[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24364-24367]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11225]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83295; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Sections I
and II of the Pricing Schedule

May 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on May 10, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section
I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
SPY,'' and Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees
(Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are
Multiply Listed).''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section
I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
SPY,'' and Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees
(Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are
Multiply Listed).'' Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend a
surcharge in Section I, Part B, which applies to options overlying SPY
as well as a surcharge in Section II related to Complex Orders in order
to further reduce the costs to the Exchange of such transactions. Each
surcharge amendment is described below in more detail.
Section I, Part B
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I, Part B to amend Complex
Order \4\ fees for SPY. The Exchange proposes to increase a surcharge
of $0.05 per contract, which is currently assessed to Customers \5\
when executing the individual components of their Complex Orders in SPY
against Market Maker \6\ or Specialist \7\ quotes that are resting on
the Simple Order Book. Today, Customers submit Complex Orders to the
Exchange because often, Customers are able to execute such Complex
Orders immediately by executing the individual components thereof
through interactions with Market Maker and Specialist quotes that rest
on the Exchange's Simple Order Book. These Customers benefit from not
having to wait for counterparties that are willing to execute against
their Complex Orders in the Complex Order Book. The Exchange proposes
to increase the surcharge from $0.05 to $0.15 per contract for
Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker or
Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book.\8\ The Exchange
proposes this surcharge increase to reduce further the Exchange's costs
for these transactions. Not only does the Exchange receive no fees from
Customers for engaging in these transactions,\9\ but the Exchange also
pays rebates to the Market Makers and Specialists whose quotes execute
against the Customers' Complex Orders.\10\ Pursuant to Section I, Part
A of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, these rebates range from $0.15 to
$0.35 per contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. See Phlx Rule 1098.
    \5\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for
the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \6\ The term ``ROT, SQT and RSQT'' applies to transactions for
the accounts of Registered Option Traders (``ROTs''), Streaming
Quote Traders (``SQTs''), and Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs''). For purposes of the Pricing Schedule, the term ``Market
Maker'' will be utilized to describe fees and rebates applicable to
ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs. RSQTs may also be referred to as Remote Market
Markers (``RMMs''). See Preface to Phlx's Pricing Schedule.
    \7\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). A
Specialist is an Exchange member registered as an options specialist
pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist includes a Remote
Specialist, which is defined as an options specialist in one or more
classes that does not have a physical presence on an Exchange floor
and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501.
    \8\ A component of a Complex Order may ``leg'' against a resting
order in the Simple Order Book.
    \9\ Non-Customer market participants pay fees for adding and
removing liquidity in Complex Orders as noted in Section I, Part B
of the Pricing Schedule, although Customers pay no such fees.
    \10\ See rebates in Section I, Part A of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II to increase a surcharge
assessed to electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity \11\ from
the Complex Order Book and auctions,

