[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30290-30292]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0073, FRL-8923-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Distribution of Offsite Consequence Analysis
Information Under Section 112(r)(7)(H) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
ICR No. 1981.04, OMB Control No. 2050-0172

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2010. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0073 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Center, EPA West Bldg, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0073. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8019; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0073, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate 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) Evaluate 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) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0073.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
States, local agencies and members of the public.
    Title: Distribution of Offsite Consequence Analysis Information
under Section 112(r)(7)(H) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1981.04, OMB Control No. 2050-0172.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2010. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR is the renewal of the ICR developed for the
final rule, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements; Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Distribution of
Off-Site Consequence Analysis Information. CAA section 112(r)(7)
required EPA to promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate
guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of accidental
releases and for responses to such releases. The regulations include
requirements for submittal of a risk management plan (RMP) to EPA. The
RMP includes information on offsite consequence analyses (OCA) as well
as other elements of the risk management program.
    On August 5, 1999, the President signed the Chemical Safety
Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act
(CSISSFRRA). The Act required the President to promulgate regulations
on the distribution of OCA information (CAA section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii)).
The President delegated to EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) the
responsibility to promulgate regulations to govern the dissemination of
OCA information to the public. The final rule was published on August
4, 2000 (65 FR 48108). The regulations imposed minimal requirements on
the public, state and local agencies that request OCA data from EPA.
The state and local agencies who decide to obtain OCA information must
send a written request on their official letterhead to EPA certifying
that they are covered persons under Public Law 106-40, and that they
will use the information for official use only. EPA will then provide
OCA data to those agencies as requested. The rule authorizes and
encourages state and local agencies to set up reading rooms. The local
reading rooms would provide read-only access to OCA information for all
the sources in the LEPC's jurisdiction and for any source where the
vulnerable zone extends into the LEPC's jurisdiction.
    Members of the public requesting to view OCA information at federal
reading rooms would be required to sign in and self certify. If asking
for OCA information from federal reading rooms for the facilities in
the area where they live or work, they would be required to provide
proof that they live or work in that area. Members of the public are
required to give their names, telephone number, and the names of the
facilities for which OCA information is being requested, when they
contact the central office to schedule an appointment to view OCA
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate 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) evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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.
    Burden Statement: The burden and costs stated below are from the
current approved ICR. EPA estimates a total of 3,270 hours (annually)
for local agencies requesting OCA data from EPA and providing read-only
access to the public. For the state agencies, the total annual burden
for requesting OCA data from EPA and providing read-only access to the
public is 3,816 hours. For the public to display photo identification,
sign a sign-in sheet, certify that the individual has not received
access to OCA information for more than 10 stationary sources for that
calendar month, and to request information from the vulnerable zone
indicator system (VZIS), EPA estimates a total of 8,754 hours annually.
The total burden for the members of the public, state and local
agencies is 15,840 hours and $413,380 annually (47,520 hours for three
years and $1,240,140).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State and local agencies; members of
the public.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,975.
    Frequency of Response: One.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 9,595.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $296,603.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
Deborah Y. Dietrich,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. E9-14995 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Johnd Bachmann 01/ 16/ 2004 04: 09 PM To: Amy_ L._ Farrell@ omb. eop. gov cc: Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Stephanie Daigle/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Don Zinger/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lisaa Jones/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Sarah Dunham, Sam Napolitano, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Air Quality Analyses and Modeling TSDs for IAQR The IAQR AQ Data analyses file is stand alone. The appendicies all supplement the IAQR AQ Modeling TSD. Three of the appendices are incomplete at this point  they include :

Appendices D and F which list the current ambient and 2010 and 2015 ozone and PM2.5 design values. The 2010 and 2015 data, are in tables in the main document Appendix G. Tables with all the ozone contribution metrics Appendix H. Table with the PM2.5 contributions from each of the 41 States we modeled to each downwind receptor. However, the max downwind contribution from each State to PM2.5 nonattainment in another State is in a table in the main document.

We will send these and the material missing from Section XI of the main document as soon as possible next week.

