[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22754-22756]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09429]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74761; File No. SR-CME-2015-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Liquidity Risk Management

April 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on April 17, 2015, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'' or ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by CME. CME filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \4\ thereunder, so
that the proposal was 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)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO''). More
specifically, the proposed changes would amend current CME Rules in the
area of liquidity risk management.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME 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

    CME is registered as a DCO with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') and currently offers clearing services for many
different futures and swaps products. With this filing, CME proposes to
make rulebook changes that are limited to its business clearing futures
and swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. More
specifically, the proposed rules would enhance CME's existing liquidity
framework by providing additional liquidity resources and a framework
for establishment of additional highly reliable prearranged funding
arrangements.
    On December 2, 2013, the CFTC adopted final regulations to
establish additional standards for compliance with the DCO core
principles set forth in the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') for
systemically important DCOs (``SIDCOs'') and DCOs that elect to opt-in
to the SIDCO regulatory requirements (``SIDCO Rules''). CFTC Regulation
39.33(c) established enhanced liquidity standards for SIDCOs. CFTC
Regulation 39.33(c)(1)(i) requires SIDCOs to maintain eligible
liquidity resources that, ``at a minimum, will enable it to meet its
intraday, same-day, and multiday obligations to perform settlements, as
defined in Sec.  39.14(a)(1), with a high degree of confidence under a
wide range of stress scenarios that should include, but not be limited
to, a default by the clearing member creating the largest aggregate
liquidity obligation for the [SIDCO] . . . in extreme but plausible
market conditions.'' Regulation 39.33(c)(3) establishes qualifying
liquidity resources as follows:

(3) Qualifying liquidity resources. (i) Only the following liquidity
resources are eligible for the purpose of meeting the requirement of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section: (A) Cash in the currency of the
requisite obligations, held either at the central bank of issue or
at a creditworthy commercial bank; (B) Committed lines of credit;
(C) Committed foreign exchange swaps; (D) Committed repurchase
agreements; or (E)(1) Highly marketable collateral, including high
quality, liquid, general obligations of a sovereign nation (2) The
assets described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(E)(1) of this section must
be readily available and convertible into cash pursuant to
prearranged and highly reliable funding arrangements, even in
extreme but plausible market conditions.

    Additionally, the CFTC finalized CFTC Regulation 39.35 in the SIDCO
Rules requiring, among other things, rules to address liquidity
shortfalls as follows:

(b) Allocation of uncovered liquidity shortfalls. (1) Each
systemically important derivatives clearing organization and subpart
C derivatives clearing organization shall establish rules and/or
procedures that enable it promptly to meet all of its settlement
obligations, on a same day and, as appropriate, intraday and
multiday basis, in the context of the occurrence of either or both
of the following scenarios: (i) An individual or combined default
involving one or more clearing members' obligations to the
systemically important derivatives clearing organization or subpart
C derivatives clearing organization; or (ii) A liquidity shortfall
exceeding the financial resources of the systemically important
derivatives clearing organization or subpart C derivatives clearing
organization. (2) The rules and procedures described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section shall: (i) Enable the systemically important
derivatives clearing organization or subpart C derivatives clearing
organization promptly to meet its payment obligations in all
relevant currencies; (ii) Be designed to enable the systemically
important derivatives clearing organization or subpart C derivatives
clearing organization to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying the
same-day settlement of payment obligations; and (iii) Address the
systemically important derivatives clearing organization's or
subpart C derivatives clearing organization's process to replenish
any liquidity resources it may employ during a stress event so that
it can continue to operate in a safe and sound manner.

    CME currently employs a sound risk-management framework for
comprehensively managing liquidity risk. This framework serves to
effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk on an ongoing
basis. The framework includes assessment and maintenance of sufficient
liquid resources to effect same-day settlement of payment obligations
with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of potential stress
scenarios. The stress scenarios include the default of the clearing
member and its affiliates that would generate the largest aggregate,
with consideration of the second largest, and by currency liquidity
obligation under extreme but plausible market conditions. CME manages
liquidity risk through utilization of qualifying liquid resources to
meet the liquidity obligation calculated under the framework. In order
to augment this framework and comply with CFTC Regulations, CME will
add certain requirements and/or capabilities that it will employ in its
administration of its liquidity risk program. This rules-based approach
to liquidity risk management will also rely on and be augmented by
CME's collateral policy determinations, with liquidity risk management
serving

