[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19408-19412]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07005]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0151; FRL-10007-67-Region 9]

Finding of Failure To Attain the 1987 24-Hour PM10 Standard;
Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment; Pinal County, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the West Pinal County, Arizona nonattainment area did
not attain the 1987 24-hour national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ``standard'') for particulate matter with a diameter of ten
micrometers or smaller (PM10) by December 31, 2018, the
statutory attainment date for the nonattainment area. This proposal is
based on the EPA's calculation of the PM10 design value for
the nonattainment area over the 2016-2018 period, using complete,
quality-assured, and certified PM10 monitoring data. If the
EPA makes a final determination that West Pinal County has failed to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by its attainment date, then Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 188(b)(2) requires that the nonattainment area be
reclassified to Serious by operation of law. Within 18 months from the
effective date of a reclassification to Serious, the State must submit
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that comply with the
statutory and regulatory requirements for Serious PM10
nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0151 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4111<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Regulatory Context
II. Criteria for Determining That an Area Has Attained the 1987 24-
Hour PM10 NAAQS
III. The EPA's Proposed Action and Associated Rationale
    A. Data Completeness, Network Review, and Certification of Data
    B. Finding of Failure to Attain the PM10 NAAQS
IV. Summary of Our Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Regulatory Context

    The EPA sets the NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels
required to protect public health and welfare. Particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers
(microns), or PM10, is one of the ambient air pollutants for
which the EPA has established health-based standards, and we have
promulgated and revised the PM10 NAAQS several times.
    The EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter on July 1, 1987,
replacing standards for total suspended particulates (TSP, particulate
less than 30 microns in diameter) with new standards applying only to
particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter.\1\ In 1987, the EPA
established two PM10 NAAQS, an annual standard and a 24-hour
standard. An area attains the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) when the expected number of
days per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration exceeding the
standard (referred to as an ``exceedance'') over a three-year period,
is equal to or less than one.\2\ The annual PM10 standard
was revoked on October 17, 2006.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987).
    \2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [mu]g/m\3\, after rounding to the
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in five or greater are to
be rounded up). Consequently, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\
would not be an exceedance because it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/
m\3\; whereas, a recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an
exceedance because it would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR
part 50.6 and 40 CFR 50 Appendix K, section 1.0.
    \3\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the EPA designated a portion of state lands in
Pinal County, Arizona (``West Pinal County'') as nonattainment for the
1987 p.m.10 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data.\4\ As a result of
the nonattainment designation, West Pinal County was classified as a
``Moderate'' PM10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 32024 (May 31, 2012). The boundaries for the West
Pinal County nonattainment area are described in 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a PM10 nonattainment area classified as Moderate
under the CAA, section 188(c) of the CAA states that the Moderate area
attainment date is ``as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as
nonattainment.'' Consequently, the applicable attainment date for West
Pinal County, designated nonattainment in 2012, was December 31, 2018.
CAA section 188(b)(2) requires the EPA to determine whether any
PM10 nonattainment area classified as Moderate attained the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the area's attainment date and
requires the EPA to make such a determination within six months after
that date. If the EPA determines that a Moderate area has not attained
the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date, then the area shall be
reclassified as a Serious area by operation of law. As discussed
previously, the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is met when the
expected number of exceedances averaged over a three-year period is
equal to or less than one at each monitoring site within the
nonattainment area.

II. Criteria for Determining That an Area Has Attained the 1987 24-Hour
PM10 NAAQS

    Generally, the EPA's determination of whether an area's air quality
meets the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is based on three years of
complete, quality-assured data that has been gathered at established
state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area
and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.\5\ Data
from ambient air monitors operated by state or local agencies in
compliance with the EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to
AQS. Monitoring agencies certify annually that these data are accurate
to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily
on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of nonattainment
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AQS is the EPA's national repository of ambient air quality
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambient air quality data must generally meet data completeness
requirements for each year under consideration. The completeness
requirements are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days for each quarter have valid data.\6\ The data requirements for
showing that a monitor has failed an attainment test, and thus recorded
a violation of the PM10 standard, are less stringent and the
75 percent data capture requirement does not apply provided there is
sufficient data to unambiguously establish nonattainment of the
standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 2.3.
    \7\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 2.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Proposed Action and Associated Rationale

    This proposed action is pursuant to the EPA's statutory obligation,
under CAA section 188(b)(2), to determine whether the West Pinal County
nonattainment area has attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
by its December 31, 2018 attainment date. As discussed in Section II, a
nonattainment area's ambient data must meet several criteria if the EPA
is to determine that the nonattainment area has met the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. These criteria include complete, quality-assured
and certified data collected from a valid ambient air quality
monitoring network and a design value calculated from the ambient data
to be less than the applicable NAAQS.

