under Subpart F, these exemptions are
currently administered through a certification process that is modeled
on the OEM certification provisions: converters submit certification
requests for engine families, and those that satisfy EPA’s regulations
upon review are granted certificates of conformity for one model year.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The information collection under the rule would be used to determine
whether the new requirements have been complied with by means of the
revised certification and compliance program.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

	The information collection, reporting, and storage provisions of the
proposed rule rely to the maximum extent possible on EPA’s existing
certification program, while simplifying that program to reflect the
needs of this industry.

	Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information
collection.    EPA-CISD (Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division)
is currently using, for light-duty vehicles, a new information
management system (Verify), under which the manufacturer submission
process will occur within a Central Data Exchange (CDX) environment that
should further help minimize duplication in submissions.

	Because of its specialized nature and the fact that product plans and
emission performance information must be submitted to EPA prior to the
start of production, this information is not available from any source
other than the manufacturer.

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

	EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice
published on ____,  2010, __ Federal Register ___; a copy can be found
at _____________ . The draft ICR was placed in the docket.

3(c) Consultations

	The proposed regulations, including the cost analysis that is reflected
in this ICR, were developed based on experience with similar regulations
developed in the past in close consultation with the affected industry.
In designing this proposal EPA sought and received significant input and
feedback from the fuel conversion community.

	In preparing the proposed rule, EPA made use of consultations with
several converters and an independent test lab working in the regulated
industry:

	Their comments have been considered in developing the burden estimates
discussed below. EPA wishes to thank them and their colleagues for their
assistance in preparing this report.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	As required by the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7525(a)), emission information
is currently submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the
manufacturer’s “model year.”  EPA allows applicants to define
their own “model year”, thus granting some flexibility in this
regard.  Major product changes typically occur at the start of a model
year. For these reasons, a collection frequency longer than a model year
is not possible normally possible.  However, this rule would replace the
annual application and compliance process with a one-time submittal for
intermediate and outside useful life vehicles. Furthermore, for new and
relatively new vehicles, when a vehicle design is “carried over” to
a subsequent model year, the amount of new information required is
substantially reduced.

3(e) General Guidelines

	Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than
three years This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that
manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years.

	This information collection activity complies with the remaining
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.  The proposal makes no changes in the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions that impact any of the guidelines
for information collections as approved in the existing approved
collection.

3(f) Confidentiality

	Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until
the specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase.
After vehicles are available, most information associated with the
manufacturer/importer’s application is available to the public.  Under
section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7542(c)) all information, other
than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available.
Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and
class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of General Counsel.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

	No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection.  This
collection complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NASIC Codes

	The respondents are potentially involved in the industries shown in the
following table:

Industry	335312A

336312

336322

336399

454312

485310	Alternative fuel vehicle converters

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

	The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs
within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification and compliance
program.  Current regulations require converters to submit emissions
information to EPA in conjunction with this program.  Converters of
newer vehicles must submit an application for emission certification
prior to production.  Intermediately aged vehicle converters will submit
a simplified testing demonstration without the burdens of the formal
certification application process. For vehicles converted outside their
useful life, regulation will be through an information submission that
the conversion is technically viable and will not increase emissions.
These reporting formats describe the major aspects of the proposed
product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the
results of any required tests to indicate compliance with the emissions
limitations.  The reports and supporting test results are reviewed and,
if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued, the applicant is
notified of possible noncompliance with anti-tampering provisions, or
additional post-production information is requested.

	New/revised data items:

	At the time of certification:

		For all vehicles:

expanded  conversion test or "demonstration" groups

exemption from HCHO testing for conversions to CNG and LPG

conversion factors for calculating NMOG for conversions to CNG and LPG

new VECI label requirement describing test group, mileage, and date

For intermediate-age and outside useful-life age vehicles (25%)

online notification and test result report rather than application for
certification (savings in “paperwork” burden) or compliance
“demonstration” for outside useful-life conversions

description of OBD compliance strategy or OBD demonstration rather than
current OBD test results

(ii) Respondent Activities

	While there is no “typical” converter respondent, all converters
must describe their product and supply test data and other information
to verify compliance. In some cases the proposal would replace the
current application and certification process with a notification and
audit process. Applicants for certification submit certification fees,
usually “reduced fees” set at 1% of the estimated retail sales value
of the conversion package, including labor. Converters or installers of
conversion kits must install a second VECI label on converted vehicles.
Converters must also retain records.  These tasks are repeated for each
model year, although typically previous data and information can be
“carried over” when no significant changes have occurred.