John Bachmann U. S. EPA C404 04 Research Triangle Park, NC27711 Voice 919 541 5359 Fax 919 541 2464 email Bachmann. JohnD@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20396]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8084]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003; FRL-9343-8]

SFIREG POM Working Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG),
Pesticides Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee will hold
a 2-day meeting, beginning on May 30, 2012 and ending May 31, 2012.
This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets
forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, May 30, 2012 from 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday May 31, 2012.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA Region Five Metcalf Office
Building, 12th Floor, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Grier Stayton, SFIREG Executive
Secretary, P.O. Box 466, Milford DE 19963; telephone number (302) 422-
8152; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: Grier Stayton at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are
interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any
discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues
related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and
insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and
encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as
any Non Government Organization.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003. Publicly available docket materials are available
either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if
only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

II. Tentative Agenda Topics

    1. EPA expectations of State Lead Agencies and Regions in pesticide
cooperative agreement negotiations.
    2. Pyrethroid Label Issues.
    3. Phase 2 Fumigant Label Changes.
    4. Non cropland label language--evaluate existing position, propose
remedies.
    5. Development of recommendations on the ``hot compost'' issue--how
to deal with downstream effects of pesticide application that
applicator can't control.
    6. Impact of United States Department of Agriculture record keeping
cuts.
    7. Distributor label enforcement initiative coordination.
    8. Classification of methomyl containing products as Restricted Use
Pesticides.
    9. State Pesticide Residency Program--Registration Division.
    10. Cooperative Agreement Grant Template.
    11. Section 18 Training Tool.
    12. Agency's Revised Rodenticide Risk Mitigation Decision for
Professional Use Rodenticides.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the
meeting without further notification.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Robert C. McNally,
Director, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-8084 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 58582-58583]
[DOCID:fr07oc08-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0120; FRL-8725-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Nonconformance Penalties for
Heavy-Duty Engines and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Including Light-Duty Trucks
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1285.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0132

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 6,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0120, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nydia Yanira Reyes-Morales,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code
6403J, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 30, 2008 (73 FR 36863), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted
to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0120, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Nonconformance Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles, Including Light-Duty Trucks (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR Number 1285.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0132.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.
    Abstract: Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, contains
nonconformance penalty provisions (NCP) that allow manufacturers to
introduce into commerce heavy-duty engines or vehicles (including
light-duty trucks) that fail to comply with certain emission standards
upon payment of a monetary penalty. Manufacturers who elect to use NCPs
are required to test production engines and vehicles to determine the
extent of their nonconformity and conduct a Production Compliance Audit
(PCA). The collection activities of the nonconformance penalty program
include periodic reports and other information (including the results
of emission testing conducted during the PCA). EPA will use this
information to ensure that manufacturers are complying with the
regulations and that appropriate nonconformance penalties are being
paid. Responses to this collection are voluntary.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 23
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
these actions are Automobile Manufacturers; Light Truck and Utility
Vehicle Manufacturers; Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers; Gasoline Engine
and

Engine Parts Manufacturers; Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturers;
Construction Machinery Manufacturers; Industrial Truck, Tractor,
Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturers; Military Armored Vehicle,
Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturers; Other Engine Equipment
Manufacturers; Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.
    Frequency of Response: Annual, quarterly and on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,178.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $98,789, includes $18,180 in O&M costs
and no capital costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Sarah Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-23686 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33136-33138]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69643; File Nos. SR-BYX-2013-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Amending the Attestation
Requirement of Rule 11.24 Allowing a Retail Member Organization To
Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to The Retail Price
Improvement Program Will Qualify As ``Retail Orders''

May 28, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 12, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') to
attest that ``substantially all,'' rather than all, orders submitted to
the Retail Price Improvement Program (``Program'') qualify as ``Retail
Orders.'' The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 1, 2013.\3\ The Commission received one
comment on the proposal.\4\ On April 12, 2013, the Commission extended
the time for Commission action on the proposed rule change to May 30,
2013.\5\ The Exchange submitted a response to the comment letter on May
17, 2013.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68975 (Feb. 25,
2013), 78 FR 13915.
    \4\ See Letter to the Commission from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), dated March 11, 2013.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69369, 78 FR 23320
(April 18, 2013).
    \6\ See Letter to the Commission from Eric J. Swanson, Senior
Vice-President and General Counsel, BATS Y-Exchange, dated May 24,
2013 (``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange began operating its Program after it was approved by
the Commission on a pilot basis in November, 2012.\7\ Under the current
rules, a member organization that wishes to participate in the Program
as a RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting
documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order \8\ will qualify as such under BYX Rule 11.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71650 (December 3, 2012) (``Program Approval Order'').
    \8\ A Retail Order is defined in Rule 11.24(a)(2) as ``an agency
order that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the
Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no change is
made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of
market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal seeks to lessen the attestation requirements of RMOs
that submit ``Retail Orders'' eligible to receive potential price
improvement through participation in the Program. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24 to provide that an RMO may attest
that ``substantially all''--rather than all--of the orders it submits
to the Program are Retail Orders as defined in Rule 11.24(a)(2).
    The Exchange represented that it believes the categorical nature of
the current ``any order'' attestation requirement is preventing certain
member organizations with retail

