Systemic toxicity NOAEL = 54.5 mg/kg/day M; 58.7
mg/kg/day F
Systemic LOAEL = 601 mg/kg/day M; 631 mg/kg/day F
based on decreased body weight gain and microscopic
lesions in the liver (hepatocellular hypertrophy), kidney
(tubular casts) and thyroid gland (follicular cell
hypertrophy)
870.5100
Gene Mutation -
Bacteria
43709037 (1990)
Acceptable/Guideline
In a reverse gene mutation assay with Salmonella
typhimurium/Escherichia coli, cyprodinil was negative up to
concentrations (
≥
1250  g/plate +/-S9) that produced
reproducible cytotoxicity for the majority of strains.
Compound insolubility was reported at
≥
313  g/plate.
870.5300
Gene Mutation -
In vitro mammalian
cell
43709036 (1990)
Acceptable/Guideline
In a Chinese hamster V79 cell HGPRT forward gene
mutation assay, cyprodinil was negative up to cytotoxic
concentrations (
≥
96.0  g/mL with S9) (
≥
24  g/mL without
S9).
870.5375
Cytogenetics/
In vitro
Chromosomal
Aberration
43709038 (1991)
Acceptable/Guideline
In an in vitro assay for chromosome aberrations in Chinese
hamster ovary (CHO) cells, cyprodinil gave negative results
up to cytotoxic concentrations (
≥
50  g/mL without S9, 18-
or 42-hour cell harvest or
≥
25  g/mL with S9, 18- hour cell
harvest) or to the highest sub-cytotoxic concentration (50
μg/mLwith S9, 42-hour cell harvest).
870.5395
Cytogenetics/
In vivo bone marrow
43709039 (1990)
Acceptable/Guideline
In an in vivo bone marrow micronucleus assay, cyprodinil
was negative when administered orally (gavage) at 5000
mg/kg (HDT) to both sexes of Tif:MAGF mice.  No signs of

Page 27 of 38
Table 2..  Toxicity Profile of Cyprodinil Technical.
Guideline No./
Study Type
MRID No. (year)/
Classification /Doses
Results
micronucleus
overt toxicity or clear evidence of cytotoxicity for the target
organ were noted at any dose or sacrifice time.
870.5550
UDS
43709035 (1991)
Acceptable/Guideline
In an UDS assay in primary rat hepatocytes, cyprodinil was
negative up to a cytotoxic concentration (80  g/mL)
870.7485
Metabolism and
pharmacokinetics
43709040 (1992)
Acceptable/Guideline
Single oral doses (0.5 or 100 mg/kg bw) of phenyl or
pyrimidyl-radiolabelled CGA 219417 (purity
≥
98%) were
administered to Tif:RAIf(SPF) rats, with one low-dose
group receiving unlabelled CGA 219417 (purity
≥
99%) for
2 weeks prior to treatment with radiolabelled compound.
Absorption was very rapid (t
cmax
= 0.3 hours) with rapid
clearance (t
cmax/2
=1.2 hours).  A minimum of 75% of the
administered dose was absorbed.  Excretion was rapid and
almost complete, with urine as the principle route of
excretion (48-68%), and >90% of the administered dose
detected in the urine and feces within 48 hours.  Excretion,
distribution and metabolite profiles were essentially
independent of dose level, pretreatment, and type of label,
although there were some quantitative differences sex-
dependent qualitative differences in two urinary metabolite
fractions.
870.7485
Metabolism and
pharmacokinetics
43709041 (1992)
Acceptable/guideline
Must be considered with MRID 43709040.
Excreta (Group D1 and D2) and bile (Group G1) from
radiolabelled CGA 219417-treated Tif:RAIf(SPF) rats of a
previous ADME study (MRID 43709040) were used to
characterize, isolate and identify CGA 219417 metabolites
(MRID 43709041).  Eleven metabolites were isolated from
urine, feces and bile, and the metabolic pathways in the rat
were proposed.  All urinary and biliary metabolites (with the
exception of 7U) were conjugated with glucuronic acid or
sulfonated, and excreted.  CGA 219417 was almost
completely metabolized by hydroxylation of the phenyl ring
(position 4) or pyrimidine ring (position 5), followed by
conjugation.  An alternative pathway involved oxidation of
the phenyl ring followed by glucuronic acid conjugation.  A
quantitative sex difference was observed with respect to
sulfonation of the major metabolite that formed 6U.  The
monosulfate metabolite (1U) was predominant in females,
whereas equal amounts of mono- and disulfate (6U)
conjugates were noted in males.  Most of the significant
metabolites in feces were exocons of biliary metabolites
(2U, 3U, 1G).  These were assumed to be deconjugated in
the intestines, partially reabsorbed into the general
circulation, conjugated again, and eliminated renally.  The
major metabolic pathways of CGA 219417 were not
significantly influenced by the dose, treatment regimen, or

Page 28 of 38
Table 2..  Toxicity Profile of Cyprodinil Technical.
Guideline No./
Study Type
MRID No. (year)/
Classification /Doses
Results
sex of the animal.
870.7600
Dermal Absorption
(rat)
45906102 (1999)
In review
6 µg/cm or 870 µg/cm
2
2
In a dermal absorption study with CGA 219417 formulated
as SWITCH 62.5 WG in the rat, the maximum systemic
absorption was 21.71% (at 24 hours).  An additional 12% of
the applied dose (that is potentially available for absorption)
remained on the treated skin at 24 hours.