as a primary consideration in the enumeration of such collateral
policies.
Rule 822.A.1. Substitution of Cash Guaranty Fund Deposits
    Rule 822.A establishes a liquidity ``waterfall'' where in the event
CME needs to obtain liquidity for non-cash collateral for same day
settlement it will first attempt to obtain liquidity for such
collateral through asset sale, any uncommitted funding arrangements,
its committed lines of credit and any committed repurchase agreements.
In the event CME requires further liquidity or such means were
unsuccessful, CME may then declare a ``Liquidity Event,'' which is a
newly defined term in the proposed rule change,\5\ and substitute any
cash deposited by clearing members in satisfaction of their guaranty
fund requirements up to the amount of U.S. Treasuries deposited by a
clearing member subject of such Liquidity Event. The amount of U.S.
Treasuries substituted will be sized using the haircutted market value
from the prior day's close of business utilizing a recognized third
party pricing source and CME's then prevailing haircut schedule. Any
assets so transferred will be applied as guaranty fund deposits of any
such clearing member whose cash was substituted and will be allocated
pro rata among any clearing members with cash deposits. To the extent
requested by the impacted clearing member within 24 hours of
substitution, CME Clearing will replace the cash for such substituted
U.S. Treasuries, to the extent still on deposit, within 29 days of the
date of original substitution. Additionally, to ensure sufficient cash
exists in a guaranty fund for the above mentioned substitution, CME may
require any clearing member that is (or has an affiliate that is) a
broker-dealer that functions in the operation of markets for U.S.
Treasuries (a ``U.S. Government Securities Broker-Dealer'' \6\) to
replace its non-cash guaranty fund deposits with cash upon 60 minutes'
notice. To the extent that a clearing member fails to provide cash
within 60 minutes or the request occurs after 3 p.m. Central time, CME
may debit cash from that clearing member's settlement bank account in
the amount of the clearing member's non-cash guaranty fund assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rules provide for the following new definition:
``Liquidity Event'' shall mean the Clearing House requires liquidity
(1) to satisfy obligations of a defaulted or suspended Clearing
Member, (2) to satisfy obligations associated with the transfer of
account(s) of a defaulted or suspended Clearing Member or (3) as a
result of a liquidity constraint or default by a depositary or
settlement bank.
    \6\ The proposed rules provide for the following new definition:
``U.S. Government Securities Broker-Dealer'' shall mean a broker-
dealer that functions in the operation of markets for U.S.
Treasuries. The functions may include, but are not limited to: (1)
Acting as a channel for the United States Department of the Treasury
and investors in primary market for U.S. Treasuries (for example, by
participating in auctions); (2) Acting as providers of liquidity in
primary and secondary markets for U.S. Treasuries; and (3) Acting as
providers of asset transformation and market making services in the
market for U.S. Treasuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 822.A.2. U.S. Treasury Sale To Meet Clearing House Settlement
Variation Obligations
    Further, pursuant to proposed Rule 822.A.2 in the event a liquidity
shortfall remains after the substitution provided by Rule 822.A.1, CME
may satisfy a settlement variation obligation to a clearing member that
is (or has an affiliate that is) a U.S. Government Securities Broker-
Dealer with a forced sale of U.S. Treasuries using a valuation based on
the prior day's closing prices with prevailing CME haircuts applied and
netting the cash proceeds of the sale against the Clearing House's
settlement variation obligation. The amount of settlement variation
that can be satisfied in this manner will be subject to a limit equal
to the receiving clearing member's guaranty fund requirement at such
time.
Rule 822.B. Transfer or Disbursement of Collateral as Compensation for
Portfolio Auction, Sale or Transfer With Notice in Advance
    As part of its default management practices, CME will conduct an
auction, sale or transfer of defaulted member positions and will
compensate or receive payment from the winner/transferee of such
positions based on bids received during the terms of the related
default management action. Traditionally the compensation is
denominated in cash. CME is proposing Rule 822.B to provide it with the
option to include as part of the terms of an auction, sale or transfer
the ability to satisfy any payment owed to a winner of an auction, sale
or transfer with Federal Reserve discount window eligible securities
with a market value (determined by the Clearing House as of the prior
day's close of business utilizing a recognized third party pricing
source) equal to the amount of such payment obligation. Any such option
would be included as part of the terms of the auction, sale or transfer
in advance of bidding so that bidding firms can provide pricing
information taking the payment in kind possibility into account.
Rule 901.Q. Requirement To Establish Uncommitted Repo
    New Rule 901.Q will require each clearing member that is a U.S.
Government Securities Broker-Dealer or has a U.S. Government Securities
Broker-Dealer affiliate to enter into (or arrange for such affiliate to
enter into) a master repurchase agreement with CME on terms
substantially similar to those set out by CME. Consistent with CFTC
Regulation 39.33(c)(3), CME accepts certain highly marketable
collateral to satisfy performance bond and guaranty fund obligations.
CME currently utilizes prearranged master repurchase agreements that
are highly reliable as required by paragraph 39.33(c)(3)(i)(E)(1) of
the CFTC regulations. In order to ensure a diverse group of repo
counterparties available to CME in times of market stress, CME is
requiring that any clearing member that is a U.S. Government Securities
Broker-Dealer or has a U.S. Government Securities Broker-Dealer
affiliate to enter into (or arrange for such affiliate to enter into) a
master repurchase agreement with CME on terms substantially similar to
those set out by CME.
    The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is
limited to CME's business as a DCO clearing products under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME has not cleared security based
swaps and does not plan to and therefore the proposed rule change does
not impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. The
proposed changes would become effective immediately. CME notes that it
has also submitted the proposed rule change that is the subject of this
filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 13-565ARR.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A.\7\ The proposed
rules enhance CME's existing liquidity framework by providing
additional liquidity resources, a framework for establishment of
additional highly reliable prearranged funding arrangements and payment
in kind of Federal Reserve eligible securities in the event the
liquidity resources are insufficient. These rule changes are therefore
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives
agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or

