[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 57092-57097]
[DOCID:fr17se10-143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62887; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to Market Data Feeds

September 10, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule by establishing
fees for a direct data product, PHLX Options Trade Outline (``PHOTO'')
market data product. The proposed fees would become effective on
September 1, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish fees for
the PHOTO market data product. PHOTO is a market data product offered
by the Exchange that is designed to provide proprietary electronic
trade data to subscribers. PHOTO is available as either an ``End-of-
Day'' data product or an ``Intra-Day'' data product, as described more
fully below. PHOTO is available to any person who wishes to subscribe
to it, regardless of whether or not they are a member of the Exchange.
The fees for the End of Day product and the Intra-Day product are
uniform for all subscribers. PHOTO is available only for internal use
and distribution by subscribers.

Data Included in PHOTO

    PHOTO provides information about the activity of a particular
option series during a particular trading session. PHOTO subscribers
will receive the following data:
     Aggregate number of buy and sell transactions in the
affected series;
     Aggregate volume traded electronically on the Exchange in
the affected series;
     Aggregate number of trades effected on the Exchange to
open a position; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PHOTO will provide subscribers with the aggregate number of
``opening purchase transactions'' in the affected series. An opening
purchase transaction is an Exchange options transaction in which the
purchaser's intention is to create or increase a long position in
the series of options involved in such transaction. See Exchange
Rule 1000(b)(24). PHOTO will also provide subscribers with the
aggregate number of ``opening writing transactions.'' An opening
writing transaction is an Exchange options transaction in which the
seller's (writer's) intention is to create or increase a short
position in the series of options involved in such transaction. See
Exchange Rule 1000(b)(25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Aggregate number of trades effected on the Exchange to
close a position; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PHOTO will provide subscribers with the aggregate number of
``closing purchase transactions'' in the affected series. A closing
purchase transaction is an Exchange options transaction in which the
purchaser's intention is to reduce or eliminate a short position in
the series of options involved in such transaction. See Exchange
Rule 1000(b)(27). PHOTO will also provide subscribers with the
aggregate number of ``closing sale transactions.'' A closing sale
transaction is an Exchange options transaction an Exchange options
transaction in which the seller's intention is to reduce or
eliminate a long position in the series of options involved in such
transaction. See Exchange Rule 1000(b)(26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Origin of the orders involved in trades on the Exchange in
the affected series during a particular trading session, specifically
aggregated in the following categories of participants: Customers,
broker-dealers, market makers (including specialists, Registered
Options Traders (``ROTs''), Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \5\ and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \6\), and professionals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \6\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \7\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A professional
will be treated in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer for
purposes of Rules 1014(g)(except with respect to all-or-none orders,
which will be treated like customer orders), 1033(e), 1064.02
(except professional orders will be considered customer orders
subject to facilitation), and 1080.08 as well as Options Floor
Procedure Advices B-6, B- 11 and F-5. Member organizations must
indicate whether orders are for professionals. See Exchange Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of Day Product

    The End-of-Day product includes the aggregate data described above
representing the entire trading session. It is calculated during an
overnight process after each trading session and is available to
subscribers for download the following morning at approximately 7:00
a.m., ET.
    The monthly subscriber fee for the End of Day product subscribers
is $500.00.

Intra-Day Product

    The Intra-Day product includes periodic, cumulative data for a
particular trading session. The Intra-Day product is produced and
updated every ten minutes during the trading day. Data is captured in
``snapshots'' taken every 10 minutes throughout the trading day and is
available to subscribers within 5 minutes of the conclusion of each 10
minute period. For example, subscribers to the Intra-Day product will
receive the first calculation of intra-day data at 9:45 a.m. ET, which
represents data captured from 9:30 a.m. to 9:39 a.m. Subscribers will
receive the next update at 9:55 a.m., representing the data previously
provided together with data captured from 9:40 a.m. through 9:49 a.m.,
and so forth. Each update will represent the aggregate data captured
from the current ``snapshot'' and all previous ``snapshots.'' The
monthly subscriber fee for the Intra-Day product is $1,500.00.
    PHOTO provides subscribers data that should enhance their ability
to analyze option trade and volume data, and to create and test trading
models and analytical strategies. The Exchange believes that PHOTO is a
valuable tool that subscribers can use to gain comprehensive insight
into the trading activity in a particular series.
2. Statutory Basis
    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of PHLX data.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    ``[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need
the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of
the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well. PHOTO is precisely the sort
of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted
Regulation NMS.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    PHLX believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees.
    PHLX believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete.
    Specifically, many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-
for-profit corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or
nonmembers, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover,
we believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton [sic] v. SEC, No. 09-1042
(DC Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to
the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's
reliance upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably
allocated fees for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history
indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve
through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory
restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power
`in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as
in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' ''
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoaltion [sic], at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at
92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.