Page 29 of 38
B.
STUDIES REVIEWED FOR ETHICAL CONDUCT
The PHED Task Force, 1995.  The Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database, Version 1.1.  Task
Force members Health Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National
Agricultural Chemicals Association, released February, 1995.
Agricultural Re-entry Task Force (ARTF) data base (SOP #3.1)

Page 30 of 38
B.
ADDITIONAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES
Dermal Toxicity – Rat (MRID 43709029)
The HIARC downgraded the 28-day dermal-toxicity study in the rat (MRID 43709029)
to Unacceptable/Guideline and recommended the submission of an acceptable 28-day dermal-
toxicity study.  This study was reclassified as Unacceptable by the July 9, 2002 HIARC because:
1) Cyprodinil has marginal toxicity via the dermal route (LD
50
>2000 mg/kg); 2) The chemical
structure does not suggest dermal absorption; 3) There is no pattern of toxicity that is consistent
with the other toxicity studies.  For example, there is a questionable sex specificity (i.e., a 40-
fold difference was noted between the original LOAEL for females (25 mg/kg/day) and males
(1000 mg/kg/day) that has not been observed in acute, subchronic or chronic studies in rat, rabbit
or dog test species.  Similarly, clinical signs used to set the LOAEL for females (piloerection
and/or hunched posture) are suggestive of a neurotoxic effect.  However, there is no evidence of
neurotoxicity in repeated dose studies throughout the cyprodinil database.  The HIARC also
recommended that the LOAEL/NOAEL for females be increased to 125/25 mg/kg/day based on
both hunched posture and piloerection due to the questionable biological significance of the
piloerection seen in females at 25 mg/kg/day in the absence of other signs at the same dose level
in this study.  Based on all these considerations, HIARC concluded that there was a lack
confidence in this study.
Subchronic Oral Toxicity – Rat (MRID 43866301)
In a range finding subchronic toxicity study (MRID 43866301), CGA-219417
(cyprodinil; >95% ai; Batch No. HE 15083) was administered in the diet to Tif:RAIf(SPF)
albino rats, 5 rats/sex/dose level at 0, 100, 600, 3000 or 15000 ppm (males - 0, 10.3, 64.8, 316 or
1460 mg/kg/day; females - 0, 10.1, 62.2, 299 or 1390 mg/kg/day) for 28 days. There was no
effect on mortality and no clinical signs of toxicity. Treatment-related effects included lower
body weight gains in 15000 ppm males (30 %) and slight decreases in 3000 (9%) and 15000 ppm
(10%) females; decreased food consumption in high-dose animals (8-15% lower); decreased
water consumption (10-40 % depending on week), decreased erythrocyte, haemoglobin, and
haematocrit levels, and significantly increased cholesterol and phospholipid levels in 3000 and
15000 ppm animals; increased absolute and relative liver weights in 3000 and 15000 ppm
females; microcytosis, hepatocyte hypertrophy and thyroid follicular hypertrophy in 3000 and
15000 ppm males, hypochromasia in 15000 ppm males, and glycogen depletion in 15000 ppm
males and
females. The slight increases in platelets, cholesterol and phospholipid levels at 600 ppm
were not considered to be adverse in this study, as there were no associated histopathological
findings at this dose. The LOAEL is 3000 ppm (316 and 299 mg/kg/day for males and females,
respectively) based on lower body weight gains, microcytosis, increased cholesterol and
phospholipid levels and hepatocyte hypertrophy. The NOAEL is 600 ppm (64.8 and 62.2
mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).

Page 31 of 38
Subchronic Feeding Study – Dog (MRID 43709028)
A 3-month study was carried out in Beagle dogs where animals (4/sex/dose) were fed
diets containing 0,200! 1500,  7000 or 20000 ppm (actual concentrations: males - 0, 6.07, 45.87,
210.33 or 559.66 mg/kg/day; females- 0, 6.79, 52.75, 231.93 or 580.95 mg/kgfday) CGA
219417.
There was no effect on mortality, or clinical chemistry parameters. Vomiting was observed in all
high-dose females during the first week of treatment, and an increase in mean platelet count was
noted in high-dose females at weeks 7 and 13. Lower bodyweight gains (64-76%) and decreased
food consumption were apparent in high-dose males and females throughout the study period.
There was a transient decrease in bodyweight gain and food consumption in 7000 ppm females,
which was noted after the first week of treatment only, and this was considered non-adverse. The
LOAEL is 20,000 ppm (males -560, females -581 mg/kg/day) based on lower bodyweight gains
and decreased food consumption in both sexes. The NOAEL is 7000 ppm (males -210, females -
232 mg/kg/day).
Subchronic Feeding Study – Mice  (MRID 43709027)
A 3-month study (MRID 43709027) was carried out in Tif:MAGf(SPF) albino mice where
animais (10 mice/sex/dose) were fed diets containing 0, 500,2000 or 6000 ppm (actual
concentrations: males - 0, 73.3, 257 or 849 mg/kg/day; females -0, 103, 349 or 1121 mg/g’day)
of CGA 2i19417 technical (99.5% a.i., Batch No- P 912004).  There was no effect on mortality,
or haematology parameters, and no clinical sighs of toxicity. Treatment-related effects included
increased absolute and relative liver weights (112-118 %) in 6000 ppm males, and hepatic
changes in mid- and high dose males and females that consisted of multifocal hepatocyte
necrosis in 2000 and 6000 ppm males (30 % as compared to 0 in the control and low dose
groups) and glycogen depletion in 2000 and 6000 ppm females (10, 10, 70 and 100% from
controls to high dose). The LOAEL is 2000 ppm based on histopathological changes in the liver.
The NOAEL is 500 ppm (malts - 73.3; females - 103 mg/kg/day).
Carcinogenicity Study in Mice (MRID 43709031)
An 18-month oncogenicity study was carried out in Tif:MAGf(SPF)
albino mice where animals (50 mice/sex/dose - carcinogenicity portion, plus 10/sex/dose -
hematology) were fed diets containing 0, 10, 150, 2000 or 5000 ppm (actual concentrations:
males - 0, 1.15, 16.1, 212.4 or 630; females - 0, 1.08, 14.7, 196.3 or 558.1 mg/kg/day) of
CGA 219417 (99.0-99.5% a.i., Batch No. P 912006). There was no effect on mortality, or
hematology parameters, and no clinical signs of toxicity. Treatment-related effects included
lower body weight and body weight gain (males - 10%, females - 27%) at 5000 ppm,
reduced food efficiency and increased relative liver weights (16%) in high-dose males and
females, and a dose-related increase in minimal to marked pancreatic acinar cell hyperplasia
in 2000 and 5000 ppm males (8, 8, 10, 16, 28% incidence, from control to high dose). The