control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed changes are limited to CME's futures and
swaps clearing businesses, which mean they are limited in their effect
to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As
such, the proposed changes are limited to CME's activities as a DCO
clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that are not
security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with
respect to administering the CEA are comparable to a number of the
policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market
transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors
and the public interest.
    Because the proposed changes are limited in their effect to CME's
futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed changes are
properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME
that:

    (a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with
respect to products that are not securities, including futures that
are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or
mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect
to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing
service.

As such, the changes are therefore consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Exchange Act \9\ and are properly filed under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rules merely
enhance CME's existing liquidity framework by providing additional
liquidity resources and a framework for establishment of additional
highly reliable prearranged funding arrangements. Further, the changes
are limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as
such, do not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME
in any way and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that
is inappropriate 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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \13\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2015-013 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-CME-2015-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2015-013
and should be submitted on or before May 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09429 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50847-50848]
[DOCID:fr28au08-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58400; File No. SR-ISE-2008-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Retire a Pilot Program To List and Trade Options on the
iShares Emerging Markets Index Fund

August 20, 2008.
    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 August 14, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal 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

    The Exchange submits this rule filing to retire a pilot program
that permits the Exchange to list options on the iShares MSCI Emerging
Markets Index Fund (``EEM Fund'').\5\ The Exchange is proposing to
retire the pilot program because the EEM Fund now meets all of the
Exchange's generic initial and maintenance listing standards, which
permit the Exchange to list options on the EEM Fund without having to
file for Commission approval. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EEM Fund pilot program commenced on August 27, 2007, and
has been renewed one time. The EEM Fund pilot program is scheduled
to expire on August 27, 2008. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 56324 (August 27, 2007), 72 FR 50426 (August 31, 2007) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade Options on
the iShares Emerging Markets Index Fund for a Six Month Pilot
Program) (SR-ISE-2007-72); See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
57399 (February 28, 2008), 73 FR 12241 (March 6, 2008) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Extension of a Pilot Program To List and Trade Options on the
iShares Emerging Markets Index Fund) (SR-ISE-2008-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 purpose of this rule change is to retire the Pilot that permits
the Exchange to list options on the EEM Fund.\6\ The Exchange is
proposing to retire the Pilot because the EEM Fund now meets all of the
Exchange's generic initial and maintenance standards. Specifically, the
Exchange has in place initial and maintenance listing standards set
forth in Rules 502(h) and 503(h), respectively (``Listing Standards''),
which are designed to allow the Exchange to list funds structured as
investment companies, such as the EEM Fund, without having to file for
Commission approval to list for trading options on these types of
funds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EEM Fund is an open-end investment company designed to
hold a portfolio of securities that track the MSCI Emerging Markets
Index (the ``Index''). The Index is a capitalization-weighted index
created and maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International,
Inc., and is designed to measure equity market performance in the
global emerging markets.
    \7\ ISE Rules 502(h) and 503(h) set forth the initial listing
and maintenance standards for registered investment companies (or
series thereof) organized as open-end management investment
companies, unit investment trusts, or other similar entities that
are traded on a national securities exchange or through the
facilities of a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange first sought to list options on the EEM Fund, the
Exchange had determined that the EEM Fund met substantially all of the
Exchange's Listing Standards requirements, but did not meet the Listing
Standards requirement that no more than 50% of the weight of the
securities in the EEM Fund be comprised of securities that are not
subject to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement
(``CSSA'').\8\ The Exchange had in place CSSAs with foreign exchanges
that covered 45.97% of the securities in the EEM Fund. In order to meet
the 50% threshold, the Exchange requested the Commission's approval to
rely upon a memorandum of understanding that the Commission had entered
into with the CNBV \9\ (the ``MOU'') because the securities traded on
the Bolsa represented 6.53% of the weight of the securities in the EEM
Fund.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 502(h)(B)(1).
    \9\ The National Commission for Banking and Securities, or
``CNBV,'' is Mexico's regulatory body for financial markets and
banking. The CNBV regulates the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores
(``Bolsa'').
    \10\ See supra note 5. The Commission permitted the Exchange to
rely on the MOU, and the Exchange agreed to use its best efforts to
obtain a CSSA with the Bolsa during the respective pilot periods,
which to date has not been obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EEM Fund has now become compliant with ISE Rule 502(h)(B)(1)
and more than 50% of the weight of the securities in the EEM Fund are
now subject to a CSSA. Specifically, the Exchange represents that the
Korean Exchange (``KRX'') \11\ recently became a member of the
Intermarket Surveillance Group and, therefore, securities and other
products trading on its markets are now subject to a CSSA. As a result,
the percentage of the weight of the EEM Fund represented by South
Korean securities now renders the EEM Fund compliant with the
Exchange's Listing Standards requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The KRX was created on January 27, 2005, through the
consolidation of three domestic Korean exchanges: Korea Stock
Exchange (KSE), KOSDAQ Market and Korea Futures Market (KOFEX). See
http://neg.krx.co.kr/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and regulations
under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act's \13\ requirements that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to
continue to provide a competitive marketplace for investors to trade
options on the EEM Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not 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. Additionally, the Exchange provided the
Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed
rule change at least five business days before its filing. Therefore,
the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act \16\ 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,
which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing.
The Exchange believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will allow the Exchange to continue to list options on the EEM Fund.
For this reason, the Commission designates that the proposed rule
change has become effective and operative immediately.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-66. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-66 and should be
submitted on or before September 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).\