A. Data Completeness, Network Review, and Certification of Data

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendices J and K, a finding of
attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS must generally be
based upon complete, quality-assured data gathered at monitoring sites
in the nonattainment area and entered in the AQS. For the 24-hour
PM10 standard, Appendix K provides that all data produced by
SLAMS and other sites submitted to the EPA in accordance with the part
58 requirements be used for evaluating attainment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 2.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM10 ambient air quality monitoring data collected
within the West Pinal County nonattainment area for the 2016-2018
three-year period must meet data completeness criteria, or otherwise
unambiguously establish nonattainment according to 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix K, section 2.3. The ambient air quality monitoring data
completeness requirements are met when quarterly data capture rates for
all four quarters in a calendar year over a three-year period are at
least 75 percent. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the
data for the 2016-2018 period for completeness and determined that the
PM10 data met the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters
at PM10 monitoring sites in the West Pinal County
nonattainment area.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ AQS Design Value Report, dated March 5, 2020, included
within our docket. Also, refer to Table 1 below and its endnotes for
additional information concerning the Eloy and Maricopa monitoring
sites.

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

    The EPA's determination as to whether an area has attained the
PM10 NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2) is based on
monitored ambient air quality data. The validity of this determination
of attainment depends in part on whether the monitoring network
adequately measures ambient PM10 levels in the nonattainment
area. The Pinal County Air Quality Control District (``Pinal County'')
is the governmental agency with the authority and responsibilities
under the State's laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the
West Pinal County nonattainment area. Pinal County submits annual
monitoring network plans to the EPA. These plans discuss the status of
the ambient air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58.
The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the
applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to
PM10, the EPA has found that the annual network plans
submitted by Pinal County meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR
part 58.\10\ Furthermore, we concluded from our 2019 Technical Systems
Audit of Pinal County's ambient air quality monitoring program that the
ambient air monitoring network currently meets or exceeds the
requirements for the minimum number of monitoring sites designated as
SLAMS for PM10 in the West Pinal County nonattainment
area.\11\ Pinal County certifies annually that the data it submits to
AQS are quality-assured and has done so for each year relevant to our
determination of attainment, 2016-2018.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We have included in our docket the correspondence
transmitting our annual network reviews, e.g., correspondence dated
October 30, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, EPA Region IX, to Michael Sundblom, Director, Pinal County
Air Quality Control District.
    \11\ We have included in our docket the correspondence
concerning the most recent audit; see correspondence dated September
24, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA Region IX, to Michael Sundblom, Director, Pinal County
Air Quality Control District.
    \12\ We have included in our docket Pinal County's annual data
certifications for 2016, 2017 and 2018, e.g., correspondence dated
April 25, 2019, from Josh DeZeeuw, Air Quality Manager, Pinal County
Air Quality Control District, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX. Annual data certification
requirements can be found at 40 CFR 58.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Finding of Failure To Attain the PM10 NAAQS

    As discussed previously, the EPA's evaluation of whether the West
Pinal County nonattainment area has met the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data,
the adequacy of the PM10 monitoring network in the
nonattainment area, and the reliability of the data collected by the
network. The PM10 standard is attained when the expected
number of exceedances, averaged over a three-year period, is less than
or equal to one. The expected number of exceedances averaged over a
three-year period at any given monitor is known as the PM10
design value for that site. The PM10 design value for the
nonattainment area is the highest design value from a monitor within
that area. Three consecutive years of air quality data are required to
show attainment of the PM10 standard.
    Table 1 provides the 2018 PM10 design values for all
regulatory monitoring sites measuring PM10 within the West
Pinal County nonattainment area, expressed as a single value
representing the average expected exceedances over the three-year
period, 2016-2018.\13\ The PM10 data show that the design
values at multiple monitoring sites are greater than 1.0 estimated
annual average exceedances of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
Consequently, the EPA proposes to determine, based upon three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified data from 2016-2018, that the
West Pinal County nonattainment area did not attain the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A design value is calculated using a specific methodology
from monitored air quality data and is used to compare an area's air
quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating expected
exceedances for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS are found in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix K, Section 2.1(a).