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

    PHLX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion [sic] court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive.
    For the reasons discussed above, PHLX believes that the Dodd-Frank
Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the
Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment.
    Even in the absence of this important statutory change, however,
PHLX believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate
the competitive nature of the market in question.

    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a by-product of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order recognizing and
reacting to a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the
order would accomplish little.
    Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Data
products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide
information that end users expect will assist them or their customers
in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' \12\ However, the existence of fierce competition for order
flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker-
dealers with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by
directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer
that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to
order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that
platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the
disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data
fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with
the platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can
lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby
lessening the need for the more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of aftermarket alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market. Broker-dealers currently have numerous
alternative venues for their order flow, including ten self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers
(``BDs'') and various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''),
including dark pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs'').
Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and two FINRA regulated Trade Reporting Facilities
(``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction reports.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
For example, the Exchange notes that at least two other U.S. options
exchanges offer a market data product that is substantially similar to
PHOTO, which the PHLX must consider in its pricing discipline in order
to compete for listings, trades, and the market data itself.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE'') Open/
Close Trade Profile and the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Intra-Day
contain substantially similar data to that included in PHOTO End of
Day and PHOTO Intra-Day. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56254 (August 15, 2007), 72 FR 47104 (August 22, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-
70). The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') also offers
similar market data. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55062
(January 8, 2007), 72 FR 2048 (January 17, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-88)
(order granting approval to proposed rule change to codify a fee
schedule for the sale of open and close volume data on CBOE listed
options by Market Data Express, LLC).

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

    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including PHLX, NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Yahoo, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as
Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it
promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although
the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is
the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data
product that fails to provide sufficient value. PHLX and other
producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to
these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to
market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson-Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
PHLX believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of depth data attracts order flow.
    Competition among platforms has driven PHLX continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, PHLX offers front end applications such as its Top of PHLX
Options (``TOPO'') and TOPO Plus Orders data products to help customers
utilize data.
    For the foregoing reasons, PHLX does not believe that the proposed
rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-121 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-121. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\15\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2010-121 and should be submitted on or before October 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23261 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30644-30646]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12989]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818; FRL-9927-36]

Proposal To Mitigate Exposure to Bees From Acutely Toxic
Pesticide Products; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is seeking comment on a proposal to adopt mandatory
pesticide label restrictions to protect managed bees under contract
pollination services from foliar application of pesticides that are
acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis. These label
restrictions would prohibit applications of pesticide products, which
are acutely toxic to bees, during bloom when bees are known to be
present under contract. EPA is also seeking comment on a proposal to
rely on efforts made by states and tribes to reduce pesticide

exposures through development of locally-based measures, specifically
through managed pollinator protection plans. These plans would include
local and customizable mitigation measures to address certain scenarios
that can result in exposure to pollinators. EPA intends to monitor the
success of these plans in deciding whether further label restrictions
are warranted.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you produce an
agricultural crop that is attractive to pollinators, if you are a
beekeeper, or if you manufacture pesticides. In addition, state and
tribal governments may be potentially affected by this action. The
following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:

 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS
code 325320), e.g., Insecticide and Herbicide Manufacturers
 Apiculture (NAICS code 112910)
 Crop Production (NAICS code 111)
 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities (NAICS
code 926140), e.g., Pest control programs, agriculture, government