excluding PIXL,\12\ in Non-Penny Pilot Options (excluding NDX and
NDXP).\13\ The Exchange proposes to increase this surcharge for
electronically-delivered Complex Orders from $0.10 to $0.12 per
contract to reduce further the Exchange's costs for these transactions.
Today, Customers pay no Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options.\14\ The Exchange pays Customer rebates for Complex Orders in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange desires to continue to
incentivize Customers to interact with Complex Order liquidity by
offering those rebates in Section B of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange believes that while the surcharge is being increased for the
Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options excluding NDX and
NDXP, the fees remain competitive as the Exchange does not assess
Customers a fee but offers Customers rebates. The surcharge is assessed
to Non-Customers.\15\ The Exchange is proposing to add ``Non-
Customers'' to footnote 7 of Section II of the Pricing Schedule to make
clear that today, Customers do not get assessed a surcharge. The
Exchange assesses surcharges to market participants that pay Options
Transaction Charges. In this case, only Non-Customer market
participants pay an Options Transaction Charge for Non-Penny Pilot
Options. Customers are not assessed a surcharge today because they pay
no Options Transaction Charge. By [sic] adding the term ``Non-
Customer'' into this provision will amend the sentence to make clear
that the surcharge is only being assessed to a Non-Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that an order that is received by the
trading system first in time shall be considered an order adding
liquidity and an order that trades against that order shall be
considered an order removing liquidity.
    \12\ PIXL\SM\ is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism
known as Price Improvement XL or PIXL. See Phlx Rule 1087.
    \13\ Today, this surcharge is not subject to the Monthly Market
Maker Cap. Phlx Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a
``Monthly Market Maker Cap'' of $500,000 for: (i) Electronic Option
Transaction Charges, excluding surcharges and excluding options
overlying NDX and NDXP; and (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)).
    \14\ Non-Customer market participants pay a $0.75 per contract
Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options excluding NDX
and NDXP.
    \15\ The term ``Non-Customer'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and JBOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I, Part B
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section I, Part B related to
Complex Order fees for SPY to increase the surcharge from $0.05 to
$0.15 per contract on Customers that execute Complex Orders against
Market Maker or Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book is
reasonable because the surcharge would reduce the Exchange's costs
associated with these transactions. Each such transaction costs the
Exchange between $0.15 and $0.35 per contract in rebates to Market
Makers and Specialists. Moreover, it is reasonable to impose this
surcharge on Customers because Customers benefit the most from being
able to achieve immediate executions of their Complex Orders in the
relevant scenario. The Exchange believes that the surcharge is minimal
and will not be substantial enough to eliminate or even significantly
diminish the benefits to Customers of being able to achieve immediate
executions in this manner. Finally, the Exchange notes that all other
account categories, Professionals,\18\ Firms,\19\ Broker-Dealers,\20\
Specialists, and Market Makers, pay higher fees when the Complex Order
removes liquidity from the Complex Order Book or the Simple Order Book
\21\ than Customers would pay under the proposal when they execute
their Complex Orders against Simple Orders of Market Makers and
Specialists that are resting on the Simple Order Book.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14)
as any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
    \19\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \20\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction,
which is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \21\ A component of a Complex Order may ``leg'' against a
resting order in the Simple Order Book.
    \22\ See Section I, Part B of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section I, Part B to amend Complex
Order fees for SPY to increase the surcharge from $0.05 to $0.15 per
contract on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker
or Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly apply
the fee to all similarly-situated Customers. Even with this increased
surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per contract for
executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not assessed fees for
adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders. With respect to
the Simple Market, a Customer is assessed the lowest fee for removing
liquidity.\23\ The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess Customers no fees or lower fees
because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which
benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A component of a Complex Order may ``leg'' against a
resting order in the Simple Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section II to increase a surcharge
assessed to electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the
Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot
Options (excluding NDX and NDXP) from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is
reasonable because it will further offset the cost of paying rebates as
provided for in Section I, Part A to Specialists and Market Makers. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to only assess this surcharge
to those orders which remove liquidity from the market because the
Exchange wants to continue to encourage market participation and price
improvement for those participants that seek to add liquidity on Phlx.
The Exchange believes that not assessing the surcharge on PIXL and SPY
orders is reasonable. PIXL has its own pricing,\24\ and the Exchange
wants to continue to encourage price improvement within PIXL. SPY has
its own rebate program separate and apart from Section B.\25\ Limiting
the surcharges to electronically-delivered transactions is reasonable
because the Section B rebates apply only to electronically-delivered
Customer orders. Further, limiting the surcharge to orders entered
electronically is

equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange has
expended considerable resources to develop its electronic trading
platforms and seeks to recoup the costs of such expenditures. Finally,
excluding NDX and NDXP is reasonable because these symbols are
currently subject to a surcharge.\26\ The Exchange's proposal to add
``Non-Customers'' to footnote 7 of Section II of the Pricing Schedule
is reasonable because today Customers do not get assessed a surcharge.
The surcharge is assessed to Non-Customer market participants who pay
an Options Transaction Charge for Non-Penny Pilot Options. Customers
are not assessed a surcharge today because they pay no Options
Transaction Charge. By [sic] adding the term ``Non-Customer'' into this
provision will amend the sentence to make clear that the surcharge is
only being assessed to a Non-Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Section IV, Part A of the Pricing Schedule.
    \25\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule. SPY Pricing is only
in Section I. Section II pricing applies to Multiply-Listed Options
excluding SPY options.
    \26\ See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section II to increase a surcharge
assessed to electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the
Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot
Options (excluding NDX and NDXP) from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
uniformly apply this surcharge to all Non-Customer or [sic] market
participants that pay an Options Transaction Charge. The Exchange's
proposal to add ``Non-Customers'' to footnote 7 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
Customers are not assessed a surcharge today because they pay no
Options Transaction Charge. By [sic] adding the term ``Non-Customer''
into this provision will amend the sentence to make clear that the
surcharge is only being assessed to a Non-Customers. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
no Options Transaction Charge for Non-Penny Pilot Options or surcharge
fee because Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Section I, Part B
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section I, Part B to amend Complex
Order fees for SPY to increase the surcharge from $0.05 to $0.15 per
contract on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker
or Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book does not impose
an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly
apply the fee to all similarly-situated Customers. Even with this
increased surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per
contract for executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not
assessed fees for adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders.
With respect to the Simple Market, a Customer is assessed the lowest
fee for removing liquidity.\27\ The Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess Customers no fees
or lower fees because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the
market, which benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A component of a Complex Order may ``leg'' against a
resting order in the Simple Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Section II to increase a surcharge
assessed to electronic Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the
Complex Order Book and auctions, excluding PIXL, in Non-Penny Pilot
Options (excluding NDX and NDXP) from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract does
not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will
uniformly apply this surcharge to all Non-Customer or [sic] market
participants that pay an Options Transaction Charge. The Exchange's
proposal to add ``Non-Customers'' to footnote 7 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule does not impose an undue burden on competition because
Customers are not assessed a surcharge today because they pay no
Options Transaction Charge. By [sic] adding the term ``Non-Customer''
into this provision will amend the sentence to make clear that the
surcharge is only being assessed to a Non-Customers. The Exchange
believes that assessing no Options Transaction Charge for Non-Penny
Pilot Options and not assessing a surcharge fee does not impose an
undue burden on competition because Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-39 and
should be submitted on or before June 15, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11225 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53500-53501]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Chrysler