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

Agency Activities

	The test data used by EPA to determine compliance with emissions
standards are derived from vehicle testing done by vehicle converters
who report their own test data to EPA, and at EPA's National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  EPA staff review
applications (or notifications or demonstrations), issue certificates,
and oversee the program.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	  All information from converter applicants will be submitted
electronically directly to the Verify system by the effective date of
the new rule.  By guidance letter CISD-09-14, vehicle converters are
required to submit applications for certification through Verify
beginning with the 2010 model year. The rule makes no changes in this
reporting system, only changing the format and content of some of the
information reported within it.

	All information received by EPA is subject to review.  Data submitted
are screened to determine that the test results insure compliance with
emission and fuel economy standards.  Narrative descriptions of the
proposed product line are checked to verify that the appropriate "worst
case" vehicles have been tested. Except for projected sales and a very
limited amount of proprietary product information, all information is
available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered for sale.
Emission data are available on the internet; other information is
available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	Converters already enjoy various exemptions and special provisions
tailored to their small entity status and special business needs in
contrast to original vehicle manufacturers, such as use of assigned
deterioration factors, exemption from the manufacturers’ in-use
vehicle testing program (IUVP) and availability of reduced certification
fees. This proposal further extends this flexibility in numerous ways
detailed in the proposal and summarized in this Supporting Statement.

5(d) Collection Schedule

	Currently, information must be submitted for each “model year” that
a manufacturer intends to convert vehicles. Under the proposal, only the
newest vehicles will be required to renew annually, but all categories
will file an end-of-year report (as do light-duty manufacturers). For
emissions purposes, a “model year” is statutorily defined as the
annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided by the
Administrator, that includes January 1 of that calendar year; or  that
calendar year if the manufacturer does not have an annual production
period.  If a product is unchanged between model years, much of the
information can be “carried over.”  The collection frequency and
burden are determined to a large extent by the manufacturer’s
marketing and production plans.

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	The following estimates of reduced burden use baselines and
methodologies developed in the process of continuing updates of the 0783
ICR series, including the last renewal (ICR 0783.54), and the proposed
greenhouse gasses rule (ICR 0783.56).  The reasoning behind estimates of
decreased burden from the current baseline are given below and
summarized in Section 6(f).

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden (Hours)

	As noted above, the number of converter test groups covered by the ICR
is subject to small number fluctuations. The baseline in the last
renewal (ICR 0783.54) was 36 test groups; in the renewal three years
before that (ICR 0783.47) it was 15. Following normal practice, the
baseline is here adjusted to reflect the most current information
available; we count 18 light-duty conversion test groups for Model Year
2008. The Emissions IC will reflect this adjustment. The discussions
below compare the burdens on 18 families before and after the proposal.

	Within the converter program under the adjusted baseline, the
respondent hours burden decrease for the Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions
Information Collection reflects reduced labor hours associated with
conducting tests and reduced reporting. This is largely due to the
broader definition of test groups, since this definition determines how
many tests must be conducted. The paperwork reporting burdens in
particular are significantly reduced for intermediate and out of useful
life conversions. As converters are a very small subset of the current
light-duty baseline (currently 18 out of 427 test groups/engine
families), the decrease in burden is correspondingly small; but for
vehicle converters the hour savings are significant (from 14,869 hours
down to 7,796 hours, a savings of over 40%).

	In particular, the number of test groups requiring any reporting under
this rule is estimated to be reduced by 25 percent. This correspondingly
reduces the labor hours associated with conducting emissions tests
(including preparation costs, FTP tests, NMOG tests and HFET tests), OBD
compliance reporting, confirmatory testing costs (including shipment
costs), and paperwork reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with
preparing this information in any of the required formats and submitting
it to EPA for review and saving it for possible submission to EPA upon
request. Intermediate and beyond useful life conversion test groups are
estimated to achieve an additional 80 percent reduction in paperwork
reporting for those  qualifying.

	The ICR includes a minor startup cost for implementing new labeling
requirements. All labor hours associated with startup costs are treated
as capital/startup costs, so they are included under that heading,
following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A-31).