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19943 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21601-21602]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0606; Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Warsaw, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Warsaw, MO.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Warsaw Municipal
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 8, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the Warsaw, MO, area, creating controlled airspace at Warsaw Municipal
Airport (79 FR 1346) Docket No. FAA-2013-0606. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Warsaw Municipal Airport,
Warsaw, MO, for new standard instrument approach procedures developed
at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Warsaw Municipal Airport,
Warsaw, MO.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace
action is not expected to cause any potentially significant
environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that
warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Warsaw, MO [New]

Warsaw Municipal Airport, MO
    (Lat. 38[deg]20'52'' N., long. 93[deg]20'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Warsaw Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-08692 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 65395-65396]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0135]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for extension of a currently approved collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, by any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Docket Management System.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U. S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am
and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Docket: For
access to the docket to read background documents or comments received,
go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground
level of the DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mr. Hisham
Mohamed, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room
 W43-437, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify the relevant
collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information.

    The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: 49 CFR 575.104; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0519.
    Affected Public: All passenger car tire manufacturers and brand
name owners offering passenger car tires for sale in the United States.
    Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
    Abstract: Part 575 requires tire manufacturers and tire brand
owners to submit reports to NHTSA regarding the UTQGS grades of all
passenger car tire lines they offer for sale in the United States. This
information is used by consumers of passenger car tires to compare tire
quality in making their purchase decisions. The information is provided
in several different ways to insure that the consumer can readily see
and understand the tire grade: (1) The grades are molded into the
sidewall of the tire so that they can be reviewed on both the new tire
and the old tire that is being replaced; (2) a paper label is affixed
to the tread face of the new tire that provides the grade of that
particular tire line along with an explanation of the grading system;
(3) tire manufacturers provide dealers with brochures for public
distribution listing the grades of all of the tirelines they offer for
sale; and (4) NHTSA compiles the grading information of all
manufacturers' tirelines into a booklet that is available to the public
both in printed form and on the Web site.
    Estimated Annual Burden: NHTSA estimates that a total of 88,320
man-hours are required to write the brochures, engrave the new
passenger car tire molds, and affix the paper labels to the tires.
Based on an average hourly rate of $22 per hour for rubber workers in
the United States, the cost to the manufacturers is $1,943,040 to
perform those items listed above. The largest portion of the cost
burden imposed by the UTQGS program arises from the testing necessary
to determine the grades that should be assigned to the tires. An
average of 125 convoys, driven 7,200 miles each, consisting of four
vehicles and four drivers, are run each year for treadwear testing.
NHTSA estimates it cost $0.60 per vehicle mile including salaries,
overhead and reports. This brings the annual treadwear testing cost to
$2,160,000. For the traction testing, it is estimated that 1,750 tires
are tested annually with an estimated cost of $38,500 for use of the
government test facility. Using a factor of 3.5 times to cover salary
and overhead of test contractors, the estimated cost of traction
testing is $134,750. A separate temperature grade testing for tires is
required, since the test is no more an extension of the high speed
performance test of 49 CFR 571.109 which was required for safety
certification. Section 571.109 is replaced by Sec.  571.139, which has
different test speeds. For the temperature testing, it is estimated
that 1,750 tires are tested annually with an estimated average cost per
test of $423. Therefore, the estimated UTQGS temperature annual testing
is $740,250. Thus the total estimated cost for UTQGS testing is
$3,035,000. The cost of printing the tread labels is approximately
$21,340,000 and the estimate for printing brochures is at $999,000.
This yields a total annual financial burden of approximately
$25,374,000 (approximately $25.5 million) on the tire manufacturers.
    Estimated Annual Burden to the Government: The estimated annual
cost of UTQGS to the Federal government is $1,278,000. The cost
consists of approximately $152,000 for data management, $730,000 for
enforcement testing, and about $396,000 for general administration of
the program.
    Number of Respondents: There are approximately 160 individual tire
brands sold in the United States. The actual number of respondents is
much less than 160 due to company acquisitions, mergers, and in most
cases, the manufacturer will report for the various individual brand
names that they produce tires for. The actual number of respondents is
approximately 45 individual responses.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued on: October 19, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-26714 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Final