Page 32 of 38
LOAEL was 2000 ppm (males - 212.4 mg/kg/day) based on a dose-related increase in the
incidence of focal and multifocal hyperplasia of the exocrine pancreas in males. The
NOAEL was 150 ppm (males - 16.1 mg/kg/day). This study was tested to adequate levels
based on signs of toxicity in males at 2000 ppm and females at 5000 ppm.
Mutagenicity
(i) Gene Mutation
In a reverse gene mutation assay with Salmonella typhimurium/Escherichia coli,
cyprodinil was negative up to concentrations ($1250 :g/plate +/-S9) that produced reproducible
cytotoxicity for the majority of strains. Compound insolubility was reported at $313
:g/plate (MRID No. 43709037).
In a Chinese hamster V79 cell HGPRT forward gene mutation assay, cyprodinil was
negative up to cytotoxic concentrations (MRID No. 43709036).
(ii). Chromosome Aberrations
In an in vitro assay for chromosome aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells,
cyprodinil gave negative results up to cytotoxic concentrations) (MRID No.
43709038).
In an in vivo bone marrow micronucleus assay, cyprodinil was negative when
administered orally (gavage) at 5000 mg/kg (HDT) to both sexes of Tif:MAGF mice. No signs
of overt toxicity or clear evidence of cytotoxicity for the target organ were noted at any dose or
sacrifice time (MRID No. 43709039).
(iii) Other Mutagenic Mechanisms
In an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in primary rat hepatocytes, cyprodinil was
negative up to a cytotoxic concentration (80 :g/mL) (MRID No. 43709035).

D.
METABOLIC PROFILE
Chemical Name/Code
Chemical Structure
Cyprodinil (CGA-219417)
4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine
N
N
CH
3
N
H
CGA-232449
6-cyclopropyl-2-(phenylamino)-4-
pyrimidinemethanol
N
N
OH
N
H
CGA-304075
4-[(4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino]-phenol
N
N
CH
3
N
H
O
H
CGA-304076
N
N
N
H
CH
3
OH
NOA-413167
N
N
N
H
OH
CH
3
Page 33 of 38

Page 34 of 38
Chemical Name/Code
Chemical Structure
CGA-249287
4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-pyrimidinamine
N
N
CH
3
N
H
2
NOA-422054
4-cyclopropyl-6-hydroxymethyl-2-pyrimidinamine
N
N
OH
N
H
2
CGA-263208
phenylguanidine
N
H
NH
NH
2

E.
TOXICITY STUDY REFERENCES
82-1       Subchronic Oral Toxicity: 90-Day Study
MRID
Citation Reference
43709026
Frankhauser, H. (1991) CGA-219417 Technical: 3-Month Oral Toxicity Study in Rats
(Administration in Food): Amended: Lab Project Number: 891321. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 436 p.
43709027
Frankhauser, H. (1991) CGA-219417 Technical: 3-Month Range Finding Toxicity Study
in Mice: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 891320. Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 219 p.
43709028
Altmann, B. (1991) CGA-219417 Technical: 3-Month Subchronic Oral Toxicity Study in
Beagle Dogs: Amended (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 891323. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 323 p.
43737601
Frankhauser, H. (1991) CGA-219417 Technical: 28-Day Oral Cumulative Toxicity Study
in Rats: Amended (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 891322. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 264 p.
43866301
Bachman, M. (1989) CGA-219417: 28-Days Range Finding Study in Rats:
(Administration in Food): Lab Project Number: 891050. Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 263 p.
45614706
Altmann, B. (2002) 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rat (Administration in Food): CA1139
A: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 20013024: 2692-01. Unpublished study prepared
by RCC Ltd. 599 p. {OPPTS 870.3100}


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13839-13840]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2320]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and

where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2320, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Broadwater County, Montana and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-08-0001S Preliminary Date: October 14, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Broadwater       Broadwater County Courthouse,
 County.                                  515 Broadway Street, Townsend,
                                          MT 59644.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hamlin County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 20-08-0002S Preliminary Date: November 11, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Castlewood.....................  City Hall, 204 East Main
                                          Street, Castlewood, SD 57223.
City of Estelline......................  City Office, 117 North Main
                                          Street, Estelline, SD 57234.
City of Lake Norden....................  City Office, 508 Main Avenue,
                                          Lake Norden, SD 57248.
Unincorporated Areas of Hamlin County..  Hamlin County Courthouse, 300
                                          4th Street, Hayti, SD 57241.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-04527 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17217-17219]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08207]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85689; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Program Related to BZX Rule 11.18, Trading Halts Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility, to the Close of Business on October
18, 2019

