[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4878-4880]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02611]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85114; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Financial Incentive Program for Lead Market-Makers
Appointed in MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) Options and MSCI Emerging Markets
Index (MXEF) Options

February 12, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 1, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers
appointed in MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets
Index (MXEF) options. The text of the proposed rule change is provided
in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to amend its
financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs'') appointed
in MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index
(MXEF) options (collectively, MSCI options), effective February 1,
2019. By way of background, the Exchange recently adopted a program
which provided through December 31, 2018, a financial incentive to any
Market-Maker that was appointed as a LMM in MXEA and/or MXEF (``MSCI
LMM'') and met a heightened quoting standard, which is set forth in the
Fees Schedule.\3\ MSCI LMM(s) that meet the heightened quoting
standard, receive $20,000 per month/per product. The LMM receives
$20,000 per month/per class if it provides continuous electronic quotes
that meet or exceed a the heightened quoting standard set forth in the
Fees Schedule in at least 90% of the MXEA and/or MXEF series it must
quote pursuant to Rule 8.15(b) 90% of the time in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MSCI LMMs serve as MSCI LMMs during the RTH session only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to renew the MSCI program.
Particularly, as noted above, the Fees Schedule currently provides that
LMM(s) appointed in MXEA and MXEF will receive a payment of $20,000 per
class when they meet prescribed heightened quoting standards in a given
month and provides that the program will be in place through December
31, 2018. In order to continue to encourage LMM(s) in MXEA and MXEF to
provide significant liquidity in these options, the Exchange proposes
to renew this program through June 30, 2019.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to increase the payment per class for
the month of February 2019. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
provide that LMM(s) appointed in MXEA and MXEF will receive a payment
of $40,000 per class when it meets prescribed heightened quoting
standards in the month of February 2019. For the months of March 2019
through June 2019, the payment would be $20,000 per class per month.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend the program to reduce the
amount of time a MSCI LMM needs to quote. Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to provide that in order to receive the financial benefit, a
MSCI LMM must meet the heightened quoting standard set forth in the
Fees Schedule in at least 90% of the MXEA and/or MXEF series it must
quote pursuant to Rule 8.15(b) 80% of the time in a given month
(instead of 90% of the time in a given month). Particularly, the
Exchange notes that if there is extreme volatility in the market during
a given month, it may become more difficult for a MSCI LMM to satisfy
the heightened quoting standard for 90% of the time in that given
month. As such, the Exchange proposes to provide the LMM more
flexibility by slightly reducing the amount of time it must meet the
heightened quoting standard. The Exchange believes the proposed change
is still commensurate with the financial benefit offered and that the
MSCI LMM financial program still encourages a MSCI LMM to provide
significant liquidity in MSCI options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to renew the compensation plan for LMM(s)
appointed in MXEA and MXEF because the Exchange wants to ensure it
continues incentivizing the LMM(s) in these products to provide liquid
and active markets in these products to encourage its growth. The
Exchange notes that it had anticipated extending the MSCI Program for
the month of January 2019 as well, but due to the government shutdown,
was unexpectedly unable to do so.\7\ The Exchange also notes that the
current MSCI LMM met the heightened quoting standard for January 2019,
but because the Exchange was unable to extend the program as
anticipated, the LMM will not be receiving a payment under the program
for the month of January. In light of not being able to compensate the
LMM for the month of January, notwithstanding the LMM's continued
commitment to providing liquid and active markets in the MSCI products,
the Exchange believes it's reasonable to offer a payment of $40,000 per
class to the MSCI LMM for the month of February 2019, provided it meets
the heightened quoting standard for February 2019. The Exchange
believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer
this financial incentive to the MSCI LMM because it benefits all market
participants trading in MSCI options to encourage the MSCI LMM to
satisfy the heightened quoting standard, which may increase liquidity
and provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the
Exchange notes that the LMM provides a crucial role in providing quotes
and the opportunity for market participants to trade MSCI products,
which can lead to increased volume, thereby providing a robust market.
The Exchange also notes that the MSCI LMM may have added costs each
month that it needs to undertake in order to satisfy that heightened
quoting standard (e.g., having to purchase additional bandwidth).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Options Notice, ``Cboe Options Exchange Fee
Schedule Changes Effective January 2, 2019'' Reference ID:
C2018122000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to reduce the quoting
time

requirement is reasonable as it only slightly reduces the amount of
time a MSCI LMM must meet the heightened quoting standard in a month.
Moreover, the Exchange believes reducing the amount of time a MSCI LMM
must meet the heightened quoting standard is reasonable as extreme
volatility in the market during a given month may make it more
difficult for a MSCI LMM to meet the heightened quoting standard for
the amount of time currently required. The proposed change, therefore,
provides a MSCI LMM more flexibility in meeting the heightened quoting
standard, even in extremely volatile months. Indeed, the Exchange
wishes to ensure a MSCI LMM is adequately incentivized to provide
liquid and active markets in the MSCI products to encourage its growth.
Additionally, if a MSCI LMM does not satisfy the heightened quoting
standard for the duration of the required time, even as amended, then
it simply will not receive the offered per class payment for that
month. The Exchange believes reducing the amount of time the LMM(s)
needs to quote is still commensurate with the financial benefit
offered. The Exchange believes that the program, even as amended, will
continue to encourage increased quoting to add liquidity in MSCI
products, thereby protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it applies uniformly to
any MSCI LMM, which market participant plays a crucial role in
providing active and liquid markets in the MSCI products. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because MSCI options are
proprietary products that will only be traded on Cboe Options. To the
extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive
marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market
participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-006 and should be submitted on
or before March 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02611 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT Information Requirements for Highway Motorcycles September 2003 Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 Information Collection Request 1( a). Title Information Requirements for Highway Motorcycles ICR Tracking Number: 0783.46 1( b). Short Characterization The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to adopt emission standards for new highway motorcycles. We need information to verify that manufacturers comply with emission standards   before production begins, during production, and after units have been placed into service. The final rule requires manufacturers to generate or retain information to demonstrate that their products comply with emission standards.