State Implementation Plan Revision

Visual Inspection Quality Assurance Protocol Revision in the Vehicle
Safety Inspection Program for 42 Counties

March 2009

Bureau of Air Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468

717-787-9495

www.depweb.state.pa.us

Blank page for copying purposes

Background

Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Safety Inspection Program State Implementation
Plan

On December 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (Department) submitted to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
(Commonwealth’s or Pennsylvania’s) enhanced vehicle emission
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and vehicle safety inspection
program.  The December 1, 2003, SIP revision included a requirement for
a visual inspection of pollution control equipment in the vehicle safety
inspection program in the 42 Pennsylvania counties in which an I/M
program is not required.  The SIP submittal included safety inspection
regulations, codified at 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175, and information about
how the Commonwealth will meet federal I/M program requirements
contained in 40 CFR §§ 51.350-51.371.

On October 6, 2005, EPA approved the SIP revision (70 FR 58313).  The
approved SIP revisions are codified in 52 CFR §2020 (relating to
identification of plan).

Effectiveness of the Anti-Tampering Pilot Program

Pennsylvania safety inspection regulations require, in 67 Pa. Code
§175.80(d) (relating to inspection procedure), that in the 42 counties
in which there is not an emission inspection program (non-I/M counties),
vehicles must be visually checked to ensure that the following emission
control components are not the wrong type for the certified vehicle
configuration and have not been removed or disconnected:

Catalytic converter

Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve

Positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve

Fuel inlet restrictor

Air pump

Evaporative control system components

The visual inspection is also referred to as the anti-tampering program
(ATP).  The current quality assurance program for the safety
inspections, as it relates to administrative audits of approximately
5,200 safety inspection garages in the 42 non-I/M counties, has
experienced significant operational inefficiencies because of the
frequent need to return to the inspection stations to achieve full
compliance with the following terms of the December 1, 2003 SIP that
reads:

“As part of the audit of the 42 Non-I/M County Program, a vehicle on
the station’s premises which has a safety inspection sticker
indicating that it has passed a safety inspection administered by the
station within the immediately preceding two business days shall be
re-inspected by station personnel in the presence of the personnel
performing the audit to determine whether the vehicle properly passed
the anti-tampering program/visual inspection (ATP) portion of the safety
inspection.  In the event it is determined that a vehicle improperly
passed the ATP portion, in addition to any other sanction available by
law, if the station remains in operation, it shall be revisited
unannounced at least once within the three months following the initial
audit and again within the next three-month period to ascertain
compliance with ATP inspection requirements.  If there is no vehicle
available for re-inspection at the time of the audit, the station shall
be revisited unannounced within 30 days.  The Commonwealth also will
implement a records audit that includes the calculation of failure rates
for ATP inspection components for each inspection station.  The
Commonwealth shall compare these failure rates to rates in areas
conducting both ATP and I/M inspections and, as necessary, will respond
to significant differences in failure rates with adjustments to the
audit process and/or training, as appropriate.”

In fiscal year (FY) 2005/2006, 4,662 administrative audits were
conducted with 2,014 (44%) having a vehicle to re-inspect in conformance
with the criteria outlined above.  Because of the absence of a recently
inspected vehicle (namely, a vehicle inspected within the preceding two
business days) on the premises of the station being audited, it was
necessary to re-visit 2,648 (56%) of the stations to attempt to verify
compliance with the ATP inspection protocol.  During the 2,648 re-visits
conducted in FY 2005/2006, there were vehicles available for
re-inspection at only 450 (17%) stations.

In FY 2006/2007, there were 5,043 administrative audits conducted with
2,937 (58%) having vehicles present to re-inspect to verify compliance.
For all re-inspections performed in FY 2005/2006 and FY 2006/2007, there
were no measurable ATP inspection failures detected.