April 18, 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 April 12, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to extend the pilot program related to BZX Rule
11.18, Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility, to the
close of business on October 18, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), 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
    BZX Rules 11.18(a) through (d), (f) and (g) describe the
methodology for determining when to halt trading in all stocks due to
extraordinary market volatility, i.e., market-wide circuit breakers.
The market-wide circuit breaker mechanism was approved by the
Commission to operate on a pilot basis, the term of which is to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan'' or ``Plan''),\5\ including any extensions to the pilot period
for the Plan. The Commission published an amendment to the LULD Plan
for it to operate on a permanent, rather than

pilot, basis on December 18, 2018,\6\ and the Commission approved that
amendment on April 11, 2019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84843 (December 18,
2018), 83 FR 66464 (December 26, 2018) (Amendment No. 18 Proposing
Release).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2018) (Federal Register publication pending) (Amendment No. 18
Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market-wide circuit breakers provide an important, automatic
mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and investor confidence
during a period of significant stress when securities markets
experience extreme broad-based declines. All U.S. equities exchanges
have similar rules related to market-wide circuit breakers, which are
designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement through
coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe price
declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity. Market-wide
circuit breakers provide for trading halts in all equities markets
during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day decline in
the S&P 500 Index.
    Pursuant to BZX Rule 11.18, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7%
(Level 1), 13% (Level 2) and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that
triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 circuit breaker after 9:30 a.m. ET and
before 3:25 p.m. ET would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes,
while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt
market-wide trading. A market decline that triggers a Level 3 circuit
breaker, at any time during the trading day, would halt market-wide
trading for the remainder of the trading day. The Exchange proposes to
amend BZX Rule 11.18 to untie the market-wide circuit breaker pilot
program's effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the
pilot's effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2019.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 11.18 such
that the pilot only applies to the provisions of paragraphs (a) through
(d), (f) and (g) of BZX Rule 11.18--i.e., the provisions related to the
market-wide circuit breaker mechanism, and not paragraph (e), which
discusses provisions implementing the LULD Plan.\8\ The Exchange is
required by the LULD Plan to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the
limit up-limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the
Plan. BZX Rule 11.18(e) states that the Exchange is a Participant in
the LULD Plan, and requires that members comply with the provisions of
the Plan. Furthermore, BZX Rule 11.18(e) describes order handling
performed by the Exchange to maintain compliance with the LULD Plan.
Specifically, the rule: (1) Provides that the System shall not display
or execute buy (sell) interest above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price
Bands, unless such interest is specifically exempted under the Plan;
(2) describes how the System re-prices and/or cancels buy (sell)
interest that is priced or could be executed above (below) the Upper
(Lower) Price Band; (3) confirms that the Exchange may declare a
Trading Pause during a Straddle State; and (4) addresses how the
Exchange would re-open a security following a Trading Pause. With the
approval of the LULD Plan to operate on a permanent basis, the Exchange
believes that the provisions of BZX Rule 11.18(e) should similarly be
permanent, thus ensuring continued compliance with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Paragraph (e) of BZX Rule 11.18, which is being made
permanent, is subject to a pilot coterminous with the LULD Plan
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to file a separate proposed rule change with
the Commission to operate the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d),
(f) and (g) of BZX Rule 11.18 on a permanent, rather than pilot, basis.
Extending the effectiveness of such provisions to the close of business
on October 18, 2019 should provide the Commission adequate time to
consider whether to approve the Exchange's separate proposal to operate
the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism on a permanent basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and not to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading in
all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility. The Exchange
believes that extending the market-wide circuit breaker pilot program
for an additional six months would ensure the continued, uninterrupted
operation of a consistent mechanism to halt trading across the U.S.
markets while the Commission considers whether to approve the pilot
program on a permanent basis. The proposed rule change would thus
promote fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors and
the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the
benefits to market participants from the market-wide circuit breaker
mechanism should continue on a pilot basis while the Commission
considers whether to permanently approve those rules.
    The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors to make permanent the order
handling provisions of BZX Rule 11.18. Today, like the market-wide
circuit breaker rules, those rules are operated under a pilot that
coincides with the pilot period for the LULD Plan. Unlike the market-
wide circuit breaker rules, however, these rules directly implement the
requirements of the LULD Plan, including by implementing order handling
that is consistent with the requirements of the Plan. As such, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to make these rules permanent
now that the Plan is no longer operating on a pilot basis. Making these
rules permanent would ensure continued compliance by the Exchange and
its members with the requirements of the LULD Plan as the Plan
transitions to permanent status.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change implicates any competitive issues
because the proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted
operation of a consistent mechanism to halt trading across the U.S.
markets while the Commission considers whether to permanently approve
the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under BZX Rule 11.18. The
Exchange believes that FINRA and other national securities exchange
will also file similar proposals to extend their respective market-wide
circuit breaker pilot programs with the Commission so that the market-
wide circuit breaker mechanism may continue uninterrupted while the
Commission considers whether to approve its operation on a

permanent basis. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would ensure
continued compliance with the requirements of the LULD Plan as it
becomes permanent, which the Exchange believes would not have a
significant impact on competition.

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

    No comments were solicited or received 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)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived this requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange
may implement the proposed rule change immediately. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because the Commission
approved making the Plan pilot permanent on April 11, 2019, and
therefore the Exchange's proposed changes to its rules reflecting that
the Plan is now permanent should go into effect immediately. Therefore,
the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ 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 summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2019-028 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-CboeBZX-2019-028. 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-CboeBZX-2019-028 and should be submitted
on or before May 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08207 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:	"Frey, Nathan J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:	Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:	"Mancini, Dominic J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Laity, Jim" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date:	03/23/2012 08:36 PM

Subject:	Interagency Comments on latest draft of NSPS EGU preamble

Attached are some additional comments for consideration on the executive summary portion of the latest draft of the EGU NSPS preamble.

The intention is to have a short, readable, plain language summary that also includes a brief statement of the relevant legal authority for the rulemaking.

Please call me if first thing Monday if you have any questions.  If you provide a time and number to reach you this weekend I am happy to discuss before hand as well.