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Chrysler LLC, (Chrysler)
petition for exemption of the Chrysler [confidential] vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard 49 CFR Part 541, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Chrysler requested
confidential treatment for specific information in its petition. The
agency will address Chrysler's request for confidential treatment by
separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the [confidential] Model Year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-443, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is
(202) 366-4139. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 3, 2013, Chrysler
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for a confidential vehicle year
and vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-
marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Chrysler provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the [confidential] vehicle line. Chrysler will install the
Sentry Key Immobilizer System (SKIS)/``MiniCrypt'' antitheft device as
standard equipment on the vehicle line. The SKIS will provide passive
vehicle protection by preventing the engine from operating unless a
valid electronically encoded key is detected in the ignition system of
the vehicle. The major components of the SKIS device consist of the
Radio Frequency Hub Module (RFHM), Ignition Node Module (IGNM), Engine
Control Module, Body Controller Module (BCM), the transponder key which
performs the immobilizer function and an Instrument Panel Cluster which
contains the telltale function only. According to Chrysler, all of
these components work collectively to perform the immobilizer function.
Chrysler stated that the SKIS does not provide an audible alert;
however, the vehicle will be equipped with a security indicator in the
instrument panel cluster that will flash if an invalid transponder key
is detected. Chrysler's submission is considered a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR 543.7 in that it meets the general requirements
contained in 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    Chrysler stated that the SKIS will be placed on both its keyless
entry vehicles and keyed vehicles. According to Chrysler, in its keyed
vehicles, the SKIS immobilizer feature is activated when the key is
removed from the ignition system (whether the doors are open or not).
Specifically, the RFHM is paired with the IGNM that contains either a
rotary ignition switch (keyed vehicles) or a START/STOP push button
(keyless vehicles). Chrysler stated that the functions and features of
the SKIS are all integral to the BCM in this vehicle. The RFHM contains
a Radio Frequency (RF) transceiver and a microprocessor and it
initiates the ignition process by communicating with the BCM through
SKIS. The microprocessor-based SKIS hardware and software also use
electronic messages to communicate with other electronic modules in the
vehicle.
    Chrysler stated that, in its keyed vehicles, the SKIS uses RF
communication to obtain confirmation that the key is a valid
transponder key to operate the vehicle. The RFHM receives Low Frequency
(LF) and/or RF signals from the Sentry Key transponder which is
integral to the fob with integrated key. For the keyed vehicles, the
IGNM transmits an LF signal to excite the transponder in the key when
the ignition switch is turned to the ON position. The IGNM waits for a
signal response from the transponder and transmits the response to the
RFHM. If the response identifies the transponder key as invalid or if
no response is received from the transponder key, Chrysler stated that
the RFHM will send an invalid key message to the Engine Control Module,
which will disable engine operation and immobilize the vehicle after
two seconds of running. Only a valid key inserted into the ignition
system will allow the vehicle to start and continue to run.
    Chrysler stated that, in its keyless vehicles, the RFHM is
connected to a Keyless Ignition Node (KIN) with a START/STOP push
button as an ignition switch. Chrysler stated that when the keyless
START/STOP button is pressed, the RFHM transmits a signal to the
transponder key through LF antennas to the RFHM. The RFHM then waits
for a signal from the key fob transponder. If the response from the
transponder identifies the transponder key as invalid or the
transponder key is not within the car's interior, the engine will be
disabled and the vehicle will be immobilized after two seconds of
running.
    To avoid any perceived delay when starting the vehicle with a valid
transponder key and also to prevent unburned fuel from entering the
exhaust, Chrysler stated that the engine is permitted to run for no
more than two seconds if an invalid transponder key is used.
Additionally, Chrysler stated that only six consecutive invalid vehicle
start attempts will be permitted and that all other attempts will be
locked out by preventing the fuel injectors from firing and disabling
the starter.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 49 CFR Part
543.6, Chrysler provided information on the reliability and durability
of the device. Chrysler conducted tests based on its own specified
standards, i.e., voltage range and temperature range, and stated its
belief that the device meets the stringent performance standards
prescribed. Specifically, Chrysler stated that its device must
demonstrate a minimum of 95 percent reliability with 90 percent
confidence. In addition to the design and validation test criteria,
Chrysler stated that 100% of its systems undergo a series of three
functional tests prior to being shipped from the supplier to the
vehicle assembly plant for installation in the vehicles.
    Chrysler stated that its vehicles are also equipped with a security
indicator that also acts as a diagnostic indicator. Specifically,
Chrysler stated that if the RFHM detects an invalid transponder key or
if a transponder key related fault occurs, the security indicator would
flash. If the RFHM detects a system malfunction or the SKIS becomes
ineffective, the security indicator would stay on. The SKIS also
performs a self-test each time the ignition system is

turned to the RUN position and will store fault information in the form
of a diagnostic trouble code in RFHM memory if a system malfunction is
detected. Chrysler also stated that the vehicle is equipped with a
Customer Learn transponder programming feature that when in use will
cause the security indicator to flash.
    Chrysler further stated that each ignition key used in the SKIS has
an integral transponder chip included on the circuit board. Each
transponder key has a unique transponder identification code that is
permanently programmed into it by the manufacturer and must be
programmed into the RFHM to be recognized by the SKIS as a valid key.
Chrysler stated that once a Sentry Key has been programmed to a
particular vehicle, it cannot be used on any other vehicle.
    Chrysler stated that it expects the [confidential] vehicle line to
mirror the lower theft rate results achieved by the Jeep Grand Cherokee
vehicle line when ignition immobilizer systems were included as
standard equipment on the line. Chrysler stated that it has offered the
SKIS immobilizer system as standard equipment on all Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles since the 1999 model year. Chrysler indicated that
the average theft rate, based on NHTSA's theft data, for the Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles for the four model years prior to 1999 (1995-1998),
when a vehicle immobilizer system was not installed as standard
equipment, was 5.3574 per one thousand vehicles produced, significantly
higher than the 1990/1991 median theft rate of 3.5826. However,
Chrysler also indicated that the average theft rate for the Jeep Grand
Cherokee for the nine model years (1999-2009, no data available for
2007 and 2009) after installation of the standard immobilizer device
was 2.5704, which is significantly lower than the median. The Jeep
Grand Cherokee vehicle line was granted an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements beginning with MY 2004 (67 FR 79687, December 30,
2002). Chrysler further asserts that NHTSA's theft data for the Jeep
Grand Cherokee indicates that the inclusion of a standard immobilizer
system resulted in a 52 percent net average reduction in vehicle
thefts.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.7(b), the agency
grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Chrysler has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for the vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
Part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Chrysler
provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): promoting
activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Chrysler's petition for exemption for its [confidential] vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with
its [confidential] model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR
Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard. Chrysler stated that an official nameplate for the
vehicle has not yet been determined, but it will notify the agency as
soon as that determination has been made.
    If Chrysler decides not to use the exemption for this vehicle line,
it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the
vehicle line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Chrysler wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. 49 CFR Part 543.7(d) states that a
Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line
exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on
which the line's exemption is based. Further, 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2)
provides for the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to
permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the
one specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that 49 CFR
Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: August 21, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21130 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4439]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-01065]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[DOCKET NUMBER [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495; FRL 9905-61-OAR]