In an effort to increase the number of vehicles observed and reduce cost
and wasted effort, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) instituted a pilot program in which quality assurance staff
checked two vehicles at those garages that had vehicles present at the
time of their visit and examined vehicles that had been inspected in the
preceding five business days rather than in the preceding two business
days.  The pilot procedure, evaluated between March 1, 2007 and June 30,
2007, was conducted as follows:

A vehicle on the station’s premise which had a safety inspection
sticker indicating that it had passed a safety inspection administered
by the station within the preceding five business day was re-inspected
by station personnel in the presence of the PennDOT Quality Assurance
Officer to determine whether the vehicle properly passed the
anti-tampering portion of the safety inspection.  Extending the
“preceding business days” from two to five enabled PennDOT staff to
see more vehicles without having to revisit stations.  The alternate
method piloted resulted in substantial reduced mileage and fuel costs by
eliminating revisits, while increasing the number of stations
PennDOT’s Quality Assurance Officers were able to visit.  This method
of verifying anti-tampering results will more efficiently utilize
PennDOT’s Quality Assurance Staff and permit more targeted station
visits if necessary.

 	During the 120-day pilot program, PennDOT conducted 1,956
administrative audits with 1,677 (85%) stations having a vehicle to
re-inspect according to the pilot program criteria outlined above.  By
continuing to use the above criteria, PennDOT staff will be able to
visit every station at least once a year and see more vehicles for the
purpose of auditing anti-tampering results.  During this pilot program,
staff drove 20,000 fewer miles than in the same time frame from the
previous year.  This will result in substantial fuel cost savings each
year and permit more effective use of quality assurance personnel.

 	The analysis of the pilot program results shows that the required
objective of ensuring that inspection stations are correctly conducting
anti-tampering inspections will be achieved in a more efficient and cost
effective manner and will strengthen the Commonwealth’s I/M SIP.

C.	The Program Changes

	The Commonwealth proposes to revise the Quality Assurance section in
the

December 1, 2003 SIP revision (pp. 23-24) for the non-I/M counties as
follows.

§ 51.363	Quality Assurance

	There are no quality assurance changes to the 1996 I/M SIP with respect
to the I/M program.

The Commonwealth’s Quality Assurance program is comprised of both
internal PennDOT personnel and external personnel.  PennDOT’s Vehicle
Inspection Division oversees the 42 Non-I/M County Program.  The
description of the staff is contained in the 1996 I/M SIP.  In addition,
through the contract with the I/M Program Manager, the contractor
provides oversight for the safety inspection program in the 25 I/M
counties.  Both PennDOT staff and the Contractor perform, at least once
per year, safety audits of each safety inspection station in accordance
with established protocol for the audit of stations performing vehicle
safety inspections pursuant to 67 Pa. Code, Chapter 175.  As part of the
audit of the 42 Non-I/M County Program, a vehicle on the station’s
premises which has a safety inspection sticker indicating that it has
passed a safety inspection administered by the station within the
immediately preceding two FIVE business days shall be re-inspected by
station personnel in the presence of the personnel performing the audit
to determine whether the vehicle properly passed the anti-tampering
program/visual inspection (ATP) portion of the safety inspection.  In
the event it is determined that a vehicle improperly passed the ATP
portion, in addition to any other sanction available by law, if the
station remains in operation, it shall be revisited unannounced at least
once within the three months following the initial audit and again
within the next three- month period to ascertain compliance with ATP
inspection requirements.  If there is no vehicle available for
re-inspection at the time of any audit, the station shall be revisited
unannounced within 30 days.  The Commonwealth also will implement a
records audit that includes the calculation of failure rates for ATP
inspection components for each inspection station.  The Commonwealth
shall compare these failure rates to rates in areas conducting both ATP
and I/M inspections and, as necessary, will respond to significant
differences in failure rates with adjustments to the audit process
and/or training, as appropriate.

D. Public Participation

	Requirements for a public comment process are set forth in Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR Section 51.102(d).  A public hearing on
the proposed revisions to the quality assurance program was held on
Thursday, March 19, 2009.  Notice of the hearing was published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing.
 No public comment was received.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6