Regards,

Nathan


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16752-16753]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69124; File Nos. SR-CBOE-2013-016; SR-ISE-2013-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes To Permit the Minimum
Price Variation for Mini Options To Be the Same as Permitted for
Standard Options on the Same Underlying Security

March 12, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On January 31, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') and on February 6, 2013, International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``ISE,'' and together with CBOE, ``Exchanges'') 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\ proposed rule changes to permit the
minimum price variation for Mini Options to be the same as the minimum
price variation for standard options on the same underlying security.
CBOE's proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2013,\3\ and the Commission received three
comment letters on the proposal.\4\ On March 8, 2013, CBOE submitted a
response letter.\5\ ISE's proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on February 20, 2013,\6\ and the
Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\7\ The
Commission is approving the Exchanges' proposals on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68873 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10671 (``CBOE Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from David Schmueck, Director, Chief Regulatory
Officer, LiquidPoint LLC, dated March 11, 2013 (``LiquidPoint
Letter''); Ellen Greene, Vice President, Financial Services
Operations, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA''), dated March 6, 2013 (``SIFMA Letter''); and Michael L.
Sheedy, dated February 22, 2013 (``Sheedy Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Jenny Golding, Senior Attorney, Legal
Division, CBOE, dated March 8, 2013 (``CBOE Response Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68919 (February 13,
2013), 78 FR 11921 (``ISE Notice'').
    \7\ See letter from Gary J. Sjostedt, Director, Order Routing
Strategy, TD Ameritrade, Inc. (``TD Ameritrade''), dated January 30,
2013 (``TD Ameritrade Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    CBOE and ISE currently have rules that provide for the listing and
trading of options (``Mini Options'') that deliver 10 physical shares
of SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), Apple Inc. (``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust
(``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG''), and Amazon.com, Inc. (``AMZN'').\8\
The Exchanges now propose to amend their rules to provide that the
minimum price variation for bids and offers for Mini Options be the
same as the minimum price variation for standard options on the same
underlying security.\9\ For example, if standard options on a security
participate in the Penny Pilot Program, Mini Options on the same
underlying security would be quoted in the same minimum increments
(i.e., $0.01 for series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract
and $0.05 for series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater, and
$0.01 for all SPY options series). Of the five securities on which Mini
Options are permitted, SPY, AAPL, GLD, and AMZN participate in the
Penny Pilot Program. As proposed, for Mini Options on AAPL, GLD, and
AMZN, the minimum price variation would be $0.01 for quotations in
series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for
quotations in series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater.\10\
For Mini Options on SPY, the minimum price variation would be $0.01 for
all quotations in all series.\11\ Because GOOG does not participate in
the Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for Mini Options
on GOOG would be $0.05 for series that are quoted at less than $3 per
contract and $0.10 for series that are quoted at $3 per contract or
greater.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68656 (January 15,
2013), 78 FR 4526 (January 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-001) (``CBOE Mini
Options Notice'') and 67948 (September 28, 2012), 77 FR 60735
(October 4, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-58) (``ISE Mini Options Order'').
    \9\ See CBOE Rule 5.5, Interpretation and Policy .22(d) and ISE
Rule 504, Supplementary Material .13(d). While the Exchanges propose
these minimum price variations for Mini Options, they are not
proposing to include any Mini Option in the Penny Pilot Program. See
CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at 10672 and ISE Notice, supra note 6, at
11922. As CBOE states, because Mini Options are a separate class
from standard options on the same underlying security, Mini Options
would have to qualify separately for entry into the Penny Pilot
Program, which they do not, at least initially. See CBOE Notice,
supra note 3, at 10672.
    \10\ See CBOE Rule 6.42(3) and ISE Rule 710, Supplementary
Material .01.
    \11\ See CBOE Rule 6.42(3) and ISE Rule 710, Supplementary
Material .01.
    \12\ See CBOE Rules 6.42(1) and (2) and ISE Rule 710(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes filed by the
Exchanges are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\13\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that permitting Mini Options on SPY, AAPL,
GLD, GOOG, and AMZN to have the same minimum price variation as
standard options on the same underlying securities, in the manner
proposed by the Exchanges, is consistent with the Act.\15\ In addition,