Manufacturers generally send us the data they collect and keep these records and other pertinent information. We may request to see any of these records. We and the regulated companies will use the data exclusively to ensure compliance with emission standards. Information such as engine family, total numbers of vehicles built, and emission rates for specific pollutants are examples of what we require.

This ICR is a revision to the existing information collection approved under OMB control number 2060 0104. The revisions generally include small incremental reporting requirements. The burden and cost estimates presented below describe only the changes resulting from this rulemaking. These incremental figures must be added into the existing burden and cost estimates under OMB control number 2060 0104 to arrive at cumulative totals.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The data we require in this ICR is necessary to comply with Title II of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The Act authorizes EPA to set more stringent standards for highway motorcycles. We can only meet the requirements of the Act by collecting data from the regulated industry. Also, we will only have an effective program if we know that these vehicles maintain their certified emission level throughout their operating lives.

2( b). Use/ Users of the Data We will oversee the certification process and maintain the program database. We will use the data items to verify compliance with the following requirements associated with the new 2 emission standards.

determine whether or not a prototype vehicle may adequately represent an engine family.

ensure compliance of production line engines.

issue a recall to correct a noncompliant family of engines.

confirm actual emission benefits gained by the program.

ensure proper maintenance and setting of physically adjustable parameters.

aid in the production projections to randomly select the vehicles to undergo testing.

determine whether a prototype or freshly manufactured vehicle should be issued a certificate of conformity.

ensure that durability of emission controls is consistent with the manufacturer's stated useful life.

ensure control of emissions across the range of engine operation expected in the normal course of its lifetime 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication Manufacturers are currently required to submit data and information to certify highway motorcycles. The new emission standards add only a small amount of information collection beyond what we already require. Moreover, state and local governments are generally preempted from adopting emission standards for highway motorcycles. For this reason, the information requested under this ICR is not available from other sources.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB We published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on August 14, 2002 regarding emission standards for highway motorcycles. This included an invitation to comment on the ICR. We received comments on aspects of the rulemaking that pertain to this information collection, directly or indirectly. These comments and our responses are summarized in the following table. 3 Table 1 Comments Related to Information Collection Commenter Comment Response MIC, Harley Davidson Manufacturers supported design based certification for meeting permeation standards. These requirements should not begin until 2008. We adopted design based certification provisions and have changed the start date to 2008.

MIC, Harley Davidson Manufacturers did not support production line testing requirements, stating that current data shows no need for testing. MIC noted that production line testing would be very costly. The cost for additional test facilities would be $ 1 million per test cell plus staffing. We requested comment on production line testing but are not finalizing any such requirements.

MIC, European mfrs ( ACEM) For motorcycles less that 50 cc, MIC raised concerns about the test cycle being too aggressive and the proposed useful life being too long. We have adjusted the useful life and test cycle per MIC recommendations.

MIC MIC commented that a useful life of 40,000 km was too long, especially for smaller displacement motorcycles, and would disrupt harmonization with California requirements. EPA is retaining the current useful life definitions for highway motorcycles, including the definition of 30,000 km for Class III motorcycles.

MIC, Harley Davidson Harmonization with the new global test cycle is not currently feasible due to the lead time needed. It would take several years to transition to a new cycle. Coordination with California is needed. EPA is retaining the current test cycle but will evaluate the new cycle in the future.

Motorcycle Riders Foundation EPA has not properly analyzed the impact of the new standards on small businesses We properly conducted the SBREFA process and have included several significant flexibilities in the rule for small manufacturers including additional lead time.

3( c) Consultations We have met with companies that will be subject to the new emission standards. These contacts are summarized in the following table. 4 Table 2 Industry Contacts Regarding Information Collection Date Contact July 26, 2000 Honda Motor Co., David Raney ( 310) 783 3264.]

Feb. 8, 2001 Harley Davidson, Jerry Steffy ( 414) 616 1101 April 26, 2001 Harley Davidson, Jerry Steffy ( 414) 616 1101 Oct. 8, 2002 Harley Davidson, Ed Michael ( 414) 465 6275 and Jerry Steffy ( 414) 465 6275 Oct. 23, 2002 Federico Vitale, Piaggio Oct. 23, 2002 Honda Motor Co., Erwin Segers Dec. 16, 2002 Harley Davidson, Ed Michael ( 414) 465 6275 and Jerry Steffy ( 414) 465 6275 March 18, 2003 Motorcycle Industry Council April 14, 2003 Harley Davidson, Ed Michael ( 414) 465 6275 and Jerry Steffy ( 414) 465 6275 September 15, 2003 Harley Davidson, Ed Michael ( 414) 465 6275 and Jerry Steffy ( 414) 465 6275 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Annual reporting for certifying engine families is necessary to align with the regulatory requirement to certify engine families every year.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR complies with general guidelines, except for the requirement to retain records for an eight year period, as described in 4( b)( ii) below.