John Hanger

Secretary

Edward G. Rendell

Governor


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45197-45198]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1031]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Food and Drug Administration Recall Regulations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on FDA recalls for human drugs,
biological products, devices, animal drugs, food, cosmetics, and
tobacco.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology. FDA Recall
Regulation--21 CFR Part 7 (OMB Control Number 0910-0249)--Extension
    Section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through
the FDA, with the responsibility of assuring recalls (21 U.S.C. 371,
Regulations and hearings, and 21 CFR Part 7, Enforcement Policy,
Subpart C, Recalls (Including Product Corrections)--Guidance on Policy,
Procedures, and Industry Responsibilities) which pertain to the recall
regulations and provide guidance to manufacturers on recall
responsibilities. The guidelines apply to all FDA-regulated products
(i.e., food, including animal feed; drugs, including animal drugs;
medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic products; cosmetics;
biological products intended for human use; and tobacco). These
responsibilities include providing FDA with complete details of the
recall including reason(s) for the removal or correction, risk
evaluation, quantity produced, distribution information, the firm's
recall strategy, a copy of any recall communication(s), and a contact
official (Sec.  7.46); notifying direct accounts of the recall,
providing guidance regarding further distribution, giving instructions
as to what to do with the product, providing recipients with a ready
means of reporting to the recalling firm (Sec.  7.49); and submitting
periodic status reports so that FDA may assess the progress of the
recall. Status report information may be determined by, among other
things, evaluation return reply cards, effectiveness checks and product
returns (Sec.  7.53); and providing the opportunity for a firm to
request in writing that FDA terminate the recall (Sec.  7.55(b)).
    A search of FDA's database was performed to determine the number of
recalls that took place during fiscal years 2011 to 2013. The resulting
number of total recalls (11,403) from this database search were then
averaged over the 3 years, and the resulting per year average of
recalls (3,801) are used in estimating the current annual reporting
burden for this report. The resulting number of total terminations
(11,403 from this database search were then averaged over the 3 years,
and the resulting per year average of terminations (3,801 are used in
estimating the current annual reporting burden for this report.
    FDA estimates the total annual industry burden to collect and
provide the previous information to be 627,165 burden hours.
    The following is a summary of the estimated annual burden hours for
recalling firms (manufacturers, processors, and distributors) to comply
with the voluntary reporting requirements of FDA's recall regulations.
Recognizing that there may be a vast difference in the information
collection and reporting time involved in different recalls of FDA's
regulated products.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
             Recall                  Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm Initiated Recall (21 CFR              3,801               1           3,801              25          95,025
 7.46) and Recall Communications
 (21 CFR 7.49)..................
Recall Status Reports (21 CFR              3,801              13          49,413              10         494,130
 7.53)..........................
Termination of a Recall (21 CFR            3,801               1           3,801              10          38,010
 7.55(b)).......................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         627,165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

I. Total Annual Reporting

A. Firm Initiated Recall and Recall Communications

    Request firms voluntarily remove or correct foods and drugs (human
or animal), cosmetics, medical devices, biologics, and tobacco to
immediately notify the appropriate FDA District Office of such actions.
The firm is to provide complete details of the recall reason, risk
evaluation, quantity produced, distribution information, firms' recall
strategy and a contact official as well as requires firms to notify
their direct accounts of the recall and to provide recipients with a
ready means of reporting to the recalling firm. Under these portions of
the collection of information, the Agency estimates it will receive
3,801 responses annually based on the average number of recalls over
the last 3 fiscal years. The number of responses multiplied by the
number of respondents equal 3,801. The average burden hours of 25
multiplied by the total number of annual responses equal 95,025. The
average burden hour person response was 30 and has decreased by 5.

B. Recall Status Reports

    Request that recalling firms provide periodic status reports so FDA
can ascertain the progress of the recall. This request only applies to
firms with active recalls, and is estimated to be reported every 2 to 4
weeks. This collection of information will generate approximately 3,801
responses annually, based on the average number of recalls over the
last 3 fiscal years 11,403. The number of respondents multiplied by the
number of responses per respondents (13) equal a total number of annual
responses of 49,413. The total number of responses 49,413 with an
average burden hours of 10 per response equal a total of 494,130 total
hours.

C. Termination of a Recall

    Provide the firms an opportunity to request in writing that FDA end
the recall. The Agency estimates it will receive 3,801 responses
annually based on the average number of terminations over the past 3
fiscal years. The total annual responses of 3,801 multiplied by the
average burden hours of 10 per response equal a total number of hours
of 38,010.

II. Hours per Response Estimates

    FDA has no information which would allow it to make a calculated
estimate on the hours per response burden to FDA regulated firms to
conduct recalls. Variables in the type of products, the quantity and
level of distribution and the various circumstances of recall
notifications could cause the hours per response to vary significantly.
The best guesstimate of average burden hours per response from previous
information collection request reports are utilized again for the
current estimates on burden hours per response.

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-18322 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

          stratospheric ozone protection program	class i controlled substance

pre-2005 methyl bromide stocks report

(Sec 82.13)

NOTE: FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY ANY COMPANY THAT EITHER A) RECEIVED A CRITICAL STOCK ALLOWANCE, OR B) BOUGHT A CRITICAL USE ALLOWANCE, OR C) OWNS STOCKS OF METHYL BROMIDE THAT WERE PRODUCED OR IMPORTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2005.