the Commission believes that it is important to clearly establish the
minimum price variation for Mini Options prior to the anticipated
commencement of trading on March 18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Mini Options are currently limited to overlie SPY, AAPL,
GLD, GOOG, and AMZN, and any expansion of the Mini Options program
would require that a subsequent proposed rule change be submitted to
the Commission. See CBOE Mini Options Notice, supra note 8, at n.4
and ISE Mini Options Order, supra note 8, at n.12. In addition, the
current proposals are limited to the five approved Mini Options, and
the Exchanges must submit subsequent proposed rule changes to extend
such treatment of minimum price variations to new Mini Options. See
CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters offer strong support for the Exchanges' proposals.\16\
In their letters, SIFMA and LiquidPoint state that they strongly agree
with CBOE's request to mimic the pricing convention of standard options
with mini-option contract pricing and note that they believe it is
appropriate to allow penny-pricing for Mini Options on securities for
which standard options already trade in pennies, specifically SPY,
AAPL, GLD, and AMZN.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4; LiquidPoint Letter, supra
note 4; and TD Ameritrade Letter, supra note 7. In his comment
letter, Sheedy suggested that Mini Options should not be settled by
using a portion of a standard option such that a standard option
would be ``split,'' resulting in a fractional ownership of a
standard option. Sheedy also opined that the option symbols
designating each type of option should be distinct and easily
identifiable in order to minimize inadvertent mistakes in rapidly
changing markets. See Sheedy Letter, supra note 4. In its response
letter, CBOE notes that the deliverable security for standard
options will not be used to settle Mini Options on the same
underlying security. See CBOE Response Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2.
CBOE also reiterates that Mini Options will be designated with
different trading symbols than standard options on the same
underlying security. See id., at 2. Further, CBOE notes that the
industry-wide symbology for Mini Options will be the use of the same
symbol that currently exists for standard options on the same
underlying security, followed by ``7.'' See id.
    \17\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 1-2 and LiquidPoint
Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter, SIFMA notes that given the significant liquidity in
the market for the standard options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN,
``investor confusion could be profound if the standard and mini-options
are not aligned with respect to the minimum price variation.''\18\
LiquidPoint also expressed similar concern in its letter.\19\ Further,
in its letter, TD Ameritrade states that ``[i]nvestor confusion would
invariably result if Mini Options did not retain the important
characteristics, such as the trading increments,'' of the standard
options on the same underlying security.\20\ The Commission believes
that allowing the same minimum price variation for Mini Options as
standard options on the same underlying security should help prevent
investor confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \19\ See LiquidPoint Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \20\ See TD Ameritrade Letter, supra note 7, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maintaining consistency between Mini Options and standard options
as to the minimum price variation may also provide additional market
benefits. In this regard, the Commission notes that, in its proposal,
CBOE states its belief that matched pricing for Mini Options and
standard options on the same underlying security would attract
additional liquidity providers who would make markets in these options
and that the ability to quote Mini Options and standard options on the
same underlying security in the same minimum increments would hopefully
result in more efficient pricing via arbitrage and possible price
improvement in both contracts on the same underlying security.\21\
SIFMA and LiquidPoint also note that penny pricing for Mini Options
``would benefit anticipated users by providing additional price points,
particularly as the product is intended to be an investment tool with
more affordable and realistic prices for the average retail investor.''
\22\ Further, TD Ameritrade states that the proposal will allow market
makers to ``provide better fills to investors by quoting and trading
within a lesser spread than the existing Rule 710 allows.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at 10673.
    \22\ See also SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2 and LiquidPoint
Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \23\ See TD Ameritrade Letter, supra note 7, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed minimum price variation
treatment is also consistent with the current operation of member
firms' systems. Specifically, in its proposal, CBOE states that it has
polled its member firms with customers who would be potential users of
Mini Options, and these firms have indicated a preference that the
premium pricing for Mini Options match what is currently permitted for
standard options on the same underlying securities.\24\ CBOE states
that its firms' systems are configured using the ``root symbol'' of an
underlying security and cannot differentiate, for purposes of minimum
price variations, between contracts on the same underlying
security.\25\ In its letter, SIFMA also notes that its members' systems
are programmed using ``root symbols,'' and would not be able to assign
different minimum price variations to Mini Options and standard options
on the same underlying security.\26\ Further, LiquidPoint notes that
its systems are programmed such that it would be difficult and
confusing to systems users to assign different minimum price variations
to Mini Options and standard options on the same underlying
security.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at 10672.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \27\ See LiquidPoint Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Commission notes that, with respect to the impact of
the proposals on the Exchanges' systems capacity, each of the Exchanges
represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic
associated with this proposal.\28\ The Exchanges state that they do not
believe that the increased traffic will become unmanageable because
Mini Options are limited to a fixed number of underlying
securities.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at 10673 and ISE Notice,
supra note 6, at 11922.
    \29\ See CBOE Notice, supra note 3, at 10673 and ISE Notice,
supra note 6, at 11922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, and in consideration of
the anticipated Mini Options launch date of March 18, 2013, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
\30\ for approving the Exchanges' proposals prior to the 30th day after
the publication of the notices in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-CBOE-2013-016; SR-ISE-2013-
08), be, and hereby are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-06121 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33748]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF14-8-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 21, 2014, the Western Area Power
Administration submitted a tariff filing per 300.10: WAPA-163
WestConnect-20140519 to be effective 6/1/2014, concerning Formula Rates
for Western Transmission Projects to use under the WestConnect Point-
to-Point Regional Transmission Service Participation Agreement.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 20, 2014.

    Dated: June 5, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13697 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4699-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

California; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4699-DR), dated April 3, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 1, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include snow
assistance under the Public Assistance program for the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
April 3, 2023.

    Inyo and Los Angeles Counties for snow assistance under the
Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during
or proximate the incident period (already designated for Public
Assistance).

    San Bernardino County for snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate the incident period (already designated for Individual
Assistance and Public Assistance).
    San Mateo County for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23184 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87829-87830]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 11258/December 13, 2023; Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 99150/December 13, 2023]

Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Budget
and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year 2024

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley
Act''),\1\ established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(``PCAOB'') to oversee the audits of companies that are subject to the
securities laws, and related matters, in order to protect the