3( f) Confidentiality We hold information from the engine manufacturers as confidential until the associated vehicles are available for purchase. Manufacturers may submit proprietary information, consisting generally of sales projections and certain sensitive technical descriptions. We grant confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and class determinations issued by our Office of General Council.

3( g) Sensitive Questions 5 We don't ask sensitive questions. This collection complies with The Privacy Act and OMB Circular A 108.

4. Respondents and Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS and SIC Codes The respondents are generally involved in the industries shown in the following table:

Table 3 NAICS and SIC Codes for Respondent Categories Respondent Categories NAICS Codesa Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers 336991 Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts 421110 aNorth American Industry Classification System ( NAICS)

4( b) Respondents and Information Requested ( i) Data Items Manufacturers must send us an application for certification, including emission data and other descriptive information. Manufacturers must also send us reports of other emission testing.

( ii) Respondent Activities Companies retain records as hard copy and may also reduce the information to microfilm, computer disks, etc. We require very little submission of information to process applications for certification. This reduces the resource burden, both for the industry and for us. However, because we don't have the information on file, we depend on manufacturers to retain the records to allow us to verify compliance throughout the useful life of the vehicles. Eight years is sufficient time for most vehicles. Any investigation of in use vehicles generally does not start until three or more years after the manufacturer completes the application for certification.

All reports, submissions, notifications, and requests for approval must be addressed to: Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Respondents must submit information in an approved EPA format.

5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 6 5 ( a) Agency Activities Our certification and tracking process involves reviewing applications and emission data from vehicle manufacturers. From this data, we issue certificates of conformity and may confirm that production and in use engines continue to comply with standards. We may also select families to be tested in a given production year and require additional testing, based on an analysis of the submitted data.

5 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management We currently use computers extensively to collect information from vehicle manufacturers. Based on this approach as a model, much routine information ( test results, projections) can be electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers to our computer database. We expect to publish this information on our website once certified engines go into production ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/).

5 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility We have a variety of existing provisions to ease the compliance burden on small businesses, and we are adding more that relate specifically to the new emission standards. Current regulations allow significant flexibility for certification by manufacturers projecting sales below 10,000 units of combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles. For example, a qualifying manufacturer must submit an application for certification with a statement that their vehicles have been tested and, on the basis of the tests, conform to the applicable emission standards. The manufacturer retains adequate emission test data, for example, but need not submit it. Qualifying manufacturers also need not complete the detailed durability testing required in the regulations.

We are adding new flexibilities that will be available for small entities with U. S. highway motorcycle annual sales of fewer than 3,000 units per model year ( combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles) and fewer than 500 employees worldwide. These provisions are appropriate because of the significant research and development resources may be necessary to meet the emission standards and related requirements. These provisions will reduce the burden while ensuring the vast majority of the program is implemented to ensure timely emission reductions. These new flexibilities include a delay of the standards for qualifying manufacturers to four years later than large manufacturers and an emission credit program.

5( d) Collection Schedule The principal reporting requirements are associated with certification to the new exhaust emission standards, which are scheduled to apply beginning in January 2006. New reporting requirements therefore don't begin until the end of the preceding year at the earliest. Annual reporting is based on the beginning of the model year, which can vary for each manufacturer and for each engine family. 7 6. Estimating Burden and Cost of the Collection We estimate burden and cost estimates for vehicle manufacturers, who comply by submitting an application for certification. This obligates them to do a certain amount of testing to show they meet emission standards. The following discussion develops burden and cost estimates for the first three years of the program.

The burden and cost estimates presented below describe only the changes resulting from this rulemaking. These incremental figures must be added into the existing burden and cost estimates under OMB control number 2060 0104 to arrive at cumulative totals.

6 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The estimates of respondent burden utilizes data from the affected industries or commercially available databases. Burden hours per engine family are based upon established hour amounts for engine families, as published in the " Application for Motor Vehicle Emission Certification and Fuel Economy Labeling" ( OMB No. 2060 0104).

Highway motorcycles are already subject to standards for HC and CO emissions. The new proposal contemplates three changes that would affect reporting requirements. First, reporting NOx emission results would add a small incremental testing and reporting burden to each application for certification. Second, we are adopting emission standards for motorcycles with displacement under 50 cc. This would add a small number of companies and/ or engine families to the current certification list. Third, we are adding requirements for manufacturers to control evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.

The burden for certification testing for exhaust emissions is generally based on conducting two engine tests for each engine family, then using that test data for several years. The estimated cost for full certification testing, including durability demonstration testing, is $ 7,500 per test ( combining labor and O& M expenses). The manufacturer's application for certification involves an extensive effort the first year, followed by relatively little effort in subsequent years. We estimate that manufacturers will conduct new certification testing every five years; the costs have been estimated on an annual average basis.

In addition to testing, manufacturers must prepare the application for certification and maintain appropriate records. We have estimated the cost of these activities, which include engineering and clerical effort, to be $ 10,000 per engine family per certification cycle ( 5 years). As with the testing costs, we are presenting annual average costs.