SECTION 1    COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

	1.1 Date of Submission	  FORMTEXT        	1.2 Year to which this Report Applies	Year   FORMTEXT

1.3    FORMCHECKBOX  Original Submittal    FORMCHECKBOX   Re-submittal

1.4 Quarterly or Annual Submittal 	  FORMCHECKBOX   1st	  FORMCHECKBOX   2nd	  FORMCHECKBOX   3rd	  FORMCHECKBOX   4th	  FORMCHECKBOX   Annual

1.5 Company Information

Company Name    FORMTEXT

Street Address   FORMTEXT

City    FORMTEXT           	State    FORMTEXT        	Zip Code    FORMTEXT

1.6 Company Contact Identification

Reporting Company Contact Person

  FORMTEXT

	Phone Number    FORMTEXT        	Fax Number    FORMTEXT

E-mail Address    FORMTEXT

1.7 Company Type

(check all that apply) 	Distributor   FORMCHECKBOX   	Third Party Applicator   FORMCHECKBOX   	Producer   FORMCHECKBOX  	Importer   FORMCHECKBOX

1.8 Signature of Reporting Company Representative

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.  I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

Name    FORMTEXT

Title    FORMTEXT

Signature     FORMTEXT

Date   FORMTEXT

SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:	For U.S. Postal Service:

Tracking System Program Manager

Stratospheric Protection Division

U.S. EPA (6205J)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20460	For Private Courier:

Tracking System Program Manager

Stratospheric Protection Division

U.S. EPA (6205J)

1310 L Street, NW;  10th Floor

Washington, DC  20005

Information in reports submitted in compliance with the final rule may be claimed as confidential.  A company may assert a claim of confidentiality for information submitted by clearly marking that information as confidential.  Such information shall be treated in accordance with EPA’s procedures for information claimed as confidential at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, and will only be disclosed by the means set forth in the subpart.  If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the report when it is received by EPA, it may be made public without further notice to the company (40 CFR 2.203).

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

stratospheric ozone protection program	class i controlled substance

pre-2005 methyl bromide stocks report

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

,

愀Ĥ摧ᥜ/

Ȁn

~

‚

„

¢

¤

ª

¬

¾

À

Â

Æ

È

Ê

À

Â

-

6

:

<

P

R

T

^

`

b

d

‚

„

˜

š

œ

¦

jí

-

b

d

ª

kd]

摧ᥜ/Ԁ¦

¨

ª

¬

¸

º

Î

Ð

Ò

Ü

Þ

ä

æ

ô

ö

\

 hZ

 hZ

摧ⷮÑ

Æ

  hh

h

J

\

h

h

h

h

h

h

%

&

             kg    Owned by reporting company for year to date (as end of the control period) (including all quantities owned by reporting company that are held by other suppliers on the reporting company’s behalf, but not quantities sold to end-users)

Company Holding Methyl Bromide on Behalf of Owner	Amount Held (kg)

	** These quantities of stocks refer only to amounts of methyl bromide that were processed or imported before January 1, 2005.  Any quantities of newly produced critical use methyl bromide left in the reporting company’s possession as of December 31 of the year should be reported on form “Sales of Critical Use Methyl Bromide,” section 2.4.

%

&

h

                                                                                OMB Control Number: 2060-0482

                                                                                Expiration Date: 8/31/11

EPA Form # 5900-142, Revised 6/08


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61135]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25414]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Theodore Francis Green Airport,
Warwick, RI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
Record of Decision (ROD), resulting from an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) has been prepared for Theodore Francis Green Airport,
in Warwick, Rhode Island.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Environmental
Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration New England, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is making available a ROD regarding
installation of runway safety areas, other safety improvements, a
runway extension, and other efficiency improvements at Theodore Francis
Green Airport, in Warwick, Rhode Island. The ROD documents the final
Agency decisions regarding the proposed projects as described and
analyzed in the EIS. The ROD is available for review during normal
business hours at the following locations: FAA New England Region,
Airports Division, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts<PHONE_NUMBER>, Theodore Francis Green Airport, 2000 Post
Rd, Warwick, Rhode Island, and at public libraries in Warwick and
Cranston, Rhode Island.

    Issued on: September 23, 2011.
Bryon H. Rakoff,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-25414 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 48208-48209]
[DOCID:fr18au08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-1-010]

Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Motion To Vacate
Certificate in Part

August 11, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2008, Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT), 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in
Docket No. CP06-1-010, a motion to vacate the certificate authority
granted on June 15, 2006, in Docket No. CP06-1-000, to construct, own,
and operate FGT's Phase VII Expansion Project facilities. FGT states
that the planned construction of two 36-inch diameter pipeline loops
totaling 15.3 miles in Levy and Hernando Counties, Florida, the
rewheeling two existing compressor units at FGT's Station 27 in
Hillsborough County, Florida, and the addition of appurtenant
facilities, are no longer necessary due to a customer's decision to
terminate its service commitment. FGT seeks to vacate the portion of
its certificate that authorizes these facilities.
    The motion is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. This motion is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Frazier King or Dawn McGuire, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT),
5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
FGT's request. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to this proceeding should, on or before the comment
date listed below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by

the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of this filing and all subsequent filings made with
the Commission and must mail a copy of all filings to the applicant and
to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding
can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to FGT's request.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this
project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties
directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only in support of or in opposition to
FGT's request should submit an original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the
non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by
other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right
to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: September 1, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19004 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P