  Table 1--2018 Design Values for the 1987 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS at Air Quality Monitoring Sites in the West Pinal
                               County Nonattainment Area, Based on 2016-2018 Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Monitoring site                            AQS identification number         Design value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Grande Downtown.....................................                       04-021-0001-3                4.1
Coolidge \a\.............................................                       04-021-3004-1                2.0
Stanfield................................................                       04-021-3008-3               14.3
Combs....................................................                       04-021-3009-3                2.0
Pinal County Housing.....................................                       04-021-3011-3                7.4
Eloy \b\.................................................         04-021-3014-3/04-021-3014-1                6.0
Hidden Valley............................................                       04-021-3015-3               32.8
Maricopa 1405/Maricopa \c\...............................         04-021-3016-3/04-021-3010-3                3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Design Value Report, dated March 5, 2020. Table 1 includes only data from monitoring sites in
  the nonattainment area. Additional information can be found in the EPA AQS Violation Day Count Report, dated
  March 18, 2020, and included in our docket.
\a\ The AQS Design Value Report contains design values for two monitors at the Coolidge monitoring site. The
  second monitor (04-021-3004-2) is a collocated quality assurance monitor and is not used for comparison to the
  NAAQS.
\b\ The EPA manually calculated the design value for the Eloy monitoring site by combining data from a manual
  monitor (04-021-3014-1) with data from a continuous monitor (04-021-3014-3) that replaced the manual monitor
  in early 2016. The monitors are reflected separately in the AQS Design Value Report. We have provided this
  combined design value in the EPA 2018 PM10 Design Value Report, available from the EPA Air Trends website at
  https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and in our docket via an Excel spreadsheet.
\c\ Pinal County relocated the Maricopa site (04-021-3010) to the Maricopa 1405 site (04-021-2016) in January
  2017. The EPA approved this relocation; consequently, the data from both sites are combined to form one
  continuous record for calculating a design value. See correspondence from Gwen Yoshimura, Acting Manager, Air
  Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Michael Sundblom, Director, Pinal County Air Quality Control
  District, dated December 15, 2016. The monitors are reflected separately, however, in the AQS Design Value
  Report. We have provided this combined design value in the EPA 2018 PM10 Design Value Report, available from
  the EPA Air Trends website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and in our docket via
  an Excel spreadsheet.

    If the EPA determines that a Moderate nonattainment area has failed
to attain the PM10 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date,
then CAA section 188(b)(2) provides that the area shall be reclassified
as a Serious area by

operation of law. Accordingly, if the EPA takes final action on our
proposed determination that the West Pinal County Moderate area failed
to attain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2018,
the area will be reclassified to Serious. The EPA is taking comment on
this proposed finding of failure to attain and reclassification of the
West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area from Moderate to
Serious.

IV. Summary of Our Proposed Action

    In accordance with section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the West Pinal County Moderate
nonattainment area did not attain the 1987 24-hour PM10
NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of December 31, 2018. Our
proposed determination that West Pinal County failed to attain the
PM10 NAAQS is based on complete, quality-assured, and
certified PM10 monitoring data for the appropriate three-
year period, 2016-2018. We are soliciting comment on this proposed
finding that the West Pinal County Moderate nonattainment area failed
to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
    If we finalize our action as proposed, West Pinal County will be
reclassified as a Serious PM10 nonattainment area by
operation of law and will be subject to all applicable Serious area
attainment planning and nonattainment New Source Review requirements.
This includes the requirement to submit a Serious area air quality plan
within 18 months of the effective date of our final rule, per section
189(b)(2) of the CAA. This Serious area air quality plan must
demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by December
31, 2022, ten years after the area's designation to nonattainment, per
section 188(c)(2) of the CAA.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments
are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of
this preamble.