interests of investors and further the public interest in the
preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports.
Section 982 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act \2\ amended the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to provide the PCAOB
with explicit authority to oversee auditors of broker-dealers
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''). The PCAOB accomplishes these investor protection and
public interest goals through the registration of public accounting
firms, standard setting, inspections, and investigation and
disciplinary programs. The PCAOB is subject to the comprehensive
oversight of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.
    \2\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides that the PCAOB shall
establish a reasonable annual accounting support fee, as may be
necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain the PCAOB. Under
Section 109(f) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the aggregate annual
accounting support fee shall not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate
``recoverable budget expenses,'' which may include operating, capital,
and accrued items. The PCAOB's annual budget and accounting support fee
are subject to approval by the Commission. In addition, the PCAOB must
allocate the annual accounting support fee among issuers and registered
brokers and dealers.
    Section 109(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the PCAOB to
establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's
internal procedures, subject to approval by the Commission. Rule 190 of
Regulation P (the ``Budget Rule'') governs the Commission's review and
approval of PCAOB budgets and annual accounting support fees.\3\ The
Budget Rule provides, among other things, a timetable for the
preparation and submission of the PCAOB budget and for Commission
actions related to each budget, a description of the information that
should be included in each budget submission, limits on the PCAOB's
ability to incur expenses and obligations except as provided in the
approved budget, procedures relating to supplemental budget requests,
requirements for the PCAOB to provide on a quarterly basis certain
budget-related information, and a list of definitions that apply to the
rule and to general discussions of PCAOB budget matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 202.190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Budget Rule, in March 2023 the PCAOB
provided the Commission with a narrative description of its program
issues and outlook for the 2024 budget year. In response, the
Commission provided the PCAOB with general budgetary guidance for the
2024 budget year. The PCAOB subsequently delivered a preliminary budget
and budget justification to the Commission. Staff from the Commission's
Office of the Chief Accountant and Office of Financial Management
dedicated a substantial amount of time to the review and analysis of
the PCAOB's programs, projects, and budget estimates and participated
in a number of meetings with staff of the PCAOB to further develop the
understanding of the PCAOB's budget and operations. During the course
of this review, Commission staff relied upon representations and
supporting documentation from the PCAOB. Based on this review, the
Commission issued a ``passback'' letter to the PCAOB on October 30,
2023. On November 16, 2023, the PCAOB adopted its 2024 budget and
accounting support fee during an open meeting, and subsequently
submitted that budget to the Commission for approval.
    After considering the above, the Commission did not identify any
proposed disbursements in the 2024 budget adopted by the PCAOB that are
not properly recoverable through the annual accounting support fee, and
the Commission believes that the aggregate proposed 2024 annual
accounting support fee does not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate
recoverable budget expenses for 2024.
    The Commission continues to emphasize the importance of the PCAOB's
identification of efficiencies and process improvements. Accordingly,
the Commission requests that the PCAOB continue to evaluate its
operational efficiency, improvements, and budgetary needs and submit
such assessments to the Commission in connection with the 2025 budget
cycle.
    Coordination between the SEC and PCAOB continues to be important.
The Commission directs the PCAOB during 2024 to continue to hold
monthly meetings, as necessary, with the Commission's staff to discuss
important policy initiatives, changes related to program areas, and
significant impacts to the PCAOB's 2024 budget, including significant
differences between actual and budgeted amounts and anticipated cost-
savings. Separately, the Commission directs the PCAOB to continue its
written quarterly updates on recent activities, including strategic
initiatives, for the PCAOB's Office of Economic and Risk Analysis;
Data, Security, and Technology group within the Office of the Chief
Operating Officer; and Division of Registration and Inspections. The
Commission expects the PCAOB to make itself available to meet with
individual Commissioners on these and other topics. Further, the
Commission requests that the PCAOB submit its 2023 annual report to the
Commission by March 29, 2024.
    The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') has determined that the 2024 budget of the PCAOB is subject
to sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011.\4\ For 2023, the
PCAOB sequestered $19.9 million. That amount will become available in
2024. For 2024, the sequestration amount will be 5.7% or $21.9 million.
Consequently, we expect the PCAOB will have approximately $2.0 million
less funds available from the 2023 sequestration for spending in 2024.
Accordingly, the PCAOB should submit a revised spending plan for 2024
reflecting a $2.0 million reduction to budgeted expenditures as a
result of the increase in sequestration amount from 2023 to 2024.The
Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2024 budget and annual
accounting support fee are consistent with Section 109 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act. Accordingly,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OMB Report to the Congress on the BBEDCA 251A Sequestration
for Fiscal Year 2024 (Mar. 13, 2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BBEDCA_Sequestration_Report_and_Letter_3-13-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that the PCAOB budget and annual accounting support fee for calendar
year 2024 are approved.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27770 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33005-33006]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75105; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Seventh Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC

June 4, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 6, 2015, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Seventh Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement (the ``Operating Agreement'') of the Exchange. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the

Federal Register on April 24, 2015.\4\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74766 (April 20,
2015), 80 FR 23057 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NYSE proposed to amend the Exchange's Operating Agreement to remove
the requirement that the independent directors that make up the
majority of the board of directors of the Exchange (``Board'') also be
directors of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''), the Exchange's
parent company. Currently, section 2.03(a)(i) of the Operating
Agreement, which governs the Board's composition, provides that a
majority of the Exchange's directors shall be U.S. persons who are
members of the board of directors of ICE and who satisfy the Exchange's
Company Director Independence Policy. Each such director is defined as
an ``ICE Independent Director'' in section 2.03(a)(i)(1) of the
Operating Agreement. The Exchange proposed to amend section 2.03(a)(i)
to remove the requirement that the independent directors, making up the
majority of the Board, also be directors of ICE, by amending the
definition of ``ICE Independent Director'' to remove the reference to
ICE, and to make conforming changes in both subparagraphs (i) and (ii)
of section 2.03(a).
    The Exchange represented that, even upon approval of this
modification to its Operating Agreement, a majority of the directors of
the Board would continue to satisfy the Company Director Independence
Policy.\5\ The Exchange also noted that it believes that eliminating
the requirement that the independent directors of the Exchange also be
directors of ICE will allow the Exchange to broaden the pool of
potential Board members, resulting in a more diversified Board
membership while still ensuring the directors' independence.\6\ The
Exchange further represented that eliminating the requirement that the
independent directors of the Exchange also be directors of ICE will
result in the Exchange's Board composition requirements being more
consistent with its affiliate, NYSE Arca, Inc., which does not require
any of its directors to be directors of ICE.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, 80 FR at 23057.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ which requires an exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act
and to comply and to enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members with the Act. The Commission also finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\10\ which requires that the rules of the exchange be designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(1).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, while the proposal removes the
requirement that the independent directors who make up the majority of
the Board also be ICE directors, it does not alter the requirement
under the Operating Agreement that a majority of the Board must satisfy
the Exchange's Company Director Independence Policy.\11\ Thus, the
majority of directors on the Exchange's Board must still qualify as
independent directors under the Exchange's Company Director
Independence Policy. Moreover, removing the requirement that the
independent directors on the Exchange's Board also be directors of ICE
may result in a more diversified Board composition as candidates for
membership on the Board who qualify as independent under the Company
Director Independence Policy need not be limited to those candidates
who also serve on the board of directors of ICE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67564 (August 1,
2012), 77 FR 47151 (August 7, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-17) (approving,
among other things, the Exchange's Company Director Independence
Policy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2015-16) is approved.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-14132 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47264-47265]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15g-2, SEC File No. 270-381, OMB Control No. 3235-0434