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating labor costs

	Labor costs for testing follow the testing labor cost assumptions of
ICR 0783.54 and average out to $59.07 per hour across management,
technical, and secretarial categories. This figure, which was initially
based on the fees rule cost study of EPA laboratory expenses, matches
very closely with an analysis based on rates for engineering managers,
mechanical engineers, and secretaries (except legal, medical, and
executive) from the May 2005 BLS National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates
(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm , accessed August 22,
2006). With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $81.38, $49.71, and
$33.57, respectively. The labor cost analysis may be updated for the
final ICR.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	Operation and Maintenance costs are the non-labor costs associated with
conducting the new tests that are anticipated for the full model year
after the effective date of the new regulations.  The O&M costs for
conducting emissions tests follow the assumptions in prior ICRs in this
series, with an improved figure for NMOG and HCHO analysis, totaling
about $4,000 per vehicle, with another $3,600 for OBD compliance and
$2,000 for each confirmatory test. The estimate also includes O&M items
for evaporative emissions testing, and reporting and recordkeeping, with
the baseline total coming to about $10,000 per activity (test group).
Applied to the industry, the baseline O&M cost is $121,541 annually. The
proposal reduces this figure by $44,650, down to $76,891. This is
primarily due to 1) reduction in the number of test groups by 25%; and
2)  savings of $1,750 in NMOG and HCHO testing per test group.

(iii)  Start-up Costs

	“Startup” costs are one-time costs to implement the new
requirements in the proposal that are applicable to the next model year
conversions being certified or by the respondent converters after the
effective date of the final rule. These startup burdens fall into two
categories.

	First are startup costs to redesign the VECI label.  This burden is an
add-on to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers already
submit similar label data to EPA.  Once the new label templates are in
place, we anticipate no increase in burden for this startup item.  This
part of the estimate costs new analysis and coding for 18 test groups,
reduced to 14 by the new rule. This is a small item, less than $10,000
for the industry, and is annualized and discounted at 7% in the cost
estimate.

	Second are capital costs associated with the testing requirements.
Because manufacturers vary widely in their existing testing facilities,
their excess capacities, their work shift arrangements and
availabilities, the real estate cost and land availabilities for
hypothetical expansions, and their contractual arrangements with other
testing facilities, CISD has for many year now used the approximation
that a facility capable of performing 750 FTP/HFET tests per year costs
$4,000,000 and allocated this cost to each testing increment. This cost
is then allocated over ten years and discounted at 7%. This methodology
is considered conservative, because it assumes no excess capacity.
Similarly, evaporative facilities are costed at $3,000,000 to conduct
900 evaporative tests a year. While most converters work through
contractors whose contract costs do not break down costs in this manner,
for consistency the analysis in the Certification IC series is continued
here.

	Primarily due to the reduction in the number of test groups (slightly
offset by the new labeling startup) he total non-depreciated  capital
costs for the conversion program of $114,600 are reduced by $45,417 to
$69,183.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

	The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are primarily
administered by EPA’s Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division
and Laboratory Operations Division.  Approximately 47.5 full time
employee equivalents are directly involved in the combined emission and
fuel economy light-duty, motorcycle, and other, secondary programs;
their cost is approximately $5.9 million, including benefits but not
overhead.  EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency
contracts with an organization that provides qualified persons to
perform duties for the agency that are not performed by EPA employees.
The cost associated with these persons who work directly on these
programs is approximately $0.23 million, excluding overhead.   Overhead
percentage for the entire division is approximately 16.9%, yielding an
estimated total agency labor cost of $7.17 million. The total
non-capital costs for the light-duty and motorcycle programs, including
direct and indirect labor, operations and maintenance, and overhead, is
estimated as $11.14 million for FY 2007.

	Implementation of the new alternative fuels rule will be carried out by
existing staff. Other ongoing database management, oversight, and
certification activities are part of the fuel economy and emissions
program Agency baseline.  All EPA labor estimates are based on Office of
Personnel Management draft annual pay rates effective January, 2008,
with a 1.6 multiplier for overhead based on EPA’s latest fees cost
allocation study (1.37 indirect program cost overhead times 1.16 overall
EPA overhead).  This estimate does not include Agency burdens incurred
prior to the effective date of the rule, such as costs of developing the
rule and preliminary consultations with converters.

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

	From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates
can be calculated.  (Due to the diverse nature of the converter
industry, there is no typical or average respondent.)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i)  Respondent Tally

[a] Overall Emissions IC

	This analysis is against the Emissions IC baseline in ICR 0783.54. EPA
has another rulemaking underway (Revisions to Reduce Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases; EPA ICR 0783.56) which will result in other changes.