To comply with evaporative emission requirements, manufacturers are expected to conduct durability and certification testing in the first year with a value of about $ 15,000 per company. In addition, we estimate about $ 10,000 for engineering and clerical work to support the effort to certify that these products are meeting standards. However, these costs would apply 8 only to 10 percent of manufacturers, since the rest of the companies use metal fuel tanks, which automatically comply with permeation requirements. We consider an additional $ 1,000 for hose testing, though manufacturers may be able to avoid this by using design based certification with hoses that already meet industry standards for permeation resistance.

These burden estimates apply equally whether the manufacturer conducts the required activities, or if the manufacturer hires a third party for some of these activities.

6 ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs Labor rates on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t12. htm ( accessed November 24, 2000). Technical labor is $ 42.89/ hr, managerial labor is $ 65.19/ hr, clerical labor is $ 27.11/ hr. Labor rates were multiplied by 1.5 to account for fringe benefits and other overhead expenses.

( ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance costs include expenses related to emission testing. Costs are for laboratory time, the use of test equipment, engine parts, fuel and other supplies, and fabrication of test tools and fixtures. Direct labor costs and operations and maintenance costs combine for the total test costs described above.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Costs Companies required to conduct testing either have testing facilities or are expected to conduct testing at a contractor's laboratory. Thus, no capital or startup costs are anticipated for purchasing emission testing equipment.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs There are no anticipated capital costs.

6 ( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Our Engine Programs Compliance Group administers emission certification programs. This group has approximately 17 full time employees. We project 10 hours per week of staff time ( at $ 40 per hour, loaded) to manage engine compliance programs related to new emission standards. This comes to approximately 500 hours or $ 20,000 per year to oversee the requirements of the final rule.

6 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 9 Table 4 shows the labor and other costs associated with meeting the new requirements for each engine family. These numbers represent the incremental burden relative to current reporting requirements. This includes certification costs, plus the cost of any additional testing. Per family costs for meeting exhaust emission standards are multiplied by the number of engine families to arrive at an estimated total cost. Costs for evaporative standards are treated the same, except that the costs are calculated on a company basis and multiplied by the number of companies. 10 Table 4 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Families Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Cert. application   incremental 0 1 1 2 $ 70 $ 0 185 $ 0 370 $ 12,950 Recordkeeping   incremental 0 1 1 2 $ 70 $ 0 185 $ 0 370 $ 12,950 New Cert. application 2 36 6 44 $ 1,840 $ 0 5 $ 0 220 $ 9,200 Recordkeeping for new applications 0.2 2.2 2 4.4 $ 162 $ 0 5 $ 0 22 $ 808 Cert./ durability testing for new applications 0 28 0 28 $ 1,204 $ 1,796 5 $ 0 140 $ 15,000 Evaporative controls ( per co mpany) 5 56 10 71 $ 3,003 $ 3,197 5 companies $ 0 327 $ 28,520 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 23686 1,449 $ 79,428 11 6 ( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally Bottom line burden and cost for the first three years of the rulemaking are shown in Table 5. The table shows industry totals and average values for each respondent by category. These estimated costs include startup expenses ( for example, the purchase of emission sampling equipment and new recordkeeping software).

Table 5 Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Industry Totals Average per Respondent Total O& M Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Highway motorcycle manufacturers 46 $ 23,686 1,449 $ 79,428 32 $ 1,727 ( ii) Agency Tally Our estimated burden is approximately 500 hours or per year ( or $ 20,000) to oversee the requirements of the final rule, as described in Section 6( c).

6( f) Burden Statement: The estimated annual respondent burden for the different categories of companies affected by the final rule is presented in Table 5. These estimates include time to conduct testing, prepare applications, prepare and submit reports, and record and keep required information.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use 12 of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2001 0014, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2001 0014) and OMB control number ( 2060 0104) in any correspondence.

6 ( g) Reason for Change in Burden We have adopted a new tier of emission standards for highway motorcycles. The estimated change in burden reflects the testing and reporting requirements related to the new emission standards.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68431-68432]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2474-004; ER10-2475-004.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Amendment to July 1, 2013 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Northwest Region of Sierra Pacific Power Company, et
al.
    Filed Date: 10/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131031-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2474-005; ER10-2475-005.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Sierra Pacific Power
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131104-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-299-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 11-4-2013 SA 2398 G746 Amended Termination to be
effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131104-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-308-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO 205 filing tariff revision re: Prohibited
Investment to be effective 1/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131104-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-309-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Revisions to the ISO Agreement regarding Prohibited
Investments to be effective 1/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131104-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-310-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits Avista Corp OATT Order No.
764 Compliance Filing to be effective 11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-311-000.
    Applicants: National Grid USA, Massachusetts Electric Company, The
Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: National Grid USA, Massachusetts Electric Company, and
The Narragansett Electric Company's Petition for Limited Waiver.
    Filed Date: 11/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20131104-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-312-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submit
Cancellation of CMEEC LCRA with CMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-313-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits
Cancellation of LCRA with CMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-314-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits Emergency Interchange
Service

Schedule A&B--2013 Revised (Bundled) to be effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-315-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits
Cancellation of LCRA with CMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-316-000
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits Emergency Interchange
Service Contract w--Southern Company--2013 Rev (Unbundled) to be
effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-317-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits QF Transmission
Agreement with Auburndale Pwr Partners--2013 Revised to be effective 5/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-318-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submits LCRA
with CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-319-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits
Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with CTMEEC to be effective 1/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-320-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits
Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with CTMEEC to be effective 1/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-321-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submits
Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with Town of Wallingford to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-322-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits
Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement with Town of Wallingford to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-323-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
submits OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective 11/12/
2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-324-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits
Localized cost responsibility agreement between Town of Wallingford and
WMECO to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20131105-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 5, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27163 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 48569-48571]
[DOCID:fr21au06-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54316; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Specialists Hitting Bids and/or Taking Offers
Algorithmically on a Temporary Basis Until Phase II of the Hybrid
Market Is Fully Implemented