customer business from participating in the Program. According to the
Exchange, some of these member organizations that wish to participate
in the Program represent both ``Retail Orders,'' as defined in Rule
11.24(a)(2), as well as other agency order flow that may not meet the
strict definition of ``Retail Order.'' The Exchange understands that,
due to technical limitations in order management systems and routing
networks, such member organizations may not be able to fully segregate
Retail Orders from other agency, non-Retail Order flow. As a result,
the Exchange believes that some member organizations have chosen not to
participate in the Program because they cannot satisfy the current
categorical attestation requirement, although they could satisfy the
proposed ``substantially all'' requirement.
    The Exchange clarified in its proposal that the ``substantially
all'' standard is meant to allow only de minimis amounts of orders to
participate in the Program that do not meet the definition of a Retail
Order in Rule 11.24 and that cannot be segregated from bona fide Retail
Orders due to systems limitations. Under the proposal, the Exchange
would require that RMOs retain in their books and records adequate
substantiation that substantially all orders sent to the Exchange as
Retail Orders met the strict definition and that those orders not
meeting the strict definition are agency orders that cannot be
segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange noted in its Response Letter that the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), on behalf of the
Exchange, will review a member organization's compliance with these
requirements. See Response Letter, supra note 6 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letter and the Exchange's Response

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. The
comment letter expressed concern over the proposed ``substantially
all'' attestation requirement primarily for four reasons.
    First, the comment letter questioned whether the proposal would
undermine the rationale on which the Commission approved the Retail
Price Improvement Program. According to the commenter, when the
Commission granted approval of the Program, along with exemptive relief
in connection with the operation of the Program, it did so with the
understanding that the Program would service ``only'' retail order
flow. To the extent the proposal would potentially allow non-Retail
Orders to receive price improvement in the Program, the commenter
suggested that the Commission should reexamine its rationale for
granting the exemptive relief relating to the Program.
    In response, the Exchange noted that the proposed amendment is
designed to permit isolated and de minimis quantities of agency orders
that do not qualify as Retail Orders to participate in the Program
because such orders cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations. The Exchange also noted that several significant
retail brokers have chosen not to participate in the Program currently
because of the categorical ``any order'' standard, and that the
proposed ``substantially all'' standard would allow the significant
amount of retail order flow represented by these brokers the
opportunity to receive the benefits of the Program. Additionally, the
Exchange noted that the Program is designed to replicate the existing
practices of broker-dealers that internalize much of the market's
retail order flow off-exchange, and that the Program, as modified by
the ``substantially all'' proposal, would offer a competitive and more
transparent alternative to internalization.
    Second, the commenter expressed its belief that the Exchange did
not sufficiently explain why retail brokers are not able to separate
all Retail and non-Retail Orders, and thereby satisfy the current
attestation requirement. The commenter expressed its belief that the
Commission should require additional explanation as to how retail
brokers could satisfy the proposed ``substantially all'' standard if
they could not satisfy the current standard, including an analysis of
the costs and benefits to retail brokers of implementing technology
changes to identify orders as Retail or non-Retail. Furthermore, the
commenter suggested that the Exchange's proposal is at odds with the
situation found in options markets where exchanges and brokers
distinguish between public and professional customers--a distinction
the commenter analogized to the Retail v. non-Retail distinction.
    The Exchange responded that several retail brokers have explained
that their order flow is routed in aggregate for retail execution
purposes and that a de minimis amount of such flow may have been
generated electronically, thus not meeting the strict Retail Order
definition. According to the Exchange, these retail brokers have chosen
not to direct any of their significant shares of retail order flow to
the Program because the cost of complying with the current ``any
order'' standard, such as implementing any necessary systems changes,
is too high. The Exchange represented that the retail brokers have
indicated their willingness to comply with the proposed ``substantially
all'' standard, as well as their ability to implement the proposed
standard on their systems with confidence. The Exchange further
responded that the distinction between public and professional
customers in the options market is not like distinction between Retail
and non-Retail Orders; the former distinction turns on volume and is
thus an easier bright-line threshold to implement, while the
distinction between Retail and non-Retail Orders turns on whether the
order originated from a natural person, which imposes a higher
threshold for order flow segmentation purposes.
    Third, the commenter contended that the proposed ``substantially
all'' standard is overly vague. According to the commenter, the
Exchange's proposed guidance on what constitutes ``substantially all''
is so vague that it could allow a material amount of non-retail order
flow to qualify for the Program. The commenter suggested that, should
the Commission approve the proposal, it should first establish a
bright-line rule to define what constitutes ``substantially all''
retail order flow.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The commenter cited one example where a ``de minimis''
transaction is defined in 17 CFR 242.101(b)(7), in connection with a
distribution of securities, as ``less than 2%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange responded that the proposal represents only a modest
modification of the attestation requirement. In this respect, the
Exchange noted that the proposal would permit only isolated and de
minimis quantities of agency orders to participate in the Program that
do not satisfy the strict definition of a Retail Order but that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to systems limitations.
Furthermore, the Exchange noted that an RMO's compliance with this
requirement would be monitored and subject to books and record-keeping
requirements.
    Fourth, the commenter stated that the proposal may cause an
exponential increase in monitoring and recordkeeping burdens associated
with the Program. The commenter expressed its belief that it could be
especially difficult for the Exchange not just to identify non-retail
order flow, but also to monitor whether such flow exceeded a de minimis
amount. The commenter also questioned whether the potential difficulty
of the Exchange monitoring its