[1] Existing authorization

RESPONDENTS	35

BURDEN HOURS	362,033

LABOR COST	$6,308,800

OPERATING COST	$5,929,702

CAPITALIZED COST	$2,256,127

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$8,185,829

[2] After proposal

RESPONDENTS	35

BURDEN HOURS	340,091

LABOR COST	$5,054,396

OPERATING COST	$5,763,511

CAPITALIZED COST	$2,233,795

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$7,997,306

[3] Reduction in burden

BURDEN HOURS	-21,997

LABOR COST	-$1,254,404

OPERATING COST	-$166,191

CAPITALIZED COST	-$22,332

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$188,523

[b] Alternative Fuels Converters

[1] Existing baseline

RESPONDENTS	5

FAMILIES	36

BURDEN HOURS	29,738

LABOR COST	$1,756,606

OPERATING COST	$243,082

CAPITALIZED COST	$32,630

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$275,712

[2] After proposal

RESPONDENTS	5

FAMILIES (75% OF 18)	14

BURDEN HOURS	7,796

LABOR COST	$502,202

OPERATING COST	$76,891

CAPITALIZED COST	$10,298

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$87,189

[3] Reduction in burden

BURDEN HOURS	-21,942

LABOR COST	-$1,254,404

OPERATING COST	-$166,191

CAPITALIZED COST	-$22,332

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$188,523

[4] Reduction in burden applied to a hypothetical pre-proposal 18 family
baseline

BURDEN HOURS	-7,073

LABOR COST	-$376,101

OPERATING COST	-$44,650

CAPITALIZED COST	-$6,017

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$50,667

(ii)  Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES	47.5

CONTRACT LABOR COST	$0.27 million

COST	$11.1  million

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

	The burden change is from changes in the baseline number of test groups
and reductions in the capital and operations and maintenance costs and
labor hours associated with implementing the new programs detailed in
this draft ICR.

6(g) Burden Statement

	The table in Section 6(e)(i)[b][2] presents the total estimated burden
for the alternative fuels conversion light-duty program after the
proposed rule: approximately 7,796 hours per year, with total annual
capitalized and O&M costs estimated at $87,189. These represent a
savings of 21,942 hours and $188,523 over the existing alternative fuels
light-duty baseline. The annual costs and hours for information
collection activities by a given manufacturer under any of the options
in this proposed rule depend upon manufacturer-specific variables, such
as the number of different test groups and the number of vehicles
tested.  The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 5.
The responses will be submitted annually and occasionally as a part of
the existing EPA certification program.

	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 are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

	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 rule, which includes this
ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299.  Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.  Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, by one of
the following methods:

	•	www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
				comments.

	•	Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	•	Mail:  Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air 		and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., 			Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299.  		In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information 				collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, 			Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 			7th St. NW., Washington, DC
20503.”

	•	Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC., Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2009-0299.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal 			hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made
for deliveries 			of boxed information

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, is available
for public viewing at the Air And Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. 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 Air and Radiation Docket is also (202)
566-1744.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69497-69499]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27627]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70861; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-119]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule
6.69(a) To Provide That a Pattern or Practice of Late Reporting of
Option Transactions to the Exchange for Dissemination to the Options
Price Reporting Authority Is Subject to Disciplinary Action