 August 15, 2006.
    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 August 8, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. NYSE filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE proposes to amend Exchange Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists)
with respect to the specialists' ability to establish systems employing
algorithms to send messages via a connection to the Display Book[reg]
for the purpose of quoting or executing trades systemically. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Through the NYSE Hybrid Market SM initiative,\5\ the
Exchange is permitting specialists to establish electronic connections
to the Display Book[reg] system \6\ (``Display Book''). Specialists
will have electronic access to certain information which will permit
them to make a range of specified quoting and trading decisions based
on that information via the Display Book connection. Specifically, the
amendments to Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists) pursuant to the NYSE
Hybrid Market SM provide specialists with the ability to
implement systems that use proprietary algorithms based on
predetermined parameters to electronically participate in the Hybrid
Market SM (``Specialist Algorithm''). The Specialist
Algorithm is designed to communicate with the Display Book via an
Exchange-owned external application program interface (``API'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006).
    \6\ The Display Book system is an order management and execution
facility. It receives and displays orders to the specialist,
contains the orders received by the specialist (the ``Book''), and
provides a mechanism to execute and report transactions to the
Consolidated Tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As approved in the Hybrid Market initiative, the Specialist
Algorithm is permitted to send messages to the Display Book via the API
to quote or trade on behalf of the specialist's proprietary interest.
The Specialist Algorithm will generate these quoting or trading
messages in reaction to specific types of information it will have
access to. This information includes specialist dealer position,
existing quotes, publicly available information the specialist chooses
to supply to the algorithm, incoming orders as they are entering
Exchange systems, and information about orders on the Display Book such
as limit orders, percentage orders, stop orders, and auction limit and
auction market orders. This latter information stream is known as
``state of the book'' information.
    The Exchange has continued to discuss Hybrid Market features with
its members and advisory committees. Based on these discussions, the
Exchange has effected selective changes to certain aspects of the
Hybrid Market,

to produce a trading venue that best addresses the various needs of the
Exchange members and customers.
    On June 20, 2006, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change \7\
with the Commission that was effective upon filing to amend Rule
104(b). That proposal added Rule 104(b)(i) to permit specialists to
send quoting messages via the API in all securities without the
specialists having access to information about incoming orders as they
are entering Exchange systems. That proposal also specified that Rule
104(b)(i) would be superseded when Phase II of the Hybrid Market is
fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54024 (June 21,
2006), 71 FR 124 (June 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this current filing, the Exchange seeks to amend current Rule
104(b)(i) to renumber it as Rule 104(aa)(i) and to clarify that the
specialists will have the ability to send quoting messages as described
above without the need for Exchange authorization.
    In addition, the Exchange seeks to further amend Rule 104 to add a
new section (aa)(ii), to permit specialists to algorithmically execute
transactions against the Exchange's best bid or offer (``Hit Bid/Take
Offer'') in any security. As with the quoting messages governed by Rule
104(aa)(i), the API will not have information about incoming orders as
such orders are entering Exchange systems. Pursuant to Rule 104(c),
specialist messages to trade with the Exchange published quote must
include a code identifying the reason for the algorithmic action, the
unique identifier of the order to which the algorithmically-generated
message is reacting (if any), the unique identifier of the order
immediately preceding the generation of the algorithmically-generated
message and any other information the Exchange may require. Hit Bid/
Take Offer messages will be processed by the Display Book in such a
manner that a specialist's algorithmic message to trade with the
Exchange published quotation does not possess any speed advantage in
reaching the Display Book by delaying the processing of this type of
trading message from the Specialist Algorithm.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006). Based upon the average transit
time from the Exchange Common Message Switch (CMS) system to the
Display Book system, the Exchange would determine the appropriate
amount of time to delay the processing of algorithmic messages to
trade with the Exchange published quotation. The delay parameter
would be adjusted periodically to account for changes to the average
transit time resulting from capacity and other upgrades to Exchange
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments discussed in this filing will be superseded
with the Exchange Rule 104 amendments, as previously approved in the
NYSE Hybrid Market \SM\ initiative, when Phase II of Hybrid Market \SM\
is fully implemented. All other provisions of Rule 104 remain in
effect, including but not limited to, provisions governing
stabilization and the specialist's negative obligation.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is 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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it
was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed
rule change immediately operative upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow
specialists to begin testing their APIs. Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with
the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Number SR-NYSE-2006-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-59. 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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 Number SR-
NYSE-2006-59 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13726 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55564]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23232]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 179 / Wednesday, September 16, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 11 and 101

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172]