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-2 (17 CFR 240.15g-2)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). Rule 15g-2 (The ``Penny Stock Disclosure Rule'')
requires broker-dealers to provide their customers with a risk
disclosure document, as set forth in Schedule 15G, prior to their first
non-exempt transaction in a ``penny stock.'' As amended, the rule
requires broker-dealers to obtain written acknowledgement from the
customer that he or she has received the required risk disclosure
document. The amended rule also requires broker-dealers to maintain a
copy of the customer's written acknowledgement for at least three years
following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided
to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place. Rule 15g-2
also requires a broker-dealer, upon request of a customer, to furnish
the customer with a copy of certain information set forth on the
Commission's Web site.
    The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers,
to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in ``penny
stocks'' before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure
documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed
during the course of an examination by the Commission.
    There are approximately 198 broker-dealers that could potentially
be subject to current Rule 15g-2. The Commission estimates that
approximately 5% of registered broker-dealers are engaged in penny
stock transactions, and thereby subject to the Rule (5% x approximately
3,969 registered broker-dealers = 198 broker-dealers). The Commission
estimates that each one of these firms processes an average of three
new customers for penny stocks per week. Thus, each respondent
processes approximately 156 penny stock disclosure documents per year.
If communications in tangible form alone are used to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 15g-2, then the copying and mailing of the penny
stock disclosure document takes no more than two minutes. Thus, the
total associated burden is approximately 2 minutes per response, or an
aggregate total of 312 minutes per respondent. Since there are 198
respondents, the current annual burden is 61,776 minutes (312 minutes
per each of the 198 respondents) or 1,030 hours for this third party
disclosure burden. In addition, broker-dealers incur a recordkeeping
burden of approximately two minutes per response when filing the
completed penny stock disclosure documents as required pursuant to the
Rule 15(g)(2)(c), which requires a broker-dealer to preserve a copy of
the written acknowledgement pursuant to Rule 17a-4(b) of the Exchange
Act. Since there are approximately 156 responses for each respondent,
the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping burden of 61,776
minutes (198 respondents x 156 responses for each x 2 minutes per
response) or 1,030 hours, under Rule 15g-2. Accordingly, the current
aggregate annual hour burden associated with Rule 15g-2 (assuming that
all respondents provide tangible copies of the required documents) is
approximately 2,060 hours (1,030 third party disclosure hours + 1,030
recordkeeping hours).
    The burden hours associated with Rule 15g-2 may be slightly reduced
when the penny stock disclosure document required under the rule is
provided through electronic means such as email from the broker-dealer
(e.g., the broker-dealer respondent may take only one minute, instead
of the two minutes estimated above, to provide the penny stock
disclosure document by email to its customer). In this regard, if each
of the customer respondents estimated above communicates with his or
her broker-dealer electronically, the total ongoing respondent burden
is approximately 1 minute per response, or an aggregate total of 156
minutes (156 customers x 1 minutes per respondent). Assuming 198
respondents, the annual third party disclosure burden, if electronic
communications were used by all customers, is 30,888 minutes (156
minutes per each of the 198 respondents) or 515 hours. If all
respondents were to use electronic means, the recordkeeping burden
would be 61,776 minutes or 1,030 hours (the same as above). Thus, if
all broker-dealer respondents obtain and send the documents required
under the rules electronically, the aggregate annual hour burden
associated with Rule 15g-2 is 1,545 (515 hours + 1,030 hours).
    In addition, if the penny stock customer requests a paper copy of
the information on the Commission's Web

site regarding microcap securities, including penny stocks, from his or
her broker-dealer, the printing and mailing of the document containing
this information takes no more than two minutes per customer. Because
many investors have access to the Commission's Web site via computers
located in their homes, or in easily accessible public places such as
libraries, then, at most, a quarter of customers who are required to
receive the Rule 15g-2 disclosure document request that their broker-
dealer provide them with the additional microcap and penny stock
information posted on the Commission's Web site. Thus, each broker-
dealer respondent processes approximately 39 requests for paper copies
of this information per year or an aggregate total of 78 minutes per
respondent (2 minutes per customer x 39 requests per respondent). Since
there are 198 respondents, the estimated annual burden is 15,444
minutes (78 minutes per each of the 198 respondents) or 257 hours. This
is a third party disclosure type of burden.
    We have no way of knowing how many broker-dealers and customers
will choose to communicate electronically. Assuming that 50 percent of
respondents continue to provide documents and obtain signatures in
tangible form and 50 percent choose to communicate electronically to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, the total aggregate burden
hours would be 2,060 ((aggregate burden hours for sending disclosure
documents and obtaining signed customer acknowledgments in tangible
form x 0.50 of the respondents = 1,030 hours) + (aggregate burden hours
for electronically signed and transmitted documents x 0.50 of the
respondents = 773 hours) + (257 burden hours for those customers making
requests for a copy of the information on the Commission's Web site)).
    The Commission does not maintain the risk disclosure document.
Instead, it must be retained by the broker-dealer for at least three
years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was
provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place.
The collection of information required by the rule is mandatory. The
risk disclosure document is otherwise governed by the internal policies
of the broker-dealer regarding confidentiality, etc.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21910 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P