V. 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 under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and therefore was not
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521)
because it does not contain any information collection activities.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This action will not impose
any requirements on small entities. This proposed action, if finalized,
would require the state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy
the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas and would not
itself directly regulate any small entities. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531- 1538). This action itself imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. This
action proposes to determine that the West Pinal County nonattainment
area failed to attain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date, which would trigger reclassification as a
Serious nonattainment area and existing statutory timeframes for the
state to submit SIP revisions. Such a reclassification in and of itself
does not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The
requirement to submit SIP revisions to meet the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is imposed by the CAA. This proposed rule does
not alter the distribution of power and responsibilities established in
the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments,
the EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from
state and local officials.

G. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No areas of Indian country are located within
the West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area. Therefore, no
tribal areas are implicated in the area that the EPA is proposing to
find failed to attain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule
establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in
developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to
modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe
may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the
effect of this proposed action, if finalized, would be to reclassify
the West Pinal County nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, which would trigger additional
Serious area planning requirements under the CAA. This proposed action
does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate
health or safety risks.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because it does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The 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. The effect of this proposed action, if finalized,
would be to reclassify the West Pinal County nonattainment area as
Serious nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, which
would trigger additional Serious area planning requirements under the
CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-07005 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 24347]
[DOCID:fr02my07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55671; File No. SR-Amex-2007-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
To Amend Its Minor Rule Violation Fine Systems

April 26, 2007.
    On February 21, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to incorporate violations of Amex Rule 131A--AEMI
and Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 958--ANTE into Part 1 of its Minor Rule
Violation Fine Systems (``Plan'').\3\ On March 20, 2007, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 27, 2007.\4\ The Commission received no comments regarding the
proposal. The Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Amex Rule 590.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55500 (March 21,
2007), 72 FR 14314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ because a rule that is reasonably
designed to encourage members to comply with Exchange rules should help
the Exchange carry out its supervisory responsibilities and thereby
help protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which require that the
rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate
discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. In
addition, because the Plan provides procedural rights to a person fined
for any violation of an Exchange rule that is determined to be minor in
nature to contest the fine and permits disciplinary proceedings on the
matter, the Commission believes that the Plan, as amended by this
proposal, provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and
6(d)(1) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act,\9\ which governs minor rule violation plans. The
Commission believes that the proposed change to the Plan will
strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and
enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases
where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor
nature of the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with Amex rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the Exchange's Plan. The
Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory
organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter.
However, the Plan provides a reasonable means of addressing rule
violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal
disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in
handling certain violations. The Commission expects that Amex will
continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a
determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a
fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a
violation under the Plan or whether a violation requires formal
disciplinary action.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\10\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\11\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-Amex-2007-22), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and
hereby is, approved and declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8312 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15005-15006]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6365]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-5; SEC File No. 270-259; OMB Control No. 3235-0269.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-5 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a)
(``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'')