A Labeling Guide for Restaurants and Retail Establishments
Selling Away-From-Home Foods--Part II (Menu Labeling Requirements in
Accordance with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010);
Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``A Labeling
Guide for Restaurants and Retail Establishments Selling Away-From-Home
Foods--Part II (Menu Labeling Requirements in Accordance with 21 CFR
101.11); Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance, when
finalized, will help certain restaurants and similar retail food
establishments comply with the menu labeling requirements, including
the requirements to provide calorie and other nutrition information for
standard menu items, including food on display and self-service food.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft
guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance,
submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by
November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements
(HFS-820), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Szybist, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``A Labeling Guide for Restaurants and Retail Establishments
Selling Away-From-Home Foods--Part II (Menu Labeling Requirements in
Accordance with 21 CFR 101.11); Draft Guidance for Industry.'' We are
issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices
regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will
represent our current thinking on this topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    In the Federal Register of December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71156), we
published a final rule on nutrition labeling of standard menu items in
restaurants and similar retail food establishments; the rule is
codified at Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Sec.  101.11
(21 CFR 101.11). The final rule implements requirements of section
403(q)(5)(H) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H)), which in general, requires that restaurants
and similar retail food establishments that are part of a chain with 20
or more locations, doing business under the same name, and offering for
sale substantially the same menu items, provide calorie information for
standard menu items (including food on display and self-service food),
provide, upon request, additional written nutrition information for
standard menu items, and comply with other requirements described in
section 403(q)(5)(H) of the FD&C Act. The draft guidance uses a
question and answer format and is intended to help restaurants and
similar retail food establishments covered by the final rule comply
with the nutrition labeling requirements of the final rule.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
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 Sec.  101.11(d), (c)(3), and (b)(2) have
been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0783.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
document at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: September 11, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-23232 Filed 9-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST RENEWAL:

"INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

ASSOCIATED WITH EPA'S MOBILE

AIR CONDITIONER RETROFITTING PROGRAM"

EPA ICR No. 1774.03

December 2006

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

This ICR is entitled "Information Collection Activities Associated with
EPA's Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program," EPA ICR Number
1774.03, and OMB Number 2060-0350.

1(b) Short Characterization

The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program enables the
Agency to review available substitutes for ozone depleting substances
(ODSs) and determine their acceptability.  The Stratospheric Protection
Division (SPD) is responsible for enacting regulations to phase out
chemicals which damage the stratospheric ozone layer and therefore pose
a threat to human health and the environment.  Depletion of
stratospheric ozone can result in sharp increases in melanoma and
non-melanoma cancers due to increased exposure to ultraviolet-A (UV-A)
and ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, and a higher incidence of cataracts
(a leading cause of blindness).  Under the SNAP program, companies
submit applications for approval of substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals for review by the SPD.  After all necessary information is
received, SPD has 90 days to review the product data submitted, and
determine if the substitute is acceptable, unacceptable, or if its use
must be restricted.  SPD reviews these substitutes for their impact on
human health and the environment, looking at factors including ozone
depleting potential, atmospheric lifetime, global warming potential, and
flammability.  Many substitutes are produced for multiple uses, and SPD
must determine what uses are appropriate, and under what conditions.
EPA does not evaluate the efficacy of the product to achieve the results
the manufacturer intended.  When SPD makes a decision that substitutes
are acceptable, a Notice is published in the Federal Register listing
acceptable substitutes.  If the substitute is found unacceptable or use
restrictions are necessary, a notice-and-comment rulemaking is necessary
to impose use restrictions.  The list of substitutes is cumulative, with
revisions to the list made periodically.  A comprehensive list of
substitutes, their uses, and any relevant restrictions is maintained for
distribution to interested parties.

SPD requires those retrofitting mobile air conditioners (MAC) to use a
substitute refrigerant to provide some basic information on a label to
be affixed to the air conditioner.  The label includes the name of the
substitute refrigerant, when and by whom the retrofit was performed,
environmental and safety information about the substitute refrigerant,
and other information.  This information is needed so that subsequent
technicians working on the MAC system will be able to service the
equipment properly, decreasing the likelihood of significant refrigerant
cross-contamination and potential failure of air conditioning systems
and refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment.

EPA estimates that 87,000 technicians will be responsible for providing
this information over the next 3 years, at a total cost (labor plus
materials) of $5,933,333.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection

The SNAP program includes review of potential alternatives to
ozone-depleting refrigerants used for air conditioning motor vehicles.
With the phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and specifically
CFC-12, SPD faces the challenge of identifying acceptable alternative
refrigerants to allow consumers the choice to retrofit CFC-12 mobile air
conditioners to those alternatives.  EPA notes that in the U.S., prior
to the 1993 model year, most all mobile air conditioners used CFC-12,
and that after the 1995 model year, all new motor vehicles with air
conditioners used HFC-134a.  EPA estimates that there are currently
approximately 33 million mobile air conditioners, originally designed to
use CFC-12, operating in the U.S.  Of these, EPA estimates 1 million, or
about 9%, will be retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants between
April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010 (the term of this ICR).  The remaining
air conditioners either (1) will continue to operate without service,
(2) will continue to operate with minor service including refilling with
available supplies of CFC-12, (3) will be disposed of along with the
entire motor vehicle, (4) will cease to function but will not be
retrofitted due to economic reasons, or (5) have already been
retrofitted to an alternative refrigerant and will not be retrofitted
again.

The purpose of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is to estimate
the burden associated with the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
82 requirement that service technicians label mobile air conditioners
with information about new refrigerants when they retrofit a system.  It
is necessary to assess the time it will take for the service technician
to fill out and place the label on the retrofitted air conditioner.
This label will acknowledge that the retrofitting has been completed,
and that the mobile air conditioner should no longer use CFC
refrigerant.  In addition, the label provides essential information to
technicians about the specific refrigerant used in the air conditioning
system.