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2014-01065 appearing on pages 3357-3358
in the issue of Wednesday, January 22, 2014, make the following
corrections:
    1. On page 3357, in the third column, in the document heading, ``40
CFR Part 63'' is corrected to read ``40 CFR Part 60''.
    2. On page 3358, in the second column, in the seventh line from the
bottom, ``List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63'' should read ``List of
Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-01065 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62872-62873]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65478; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the SQT Fees

October 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 27, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Streaming Quote Trader \3\
(``SQT'') Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on October 3, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/ and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the SQT Fees in
Section VI of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, entitled ``Access Service,
Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and Other Fees.'' The Exchange
proposes to simplify the SQT Fees by amending certain text, without
changing the fees, for ease of reference. Additionally, the Exchange
proposes to amend the calculation of the SQT Fees to incentivize
trading in equity options, excluding currencies and indexes. The
Exchange believes that the proposed SQT Fees will continue to
incentivize SQTs to remain on the Exchange's options floor and thereby
provide liquidity for floor-brokered orders traded in-crowd.
    Currently, a member organization is assessed per month an SQT Fee
based on the total number of options in which all SQTs in the same
member organization are assigned. A member organization is assessed an
SQT Fee based on the aggregate amount of equity options and index
options traded by the SQTs in that member organization. The highest
applicable SQT Fee is assessed based on the highest SQT category level
in which the SQT was qualified at any time during a particular calendar
month.\4\ For example, if an SQT was eligible to trade at any time in a
given calendar month as a Category I SQT, and sometime during that same
calendar month became qualified and eligible to trade as a Category II
SQT, the SQT member organization would be assessed the fee applicable
to a Category II SQT, regardless of when such SQT became eligible to
trade at the Category II level, and regardless if, during that same
calendar month, the SQT resumed eligibility as a Category I SQT.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rules 1014(b) and 507 for qualifications
relating to assignments.
    \5\ For example, if a member organization's SQT is eligible to
trade up to 200 equity and index options issues at any time in a
given month, and is thus qualified as a Category I SQT, and sometime
during that month becomes eligible to trade up to 400 equity and
index options issues during that same month, and is thus qualified
as a Category II SQT, the member organization employing that SQT
would be assessed the fee applicable to a Category II SQT,
regardless of when, during that month, the SQT became eligible to
trade at the Category II level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the verbiage of the current SQT Fees
to simplify the fees as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Number of option class
          assignments                            SQT fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 200 classes..............  $0.00 per calendar month.
Up to 400 classes..............  $2,200 per calendar month.
Up to 600 classes..............  $3,200 per calendar month.
Up to 800 classes..............  $4,200 per calendar month.
Up to 1000 classes.............  $5,200 per calendar month.
Up to 1200 classes.............  $6,200 per calendar month.
All equity issues..............  $7,500 per calendar month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to remove the references to ``SQT is
Eligible to trade:'' and ``equity and index options issues'' and
instead use the term ``classes.'' The Exchange proposes to amend the
calculation of the SQT Fees as well. In calculating the SQT Fees, the
Exchange will calculate the number of option class assignments for
equity options including exchange-traded funds (``ETFs''), exchange-
traded notes (``ETNs'') \6\ and HOLDRS \7\. The Exchange will not
include and therefore not assess a fee for currencies or indexes in
calculating the number of option class assignments. The Exchange
proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to

note the method of calculation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ETNs are also known as ``Index-Linked Securities,'' which
are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific
market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable
underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative
instruments or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked
Securities are the non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a
term of at least one (1) year but not greater than thirty (30)
years. Despite the fact that Index-Linked Securities are linked to
an underlying index, each trade as a single, exchange-listed
security. Accordingly, rules pertaining to the listing and trading
of standard equity options apply to Index-Linked Securities.
    \7\ HOLDRS are Holding Company Depository Receipts.