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

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

    A copy of EPA's Proposal to Mitigate Exposure to Bees from Acutely
Toxic Pesticide Products is available in the docket under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is proposing mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect
contracted managed bees, e.g., honey bee colonies that are under
contract to provide pollination services, from foliar applications of
pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis,
i.e., those pesticides with an acutely lethal dose to 50% of the bees
tested of less than 11 micrograms per bee, based on acute contact
toxicity testing. Contracted pollination services result in a
heightened risk potential where a large number of honey bee colonies
are intentionally placed at a use site, and application of a toxic
pesticide in this scenario is nearly certain to result in direct
exposure to pollinators. Although the likely outcomes are counter-
productive for both the beekeeper (loss of honey bee stock) and the
grower (diminished pollination services), many beekeepers and growers
seem not to have found ways to avoid such outcomes. Consequently, EPA
believes that strong regulatory measures should be in place for the
contracted service scenario to mitigate these potential problems.
Therefore, EPA proposes to prohibit the foliar application of acutely
toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract,
unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared
public health response. There would be no other exceptions to the bloom
prohibition in the contracted-services scenario. Current neonicotinoid
product labels include a 48-hr notification exception to the bloom
prohibition. However, as part of this mitigation proposal, the 48-hr
notification exception for crops under contracted pollination services
during bloom for all neonicotinoid product labels would be removed.
These restrictions are expected to reduce the likelihood of acute
exposure and mortality to managed bees under contract.
    EPA believes that managed bees not under contracted services (and
other unmanaged bees) may also be exposed to acutely toxic pesticides
when they are within forage range of the application site. While
pesticide exposure under this scenario is possible, it is less certain
than in situations where a pesticide is applied to a site when large
numbers of managed bees have intentionally been positioned at the site
for the purposes of providing pollination services. EPA believes that
the lower likelihood of exposure for large numbers of managed bees in
this scenario may warrant a more flexible approach toward mitigation
such as that afforded by state or tribal Managed Pollinator Protection
Plans (MP3s). Accordingly, EPA intends to encourage states and tribes
to develop MP3s that are effective in reducing the likelihood of bees
being present in the treatment area at the time a pesticide application
is to be made. EPA would monitor success of these MP3s in mitigating
risk to bees from acutely toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis and
determine whether additional EPA action is warranted. Therefore, for
managed bees not under contract pollination services, EPA is not
proposing to require any new language

for pesticide labels. This does not alter EPA's previous requirement
for more specific restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides for which
EPA required language to address risks to bees not under contract for
pollination services.
    EPA is seeking comment on both the approach of label restrictions
on products used for bees under contract for pollinator services, and
for the approach to rely on state and tribal pollinator protection
plans to bees that are not under contract for pollination services.
    These actions are consistent with the Presidential directive issued
in June 2014 to reduce the effect of factors that have been associated
with pollinator declines in general as well as the mandate to engage
state and tribal partners in the development of pollinator protection
plans. While the proposed mitigation focuses on managed bees, EPA
believes that in protecting managed bees, these measures will also
protect native solitary and social bees that are in and around
treatment areas. The proposed mitigation is based on an acute toxicity
threshold and is not intended to supersede more restrictive product-
specific use prohibitions. EPA will continue to conduct chemical-
specific risk assessments for bees and will consider additional
product-specific mitigation as needed in the Office of Pesticide
Program's (OPP) registration and registration review programs.

III. Areas of Feedback

    EPA is seeking comments on the proposed approach to mitigate
exposure to bees from acutely toxic pesticide products under contract
and non-contract pollination scenarios. In addition, EPA is
specifically seeking comment on several issues described in the policy
paper.

A. Label Language for Applications to Sites With Bees Present Under
Contracted Services

    EPA is proposing to prohibit the foliar application of acutely
toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract,
unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared
public health response. EPA encourages growers and beekeepers to
include provisions in pollination service contracts that take into
account the increased likelihood of bee colony exposure and ensure that
colonies will be protected and pollination services secured. If EPA
receives evidence during the public comment period and/or through
outreach at stakeholder meetings that such contract provisions are
common or that there are other effective and mutually agreed upon
stakeholder (i.e., beekeeper-to-grower) practices indicating that
application of acutely toxic pesticides is not of risk concern for bees
under contract, then EPA will consider this evidence in determining
whether this scenario needs the mitigation indicated in the proposed
language. Please comment on any factors that may allow EPA to
reconsider the mitigation for this scenario, for example, if risks to
bees are addressed through existing, and widely used, contract
language.

B. State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans

    For sites not under contracted services, EPA believes that
pollinator protection plans serve as examples of effective
collaboration between stakeholders at the local level that can lead to
reduced pesticide exposure and protection of managed bees while
maintaining the flexibility needed by growers to protect crops. Based
on feedback provided to EPA by state lead agencies that have developed
such plans, beekeeper-to-grower communication has been enhanced and
fewer bee kill incidents have been reported as a result of the plans.
Across these diverse plans, the common element has been effective
stakeholder engagement, and anecdotal reports from the stakeholder
groups suggest that the plans are effective at increasing communication
and cooperation. The development of pollinator protection plans is a
voluntary way for states and tribes to address acute pesticide exposure
to pollinators. EPA believes that a key factor for states and tribes to
determine the effectiveness of managed pollinator protection plans will
be to include mechanisms to measure the effectiveness and a process to
periodically review and modify each plan. Please comment on EPA's
proposal to address risk to non-contract bees through reliance on state
and tribal plans. Also, given the uncertainties with incident data,
what kind of measures should be used to demonstrate that state and
tribal pollinator protection plans are effective?