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to promulgate rules
making it unlawful to replace any ozone-depleting substance with any
substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects
to human health or the environment where the Administrator has
identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human
health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially
available.  EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes
in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant
cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning
systems and recovery/recycling equipment.  In addition, continuing the
smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly depends on the
continued purity of the recovered, recycled and/or reclaimed R-12
supply.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The purpose of the label is to alert service technicians and motor
vehicle owners that the mobile air conditioner has been retrofitted to
use non-CFC refrigerant.  The label will provide essential information
to technicians about the specific refrigerant used in the air
conditioning system.  Technicians need this information to avoid service
practices that might result in refrigerant cross-contamination and
system failure.  As the stores of CFC refrigerant are depleted, vehicles
are being retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants.

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non duplication

The required label is put on CFC-12 air conditioners that are being
retrofitted with an acceptable substitute.  The label will be the only
required mechanism to indicate the use of a substitute, and therefore
will not be duplicative.

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

A Federal Register Notice (71 FR 34604) making this supporting statement
available for public comment was submitted and published.  No public
comments were received.

3(c) Consultations

EPA consulted with the following individuals in preparing this ICR
renewal:

Ward Atkinson, Chairman of the Interior Climate Control Committee of
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),<PHONE_NUMBER>, regarding the
number of air conditioners likely to be retrofitted and the cost burden.

Elvis Hoffpauir, President of Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide,
(215) 631-7020, regarding the percent of air conditioners likely to be
retrofitted.

Peter Coll, Neutronics Inc.,<PHONE_NUMBER>, regarding the percent of air
conditioners likely to be retrofitted.

Jim Thomas, Refrigerant Services Inc.,<PHONE_NUMBER>, regarding the cost
of labels.

Doug Pettigrew, ICOR International,<PHONE_NUMBER>, regarding the cost of
labels.

3(d) Effects Of Less Frequent Collection

This ICR asks for information to be collected just once per mobile air
conditioner retrofit.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR follows all of OMB’s general guidelines for information
collections.

3(f) Confidentiality

This ICR does not ask for any information that would be considered
confidential.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

This ICR does not ask any questions concerning sexuality, religious
beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents and SIC Codes

The following is a list of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes and associated industries that may retrofit a mobile air
conditioner and therefore may be affected by information collection
requirements covered under this ICR.  Also listed is the corresponding
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes available
from http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.

551		New and used car dealers (NAICS code 441110)

554		Gas service stations (NAICS codes 447110 and 447190)

7532		Top and body repair shops (NAICS code 811121)

7538		General automotive repair shops (NAICS code 811111)

7539		Automotive repair shops not elsewhere classified, including air
conditioning and radiator specialty shops (NAICS code 811198)

4(b) Information Requested

The Agency will not standardize the label, but rather allow the industry
to devise a format that accommodates information about the refrigerants
on the market.  Unique fittings are necessary for different refrigerants
in order to avoid cross contamination, as is the use of different
colored labels for each refrigerant.  EPA will work closely with
refrigerant developers to eliminate the risk of duplication.  The person
conducting the retrofit must apply to the air conditioning system in the
engine compartment a label that contains the following information:

The name and address of the technician and the company performing the
retrofit.

The date of the retrofit.

The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the numerical
designation of the refrigerant as determined under the latest version of
Standard 34 of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Inc..

The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.

If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the
phrase "ozone depleter".

If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according to
latest version of Standard E681 of the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International, the statement "This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE.  Take appropriate precautions."

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Agency will not develop a format for the label and will not collect
and compile the information provided on the label.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA will not develop a standard label, but rather the manufacturers will
have the opportunity to produce unique labels to accompany their
refrigerant.  Much of the information required on the labels can be
printed with the labels, thereby lessening the burden on the individual
service shops, many of which are small businesses.  These labels may
also contain information about the specific fittings the service
technician should use, with the subject refrigerant, to minimize the
potential for cross-contamination if the system is serviced at a later
date.  EPA will work closely with industry in carrying out these
labeling requirements, because there are several manufacturers who have
alternative refrigerant products on the market.  Proper labeling will
result in considerable savings to industry and the public, since it will
greatly reduce the chance of refrigerant contamination.  There are now
15 alternative refrigerants on the market listed under the SNAP program
as acceptable replacements for CFC-12 for mobile air conditioning.
Considerable costs would accrue if refrigerants were contaminated
(mixed), including the costs to repair systems which failed as a result
and the costs to recover, separate, reclaim and/or dispose of
contaminated refrigerant.

To estimate the total number of retrofits to occur by March 31, 2010,
the date this ICR will expire, the Agency analyzed publicly available
data for vehicle sales in the U.S.  The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy
Information website provided vehicle (cars, trucks and buses) sales from
1970 through 2000, citing Ward’s 2001 as the source.  EPA assumed that
the penetration of air conditioning in these vehicles rose linearly from
70% in 1970 to 98% in 1998 and remained at 98% thereafter.  EPA assumed
that 100% of the air conditioners were designed for CFC-12 for years
1970 through 1991, 67% for 1992, 33% for 1993, and 0% thereafter.  EPA
assumed the lifetime of service of an air conditioner follows a Poisson
distribution with an average lifetime of 12 years.  Using this method,
EPA estimates that there are currently approximately 12 million mobile
air conditioners, originally designed to use CFC-12, operating in the
U.S.  Of these, EPA estimates 1 million, or about 9%, will be
retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants between April 1, 2006 and
March 31, 2010 (the term of this ICR).  The remaining air conditioners
either (1) will continue to operate without service, (2) will continue
to operate with minor service including refilling with available
supplies of CFC-12, (3) will be disposed of along with the entire motor
vehicle, (4) will cease to function but will not be retrofitted due to
economic reasons, or (5) have already been retrofitted to an alternative
refrigerant and will not be retrofitted again.