    ``In calculating the number of option class assignments, equity
options including ETFs, ETNs and HOLDRS will be counted. Currencies
and indexes will not be counted in the number of option class
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
assignments.''

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on October 3, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the SQT Fees
are reasonable because the fees remain the same, except the verbiage is
simplified. The Exchange believes that the fees continue to be
reasonable because SQT Fees are lower than RSQT Fees. This is because
SQTs have more out-of-pocket costs associated with their streaming
quote systems as compared to RSQTs. For example, SQTs generally have to
purchase additional software programs and hardware from outside vendor
to support their streaming quote systems, in addition to incurring
additional costs associated with market data to enable them to price
options within their particular options pricing model. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that excluding currencies and indexes from the basis
of the calculation of the SQT Fees is reasonable because the Exchange
is seeking to incentivize SQTs to transact equity options including
ETFs, ETNs and HOLDRs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange is excluding currencies and indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed calculation of the SQT Fees
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the calculation
will be uniformly applied to all SQTs. The exclusion of the currencies
and indexes from the calculation of option class assignments to
determine the amount of SQT Fees will apply equally to all SQTs.

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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2011-130 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 No. SR-Phlx-2011-130. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-
2011-130 and should be submitted on or before November 1, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26134 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4481-4485]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01279]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 17

January 27, 2015

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 711

Partial Exemption of Certain Chemical Substances From Reporting
Additional Chemical Data; Final Rule and Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 711

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809; FRL-9921-56]
RIN 2070-AK01

Partial Exemption of Certain Chemical Substances From Reporting
Additional Chemical Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the list of chemical substances that are
partially exempt from reporting additional information under the
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. EPA has determined that, based on
the totality of information available on the chemical substances listed
in this direct final rule, the Agency has low current interest in their
CDR processing and use information. EPA reached this conclusion after
considering a number of factors, including: The risk of adverse human
health or environmental effects, information needs for CDR processing
and use information, and the availability of other sources of
comparable processing and use information.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective March 30, 2015 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment on or before
February 26, 2015. If EPA receives written adverse comments, EPA will
withdraw the applicable partial exemption in this direct final rule
before its effective date. See also Unit II. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Niva Kramek, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    This partial exemption eliminates an existing reporting requirement
under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2). With this direct final rule, the following
chemical substances are being exempted from reporting of the
information described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4): Fatty acids, C14-18 and
C16-18-unsatd., Me esters (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number
(CASRN) 67762-26-9); Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18-unsatd., Me esters
(CASRN 67762-38-3); Fatty acids, canola oil, Me esters (CASRN 129828-
16-6); Fatty acids, corn oil, Me esters (CASRN 515152-40-6); Fatty
acids, tallow, Me esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and Soybean oil, Me ester
(CASRN 67784-80-9). However, by existing terms at 40 CFR 711.6, this
partial exemption will become inapplicable to a subject chemical
substance in the event that the chemical substance later becomes the
subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under section 4, 5(a)(2),
5(b)(4), or 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); an
enforceable consent agreement developed under the procedures of 40 CFR
part 790; an order issued under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f); or relief
that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA section 5 or 7.

B. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    This direct final rule is in response to petitions on these
chemical substances (Refs. 1 and 2) submitted under 40 CFR
711.6(b)(2)(iii)(A). EPA reviewed the information put forward in the
petitions and additional information against the considerations listed
at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA's chemical substance-specific analysis
is detailed in supplementary documents available in the docket under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 (Refs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).
The Agency is adding these chemical substances to the partially exempt
chemical substances list because it has concluded that, based on the
totality of information available, the CDR processing and use
information for these chemical substances is of low current interest.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This direct final rule is issued under the authority of TSCA, 15
U.S.C. 2600 et seq., to carry out the provisions of TSCA section 8(a),
15 U.S.C. 2607(a). Section 8(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to promulgate
rules under which manufacturers of chemical substances and mixtures
must submit such information as the Agency may reasonably require. The
partial exemption list was established in 2003 (Ref. 9) and can be
found in 40 CFR 711.6.