Program might increase the likelihood that members may be subject to
unfair discrimination in the Program's approval and disqualification
process.
    In response, the Exchange noted that it will issue Trader Notices
to provide clear guidance on how the ``substantially all'' standard
will be implemented and monitored. The Exchange also noted that the
Program is designed to attract as much retail order flow as possible,
and that, should RMOs begin submitting substantial amounts of non-
retail order flow, liquidity providers would become less willing to
participate in the Program. Finally, the Exchange disagreed with the
commenter's statement that a standard that provides a de minimis number
of exceptions would be any harder to enforce that a standard that
permitted no exceptions.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the comment letter received,
and the Exchange's response, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
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 foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed ``substantially all''
standard is a limited and sufficiently-defined modification to the
Program's current RMO attestation requirements that does not constitute
a significant departure from the Program as initially approved by the
Commission.\13\ The proposal makes clear that to comply with the
standard, RMOs may submit only isolated and de minimis amounts of
agency orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations.\14\ Furthermore, as the Exchange noted, RMOs will
need to adequately document their compliance with the ``substantially
all'' standard in their books and records. Specifically, an RMO would
need to retain adequate documentation that substantially all orders
sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met that definition, and that
those orders not meeting that definition are agency orders that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange. The Commission also notes that the CBOE will, on behalf of
the Exchange, monitor an RMO's compliance with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Commission notes that it approved the Program on a
pilot basis subject to ongoing Commission review.
    \14\ While the Commission recognizes the potential benefit of
the commenter's suggestion concerning a bright-line definition of de
minimis, see supra note 10, the Commission believes that, in light
of the facts surrounding the instant proposal, the proposal, and the
guidance that the Exchange will provide to its members on this
point, are sufficiently clear. The Commission also notes that the
example the commenter cites is found in Regulation M, which governs
different circumstances than those at issue here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission finds that the Exchange has provided
adequate justification for the proposal. The Exchange represented that,
as several significant retail brokers explained to them, the current
``any order'' standard is effectively prohibitive, given the brokers'
order flow aggregation and management systems. The Exchange further
represented that these retail brokers indicated their systems would
allow them to comply with the ``substantially all'' standard, as
proposed. By allowing these retail brokers to participate in the
Program, the proposal could bring the potential benefits of the
Program, including price improvement and increased transparency,\15\ to
the retail order flow that these brokers represent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a more detailed discussion of the Program's potential
benefits, see Program Approval Order, supra note 7.
    \16\ The commenter also expressed concern that this proposal may
increase the burden upon the Exchange in monitoring compliance with
the Program. The Commission finds that any potential concerns raised
by this assertion, which is disputed by the Exchange, are outweighed
by the potential benefits of the proposal; namely, that the proposal
may allow more retail orders the opportunity to participate in the
Program and receive the attendant benefits of the Program. With
respect to the commenter's concern that members may be subject to
unfair discrimination in the approval and disqualification process
for participation in the Program, the Commission notes that it
previously found that the Program's provisions concerning the
certification, approval, and potential disqualification of RMOs not
inconsistent with the Act. See Program Approval Order, supra note 7,
at note 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BYX-2013-008) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13036 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P