EPA estimates the time to complete and apply the required label at 5
minutes per mobile air conditioner.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

EPA estimates the cost per label to be $0.10.

EPA estimates the time to complete and apply the label at 5 minutes per
mobile air conditioner.  Based on recent consultation with the industry,
EPA uses an estimate of $70 per hour loaded labor rate (includes: wages
paid to the technician; benefits including paid leave, health insurance,
retirement savings and legally required benefits; and overhead,
including office space, furniture, equipment and computers, supplies and
other business expenses).  Thus the loaded labor cost per response is
approximately $5.83.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden And Cost

The data required on the label is not submitted to the EPA; therefore,
the Agency burden and cost is zero.

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

The U.S. Department of Labor statistics indicate there are 168,630
automotive body and related repairers (Standard Occupation
Classification [SOC] System Code Number 49-3021) and 701,150 automotive
service technicians and mechanics (SOC Code Number 49-3023) in the U.S.
EPA estimates that 87,000 of them, or approximately 10% of the total,
will be responsible for retrofitting the estimated 1,000,000 mobile air
conditioners over the three-year term of this ICR.

EPA estimates the time to complete and apply the label at 5 minutes per
mobile air conditioner, making the total burden 83,333 hours (27,777
hours and 40 minutes per year).  At an estimated average labor rate of
$70 per hour, the overall cost associated with the burden hours is
$5,833,333 ($1,944,444 per year).  The cost for designing, typesetting,
printing and distributing 1,000,000 labels is estimated at $0.10 per
label to be $100,000 ($33,333 per year).  Adding the labor and capital
costs together yields a total cost burden of $5,933,333 ($1,977,778 per
year).

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables

As indicated in 6(c), there is no burden or cost to the Agency;
therefore, the bottom-line burden hours and costs are equivalent to the
respondent burden hours and costs:

burden hours:			27,777 hours and 40 minutes per year

burden costs:	direct:		$33,333 per year

		labor:		$1,977,778 per year

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This represents a decrease in the burden estimated for the previous
three-year term of this ICR.  Previously, an estimate of 3,000,000
responses per year was given for a total annual burden of 83,333 hours
and $2,011,111.  The decrease is because of the aging CFC-12 car
population.  After 1994, new cars in the US were no longer sold with
CFC-12 air conditioning systems.   The number of operating CFC-12 cars
(ie, pre-1994 cars) has decreased since this last ICR renewal.  With
less CFC-12 cars, there are fewer cars that will be retrofit to a new
refrigerant and subject to this ICR.

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 0.083 hours (5
minutes) per response (i.e., to fill out the information required on the
label and affix it to the air conditioner).  Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR.  Submit your comments,
referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0482 to (1) EPA online using
www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, the Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460,  under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0482.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.    Also, you can send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0482) and OMB
control number (2060-0350) in any correspondence.

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   4

  PAGE   5

  PAGE   5

  PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55314-55316]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22495]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-10001-17]

Registration Review; Paraquat Dichloride Draft Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of
paraquat dichloride.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to the docket identification (ID)
number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in
Unit IV, 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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, are available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for paraquat dichloride identified
in the Table in Unit IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the

chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public
interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in
the Table in Unit IV.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information 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.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and
ecological risk assessments for paraquat dichloride. After reviewing
comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a
revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on
risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review
decision for paraquat dichloride. Through this program, EPA is ensuring
that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and
other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the
environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's human health and ecological risk assessments for paraquat
dichloride and opens a 60-day public comment period on the risk
assessments.

                      Table--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager
Registration review case  name and No.                   Docket ID No.                   and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraquat Dichloride Case 0262.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0855..........................  Marianne Mannix
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and
ecological risk assessments for paraquat dichloride. The Agency will
consider all comments received during the public comment period and
make changes, as appropriate, to the draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk
assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments.
    Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the

registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the
final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 10, 2019.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-22495 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 70589]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27586]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87769; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
List and Trade Shares of the American Century Focused Dynamic Growth
ETF and American Century Focused Large Cap Value ETF Under Currently
Proposed Rule 14.11(k)

December 17, 2019.
    On June 6, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. 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 list and trade shares of the
American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF and American Century
Focused Large Cap Value ETF under proposed Rule 14.11(k) (Managed
Portfolio Shares). The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on June 25, 2019.\3\ On August 2, 2019,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On
September 23, 2019, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act\6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission has received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86155 (June 19,
2019), 84 FR 29912.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86557, 84 FR 39024
(August 8, 2019). The Commission designated September 23, 2019, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87059, 84 FR 51215
(September 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission, however, may extend the period for issuing an
order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more
than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes reasons for such determination. The proposed
rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal
Register on June 25, 2019. December 22, 2019, is 180 days from that
date, and February 20, 2020, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\9\ designates February 20, 2020, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-CboeBZX-2019-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27586 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P