D. What are the impacts of this action?

    There are no costs associated with this action and the benefits
provided are related to avoiding potential costs. This partial
exemption eliminates an existing reporting requirement without imposing
any new requirements. See also the discussion in Unit V.

E. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(defined by statute at 15 U.S.C. 2602(7) to include import) the
chemical substances contained in this direct final rule. The North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes provided here
are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include chemical manufacturers subject to CDR
reporting of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325
and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Direct Final Rule Procedures

    EPA is issuing this partial exemption as a direct final rule
because it views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no
adverse comment. This direct final rule allows for comments to be
submitted on or before February 26, 2015. In any comment submitted,
please specify whether the comment is adverse and whether it applies to
a certain chemical substance or chemical substances or all of the
chemical substances in the direct final rule.
    If EPA receives timely adverse comment, we will publish a
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
amendments related to the adverse comment will not take effect. At that
time, EPA may also issue a notice of proposed rulemaking respecting the
addition of one or more of these chemical substances to the list of
chemical substances that are exempt from reporting the information
described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4).
    If EPA does not receive any timely adverse comment, this direct
final rule will become effective as indicated under DATES without any
further action by EPA.

III. Petition Process and ``Low Current Interest'' Partial Exemption

    In 2003 (Ref. 9), EPA established a partial exemption for certain
chemical substances for which EPA determined the processing and use
information required in 40 CFR part 711 to be of ``low current
interest.'' That provision enables the public to petition EPA to add or
remove a chemical substance to or from the list of partially exempt
chemical substances. In determining whether the partial exemption
should apply to a particular chemical substance, EPA considers the
totality of information available for the chemical substance in
question, including but not limited to information associated with one
or more of the considerations listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii).
    The addition of a chemical substance under this partial exemption
will not necessarily be based on its potential risks. The addition is
based on the Agency's current assessment of the need for collecting CDR
processing and use information for that chemical substance, based upon
the totality of information available during the petition review
process. Additionally, interest in a chemical substance or a chemical
substance's processing and use information may increase in the future,
at which time EPA will reconsider the applicability of a partial
exemption for a chemical substance.

IV. Rationale for These Partial Exemptions

    EPA is granting a partial exemption for: Fatty acids, C14-18 and
C16-18-unsatd., Me esters (CASRN) 67762-26-9); Fatty acids, C16-18 and
C-18-unsatd., Me esters (CASRN 67762-38-3); Fatty acids, canola oil, Me
esters (CASRN 129828-16-6); Fatty acids, corn oil, Me esters (CASRN
515152-40-6); Fatty acids, tallow, Me esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and
Soybean oil, Me ester (CASRN 67784-80-9) because the Agency has
concluded it has low current interest in the processing and use
information for these chemical substances. EPA made these
determinations based on its analysis of the totality of information
available on the six chemical substances, including information about
the chemical substances relevant to the considerations defined at 40
CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA's chemical substance-specific analysis is
detailed in supplementary documents available in the docket under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 (Refs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).

V. Economic Impacts

    EPA has evaluated the economic consequences associated with
amending the CDR partially exempt chemical substances list. Since this
direct final rule creates a partial exemption from CDR reporting,
without creating any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, this
action does not impose any new burden. Based on the currently approved
Information Collection Request (ICR), the burden estimates for
reporting processing and use information are 65.63 hours per
submission. Based on 2012 CDR reporting, EPA estimates that 61
submissions with manufacture volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater will
be received for these chemical substances in 2016 and subsequent
reporting years. Eliminating the requirement to report processing and
use information for these submissions results in a total burden savings
of approximately 4,003 hours and $246,867 in future reporting cycles
(Ref. 10).