governs the custody of the assets of registered management investment
companies (``funds'') with custodians outside the United States.\1\
Under Rule 17f-5, the fund's board of directors must find that it is
reasonable to rely on each delegate it selects to act as the fund's
foreign custody manager. The delegate must agree to provide written
reports that notify the board when the fund's assets are placed with a
foreign custodian and when any material change occurs in the fund's
custody arrangements. The delegate must agree to exercise reasonable
care, prudence, and diligence, or to adhere to a higher standard of
care. When the foreign custody manager selects an eligible foreign
custodian, it must determine that the fund's assets will be subject to
reasonable care if maintained with that custodian, and that the written
contract that governs each custody arrangement will provide reasonable
care for fund assets. The contract must contain certain specified
provisions or others that provide at least equivalent care. The foreign
custody manager must establish a system to monitor the performance of
the contract and the appropriateness of continuing to maintain assets
with the eligible foreign custodian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 270.17f-5. All references to rules 17f-5, 17f-7, 17d-
1, or 19b-1 in this notice are to 17 CFR 270.17f-5, 17 CFR 270.17f-
7, 17 CFR 270.17d-1, and 17 CFR 270.19b-1, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-5 are
intended to provide protection for fund assets maintained with a
foreign bank custodian whose use is not authorized by statutory
provisions that govern fund custody arrangements,\2\ and that is not
subject to regulation and examination by U.S. regulators. The
requirement that the fund board determine that it is reasonable to rely
on each delegate is intended to ensure that the board carefully
considers each delegate's qualifications to perform its
responsibilities. The requirement that the delegate provide written
reports to the board is intended to ensure that the delegate notifies
the board of important developments concerning custody arrangements so
that the board may exercise effective oversight. The requirement that
the delegate agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide
assurances to the fund that the delegate will properly perform its
duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C.
80a-17(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements that the foreign custody manager determine that
fund assets will be subject to reasonable care with the eligible
foreign custodian and under the custody contract, and that each
contract contain specified provisions or equivalent provisions, are
intended to ensure that the delegate has evaluated the level of care
provided by the custodian, that it weighs the adequacy of contractual
provisions, and that fund assets are protected by minimal contractual
safeguards. The requirement that the foreign custody manager establish
a monitoring system is intended to ensure that the manager periodically
reviews each custody arrangement and takes appropriate action if
developing custody risks may threaten fund assets.
    Commission staff estimates that each year, approximately 135
registrants \3\ could be required to make an average of one response
per registrant under rule 17f-5, requiring approximately 2.5 hours of
board of director time per response, to make the necessary findings
concerning foreign custody managers. The total annual burden associated
with these requirements of the rule is up to approximately 337.5 hours
(135 registrants x 2.5 hours per registrant). The staff further
estimates that during each year, approximately 15 global custodians \4\
are required to make an average of 4 responses per custodian concerning
the use of foreign custodians other than depositories. The staff
estimates that each response will take approximately 270 hours,
requiring approximately 1,080 total hours annually per custodian. The
total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule is
approximately 16,200 hours (15 global custodians x 1,080 hours per
custodian). Therefore, the total annual burden of all collection of
information requirements of rule 17f-5 is estimated to be up to
16,537.5 hours (337.5 + 16,200). The total annual cost of burden hours
is estimated to be $4,914,000 (337.5 hours x $4,000/hour for board of
director's time, plus 16,200 hours x $220/hour for a trust
administrator's time).\5\ Compliance with the collection of information
requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying
on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign
custodians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This figure is an estimate of the number of new funds each
year, based on data reported by funds in 2010 on Form N-1A and Form
N-2. In practice, not all funds will use foreign custody managers,
and the actual figure may be smaller.
    \4\ This estimate is based on staff research.
    \5\ The board hourly rate is based on fund industry
representations. The $220/hour figure for a trust administrator is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2010, modified to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6365 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 64273]
[DOCID:fr15no07-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-01-9561, FMCSA-03-15268, FMCSA-05-21711]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 25 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the
comments submitted in response to the previous announcement and
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications Division,<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.

Background

    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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The Notice
was published on September 27, 2007. The comment period ended on
October 29, 2007.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 25 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Calvin D. Atwood, Gregory W. Babington, William
P. Doolittle, Jonathan M. Gentry, John N. Guilford, Benny D. Hatton,
Jr., Robert W. Healey, Jr., Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr., Thomas D.
Lambert, Thomas W. Markham, Raul Martinez, Joseph L. Mast, David
McKinney, Kevin L. Moody, Charles W. Mullenix, Gary S. Partridge,
Nathan D. Peterson, John N. Poland, Brent L. Seaux, Steven R. Smith,
James T. Smith, Edd J. Stabler, Jr., Gary M. Wolff, John C. Young, and
George R. Zenor.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
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.

    Issued on: November 9, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E7-22350 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4535 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/ OAR/ Office of Atmospheric Programs 2. OMB control number b. None a 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. G Regular b. X Emergency  Approval requested by: 07/ 26/ 2004 c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 01/ 26/ 2005 7. Title: Request for Information on Existing and Available Stocks of Methyl Bromide 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2157.01 9. Keywords Treaties, agriculture, pesticides and pests, methyl bromide, critical use exemption 10. Abstract EPA is seeking emergency permission to request data on existing stocks of methyl bromide in order to determine company level baselines and to allocate allowances to respondents under the critical use exemption program which is concurrently being proposed. The allowances will entitle the holder to sell stocks of methyl bromide to critical uses and thus would confer an economic benefit to the holders. The critical use exemption is an allowable exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the treaty which protects the ozone layer. The respondents are producers, importers, distributors, and applicators of methyl bromide.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 54 b. Total annual responses 54 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 136 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 136 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 136 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) ONE TIME 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Hodayah Finman Phone: 202 343 9246 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: March 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 12762-12763]
[DOCID:fr13mr06-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53425; File No. SR-OCC-2005-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Submission of Exercise
Notices for American Option Contracts Other Than at Expiration