November 13, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 4, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.69(a) to provide that a
pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the
Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority is
subject to disciplinary action. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.69(a) to provide that a
pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the
Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') is subject to disciplinary action, including fines. Current
Rule 6.69(a) requires an OTP Holder or OTP Firm to immediately report
option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to OPRA. The rule
further provides that transactions not reported to OPRA within 90
seconds after execution will be designated ``late,'' and that an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm who is responsible for late reporting of an option
transaction, without reasonable justification or excuse, will be
subject to a fine under Rule 10.12. Thus, under current rule 6.69(a), a
single late-reported transaction is subject to a fine.
    To have more flexibility in evaluating whether late reporting of
option transactions should be subject to a fine, the Exchange proposes
to amend the rule to provide that ``a pattern or practice'' of late
reporting of option transactions to the Exchange would constitute a
violation of the 90-second reporting requirement. While the Exchange's
proposal does not expressly define what a ``pattern or practice'' of
late reporting is, the Exchange will apply its existing Sanctioning
Guidelines, which are contained in Rule 10.16. Rule 10.16 contains both
general guidelines for considering and determining the applicability of
sanctions under various Exchange rules, and guidelines specific to
violations of Rule 6.69, among other rules.\4\ Moreover, in determining
appropriate disciplinary action for late reporting of option
transactions, the Exchange may apply, at its discretion, the Minor Rule
Plan contained in Rule 10.12 for minor violations of Rule 6.69,\5\
which would result in a fine of not more than $5,000, or Rule 10.16 in
the case of more serious late reporting violations. Rule 10.16(e)(3)(B)
lists suggested monetary sanctions for violations of Rule 6.69 that
range from $10,000 to $100,000. Because violations of Rule 6.69 may be
adjudicated pursuant to either Rule 10.12 or Rule 10.16, the Exchange
proposes to further amend Rule 6.69(a) by adding a cite to Rule 10.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 10.16(b) General Principles Applicable to All Sanction
Determinations includes an aggregation provision under Rule
10.16(b)(4) to guide the Exchange in determining whether to
aggregate, or ``batch'' violations together, thereby treating them
as one ``violation'' for purposes of determining sanctions if the
misconduct meets certain objective parameters, such as ``[w]hether
the violations involved unintentional or negligent misconduct or
manipulative, fraudulent, or deceptive intent. (If aggregated, the
violations should not have involved manipulative, fraudulent, or
deceptive intent).'' Rule 10.16(d) Principal Considerations in
Determining Sanctions includes ``(6) whether the named party engaged
in numerous acts and/or a pattern of misconduct.'' Additionally,
Rule 10.16(e) Specific Sanctioning Guidelines for Options Order
Handling Rules provides in subparagraph (3) Trade Reporting--NYSE
Arca Rule 6.69 that ``(ii) the extent of the abuse, i.e. whether a
pattern of abuse exists, and the number of transactions involved''
are to be considered among additional principal considerations in
determining sanctions.
    \5\ Violations of Rule 6.69 are listed as eligible for
adjudication under the Minor Rule Plan in Rule 10.12(h)(38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially
similar to current rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') Rule 6.51(a) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule
1051(a).\6\ Both CBOE and PHLX rules utilize the ``pattern or
practice'' standard for evaluating late trade reporting violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.51(a); PHLX Rule 1051(a). PHLX rules also
permit, but do not require the exchange, in evaluating whether a
pattern or practice of rules violations exists, to aggregate or
``batch'' individual order handling violations as a single
occurrence of a violation of a specific order handling rule by a
member or member organization over a specific time period. See PHLX
Rule 970.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposed amendment providing the Exchange with flexibility in
determining whether an OTP Holder's late reporting of option
transactions to the Exchange constitutes a pattern or practice that
should subject the late reporter to disciplinary action addresses an
inconsistency between in [sic] the processes for adjudication of late-
trade reporting on the Exchange and those of other self-regulatory
organizations. Eliminating this inconsistency will help foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities. Moreover, the proposed rule change would
not result in any material diminution of the Exchange's overall
enforcement authority or any material change in surveillance of late-
trade reporting. As such, the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it would continue to protect investors and the public
interest. In addition, amending Rule 6.69 by including references to
rules governing the adjudication of late trade violations is designed
to add clarity to the rules of the Exchange. Providing clear and well
defined rules helps to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange's
proposal allows the Exchange to compete more effectively with other
options exchanges that currently have rules in effect substantially
similar to what the Exchange now proposes.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\ Because
the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-119 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-119. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the Exchange's principal office
and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-119 and should be
submitted on or before December 10, 2013.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27627 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74199-74200]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2012-0029; OMB No. 1660-0098]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, Citizen Corps Council Registration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Citizen Corps Council Registration.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0098.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 646-0-10ONL, Citizen Corps
Council Registration.
    Abstract: FEMA's Community Preparedness Division would like to
renew a currently approved collection for its registration of State,
local, Tribal and territorial Councils and Community Emergency Response
Teams. The registration process allows for new Councils to submit
information on the Council or CERT to the State Citizen Corps Program
Manager for approval. The revised registration process will allow for
the collection of more valuable information and the tool is more user-
friendly for Citizen Corps Councils and CERT's.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,750.
    Number of Responses: 7,500.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,500 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $194,250.00. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and

maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up
or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $377,030.00.

Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-30141 Filed 12-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-05-P