VI. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Letter from Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group, to
EPA, OPPT CDR Submission Coordinator, October 21, 2014. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809, regarding request for exemption of
biodiesel products.
2. Letter from Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group, to
EPA, OPPT CDR Submission Coordinator, November 5, 2014. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809, supplement to request for exemption of
biodiesel products.
3. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18-unsatd., Me esters
(CASRN 67762-26-9) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
4. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18-unsatd, Me esters (CASRN
67762-38-3) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
5. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, canola oil, Me esters (CASRN 129828-16-6)
Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
6. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, corn oil, Me esters (CASRN 515152-40-6)
Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
7. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, tallow, Me esters (CASRN 61788-61-2)
Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
8. EPA, OPPT. Soybean oil, Me esters (CASRN 67784-80-9) Partial
Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
9. EPA. TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments; Final Rule. Federal
Register (68 FR 848, January 7, 2003) (FRL-6767-4).
10. EPA, OPPT. Cost Savings Estimate of Adding Six Chemicals to the
40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iv) List of Chemical Substances. December 2014.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information

that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by
OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in
the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the
related collection instrument or form, as applicable.
    The information collection requirements related to CDR have already
been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0162
(EPA ICR No. 1884.06). Since this action creates a partial exemption
from that reporting, without creating any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, this action does not impose any new burdens
that require additional OMB approval.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C 601
et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the
primary purpose of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is to
identify and address regulatory alternatives that ``minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities'' 5 U.S.C. 604. Thus, an
agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule has no net
burden effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
    As indicated previously, EPA is eliminating an existing reporting
requirement for the chemical substances identified in this action. In
granting a partial exemption from existing reporting, this action will
not have a significant economic impact on any affected entities,
regardless of their size.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. In granting a partial exemption from existing
reporting, this action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State,
local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector. In addition,
based on EPA's experience with CDR under TSCA, State, local, and Tribal
governments are not engaged in the activities that would require them
to report chemical data under 40 CFR part 711.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999).

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian Tribal governments, nor involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because this action does not address environmental
health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy
supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA
section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As such, this action does not entail special
considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

VIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the action in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 711

    Environmental protection, Biodiesel, Canola oil, Chemicals, Corn
oil, Fatty acids, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Soybean oil, Tallow.

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 711--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 711 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2607(a).

0
2. In Sec.  711.6, add in numerical order by CASRN number the following
entries to Table 2 in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  711.6  Chemical substances for which information is not required.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *

                             Table 2--CASRN of Partially Exempt Chemical Substances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CASRN                                                  Chemical
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
61788-61-2......................  Fatty acids, tallow, Me esters.

                                                  * * * * * * *
67762-26-9......................  Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18-unsatd., Me esters.
67762-38-3......................  Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18-unsatd., Me esters.
67784-80-9......................  Soybean oil, Me esters.

                                                  * * * * * * *
129828-16-6.....................  Fatty acids, canola oil, Me esters.
515152-40-6.....................  Fatty acids, corn oil, Me esters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-01279 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41724-41726]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1273]

Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final

guidance for industry entitled ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation
of Drugs Intended for Treatment.'' The purpose of this guidance is to
provide recommendations to industry for designing nonclinical bone
quality studies to support the approval of drugs and biologics (e.g.,
recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies regulated by the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research) intended for the treatment of
osteoporosis.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2019.

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

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1273 for ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs
Intended for Treatment.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gemma Kuijpers, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5336, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry
entitled ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment.'' This guidance provides recommendations to industry for
designing nonclinical bone quality studies to support the approval of
drugs and biologics to treat osteoporosis. In addition to the
pharmacology and toxicology studies required to support development of
a new drug or biologic, long-term nonclinical studies, including bone-
specific pharmacologic and toxicologic endpoints to evaluate the
effects on bone quality, need to be conducted in appropriate animal
models.
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance for industry entitled
``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of Drugs Intended for
Treatment'' issued in June 2016 (81 FR 38711). The main changes from
the draft to final guidance include a modification of the recommended
number of dose levels to be evaluated in the bone quality studies and
the recommendation to use a multifactorial approach to determine the
treatment duration in the conduct of the bone quality studies.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Osteoporosis: Nonclinical Evaluation of
Drugs Intended for Treatment.'' It does not establish any rights for
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive
Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17513 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P