March 6, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On December 12, 2005, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2005-19 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal
was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2006.\2\ No
comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53090 (January 10,
2006), 71 FR 2973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify OCC Rule 801,
which applies to the submission of exercise notices for American-style
option contracts other than at expiration, to delete specific
references to the times when such exercise notices may be submitted and
to instead provide OCC with the authority to prescribe the time frames
for their submission. Implementing this change requires additional
conforming changes to Rule 801 as described herein.

Rule 801

    Rule 801(a) permits a clearing member desiring to exercise an
American-style equity or non-equity option on a business day other than
the business day prior to its expiration to submit an exercise notice
to OCC between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. provided that an exercise notice for
an American-style currency option must be submitted by 2:30 p.m.\3\
(All times are at Central Time.) Exercise instructions submitted with
respect to equity and non-equity options become irrevocable at 7 p.m.
and 2:30 p.m. in the case of currency options unless the exercise
instruction has been modified or revoked by a clearing member because
of a bona fide error by the clearing member or its

customer in accordance with the procedures prescribed by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Except for short dated options, an American-style option may
not be exercised on the business day prior to its expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 801(b) allows the OCC Board of Directors to designate with not
less than seven days' prior written notice to non-equity securities
clearing members a cut-off time earlier than that specified in Rule
801(a) as the deadline for submitting exercise notices with respect to
American-style non-equity option contracts and the time when such
exercise notices become irrevocable.
    Subject to specified exceptions and conditions, Rule 801(e) grants
certain OCC employees \4\ the discretion to permit a clearing member to
file, revoke, or modify any exercise notice submitted in accordance
with Rule 801(a) after the 7 p.m. deadline for the purpose of
correcting a bona fide error. One condition is that the requesting
clearing member is liable to OCC for a late filing fee in escalating
increments and time segments. The late filing fee is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Those employees are OCC's Chairman, Management Vice
Chairman, President, or a designee of such officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $2,000 for any request accepted between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.;
     $5,000 for any request accepted between 8:01 p.m. and the
start of critical processing provided that the request does not
materially affect the start of critical processing; and
     $20,000 per line item listed on any exercise notice
accepted for filing after the start of critical processing with 50% of
the fee to be distributed to the assigned clearing member or clearing
members on a pro rata basis if more than one clearing member is
assigned.

Changes to Rule 801

    The operational and processing efficiencies gained from real-time
trade submission have prompted the OCC Roundtable \5\ to propose that
OCC advance the 7 p.m. cut-off time for submission of post-trade
instructions, including exercise notices, by clearing members on
regular business days. The Roundtable believes that an earlier deadline
for filing such instructions would further straight-through processing
goals by permitting OCC to move forward the times when it initiates
nightly processing and distributes data to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The OCC Roundtable is an OCC-sponsored advisory group
comprised of representatives from OCC, a cross-section of clearing
members, participant exchanges, and industry service bureaus. The
Roundtable considers operational improvements that may be made to
increase efficiencies and to lower costs in the options industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although current discussions have centered on a post-trade
submission cut-off time of 6:30 p.m., the Roundtable has not yet
reached a consensus on a recommended time.\6\ Notwithstanding that
additional discussions are required to determine a new deadline, the
Roundtable has asked OCC to amend Rule 801 to eliminate the requirement
that exercise notices with respect to most American-style options be
submitted between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. on a business day. In response to
the Roundtable's request and consistent with other OCC rules, OCC will
amend Rule 801 to permit OCC to specify the times when such exercise
notices may be submitted.\7\ (Such times will be specified in OCC's
operations manual.) The amendment will allow OCC to promptly implement
the new deadline for post-trade instructions once it is determined and
will give OCC greater flexibility in responding to future operational
and technology developments. OCC will also make the following
conforming changes to Rule 801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An analysis by OCC staff determined that submission of files
containing exercise instructions after 6:30 p.m. occurred seven
times during the period April 1-December 31, 2005. E-mail from Jean
M. Cawley, First Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, dated
January 11, 2006.
    \7\ Under Rule 805, OCC already has the authority to prescribe
deadlines for the submission of exercise instructions for purposes
of expiration date processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amend Rule 801(a) to eliminate the mandated 2:30 p.m.
deadline for filing exercise notices with respect to currency options.
The deadline will instead be a time specified by OCC (in its operations
manual). While there are no current plans to advance this deadline, the
language of the rule will be changed for consistency and future
flexibility.
     Amend Rule 801(a) to provide that the prescribed deadlines
for submitting exercise notices may be changed with not less than 30
days' prior written notice to affected clearing members. This will
ensure that clearing members have sufficient time to adjust their
procedures for submitting exercise notices.
     Delete Rule 801(b) which authorizes the Board to advance
the deadline for submitting exercise notices for American-style non-
equity options. The subject matter of Rule 801(b) will be covered by
the changes to Rule 801(a).
     Amend Rule 801(e) to restructure portions of the fee
schedule for submitting late requests to file, revoke, or modify
exercise notices. The $2,000 filing fee will be eliminated. The $5,000
filing fee will be applied to all requests accepted after the deadline
specified pursuant to Rule 801(a) but before the start of critical
processing. No change will be made to the filing fee for requests
accepted after the start of critical processing. These proposed changes
will align the filing fee schedule under Rule 801 with the filing fee
schedule for supplementary exercise notices filed under Rule 805 (which
applies to expiration date processing).

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\8\ The Commission
finds that OCC's proposed rule change is consistent with this
requirement because it enables OCC to take advantage of operational and
processing efficiencies gained from real-time trade submission to move
forward the times for accepting submissions of exercise notices.
Earlier submission of exercise notices permits OCC to move forward the
times when it initiates nightly processing and distributes data to its
members. Moreover, by OCC having more flexibility with respect to
designating time frames and deadlines OCC will be able to keep such
time frames and deadlines in step with future operational and technical
advances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2005-19) be and
hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3482 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34980-34981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042]

TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion
of Recognition and Application for Reduction in Scope of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV
Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), for expansion of its
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and
presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Additionally, TUVRNA requests the removal of a test standard from its
scope of recognition.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before August 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2007-0042). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 11, 2017 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., is applying for
expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. TUVRNA requests the
addition of one test standard to its NRTL scope of recognition. TUVRNA
is further requesting the removal of a recognized test standard from
its NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL,
including TUVRNA, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVRNA currently has five facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with its

headquarters located at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12
Commerce Road, Newtown, Connecticut 06470. A complete list of TUVRNA's
scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuv.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    TUVRNA submitted an application, dated September 30, 2015 (OSHA-
2007-0042-0022), to expand its recognition to include one additional
test standard. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and
reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site
reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standard found in TUVRNA's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in TUVRNA's
                        NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 2202...........................  Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging
                                     System Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, TUVRNA submitted an application on April 7, 2017
(OSHA-2007-0042-0025) to reduce their scope of recognition by one test
standard. Table 2 below lists the recognized test standard that TUVRNA
would like to remove from their scope of recognition.

  Table 2--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Removal From TUVRNA's
                        NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 913............................  Standard for Intrinsically Safe
                                     Apparatus and Associated Apparatus
                                     for Use in Class I, II, III
                                     Division 1, Hazardous (Classified)
                                     Location.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Applications

    TUVRNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its
scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and
comparability analysis, indicate that TUVRNA can meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include
the addition of this one test standard for NRTL testing and
certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not
constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVRNA's application.
Further, TUVRNA submitted an acceptable request to remove a recognized
test standard from their NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVRNA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an
NRTL. Additionally, OSHA requests comments on the application to remove
one test standard from TUVRNA's NRTL scope of recognition. Comments
should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters
needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating
the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request
for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any
extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period.
OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health whether to grant TUVRNA's application for expansion
of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the
final decision on granting the application. In making this decision,
the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Thomas M. Galassi, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 19, 2017.
Thomas M. Galassi,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-15877 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P