C. Uncertainties

    EPA recognizes that there are a number of uncertainties that remain
regarding chemicals and exposure scenarios that may not fall within the
domain of the proposal. EPA is also interested in receiving feedback on
these uncertainties, which are described in the proposal.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136a.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-12989 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23323-23324]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0065; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-96]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Carrabassett, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 9447) that establishes Class E
Airspace at Carrabassett, ME to support a new Area Navigation (RNAV)
Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP) that has been developed for medical flight operations into the
Sugarloaf Regional Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9447),
Docket No. FAA-2008-0065; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-96. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes there will be no adverse public comment. This
direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 7, 2008.
Kathy Swann,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-9035 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient. We are requesting that the review period be extended to 180 days. Thank you for your time.


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE NSPS Subpart F Portland Cement Plants 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NSPS Subpart F  Portland Cement Plants 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants were proposed on August 17, 1971, promulgated on December 23, 1971, and revised on December 14, 1988. These standards apply to the following facilities in Portland cement plants: kilns, clinker coolers, raw mill systems, raw mill dryers, raw material storage, clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or Local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

Approximately 107 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that an additional 4 sources per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years. This information was received from the Portland Cement Alliance. Particulate matter is the pollutant regulated under this Subpart.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect: 2 " Application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated."( Section 111( a)( l))

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

"( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require."

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from portland cement plants cause, or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of particulate matter from portland cement plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from portland cement plants are the result of operation of the calciners, dryers, grinders, and ground rock handling and storage facilities. These standards rely on the capture of particulate emissions by a baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standard is being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment used to achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with these 3 standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F.

3( a) Nonduplication If the standard has not been delegated, the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation, a copy of the report submitted to the State or Local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal Standard. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2001, ( 66FR8588). No comments were received on burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been 4 determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of portland cement plants. The SIC ( U. S. Standard Industrial Classification) Code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC 3241 which corresponds to the NAIC ( The North American Industry Classification System) 327310 for Portland Cement Plants that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 17, 1971.

4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F.

A source must make the following reports Reports for NSPS SUBPART F Notification of construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Notification of physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system 60.7( a)( 5)

Notification of initial performance test 60.8( d), 60.62( a)

Semi annual excess emissions report 60.65( a& b)

Semi annual malfunction report 60.65( c)

Report of initial performance test results 60.8 ( a) 5 A source must maintain the following records Recordkeeping for NSPS SUBPART F Records of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions ( 60.7( b)

Record daily production and kiln feed rates 60.63( a)

Records of exceedance 60.65( a& b)

Records are required to be retained for 2 Years. 60.8( F)

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 5 and Reference Method 9, and repeat performance tests as required.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information. 6 Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Federal System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutant( s). The impact on small businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. Even though the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule 7 The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown on Table 2: Industry Burden.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 7,968 person hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a technical labor rate of $ 55.34 per hour. These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000, " Table 10: Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." Due to the nature of the information collection and the fact that NSPS Subpart F has been in place since 1971, this ICR only uses technical labor rates to calculate the labor costs.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor and the installation, operation, and maintenance of continuous opacity monitors ( COMs). The capital start up costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the standard. The annual operations and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor. Total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital startup costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs 8 Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A)

Continuous Monitoring device ( B)

Start up cost ($) for 1 affected facility ( C)

# of new affected facilities to start up ( D)

Total start up ( B X C) ( E)

Annual O& M costs ($) for 1 affected facility ( F)

# of affected facilities with O& M ( G)

Total O& M ( E X F)

Continuous Opacity Monitor ( COMS) $ 34,800 4 $ 139,200 $ 7,500 113 $ 847,500 The total capital/ start up costs for this ICR are $ 139,200. This is based on 4 new sources per year multiplied by $ 34,800 per continuous opacity monitor. This is the total of column D. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter a: Total annualized capital/ startup costs. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are truncated to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total operating and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 847,500. This is based on 113 existing sources multiplied by $ 7,500 for upkeep of the monitoring device. This is the total of column G. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter b: Total annual costs ( O& M). The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are truncated to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital start up costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital and operations and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 986,700. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter c: Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are truncated to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 10,879.36 ( from Table 1). This cost is based on an average hourly labor rate at a GS10, Step 1, times 1.6 ( benefits multiplication factor) for a total of $ 36.98. These rates are from OPM's 9 2001 General Schedule ( GS) hourly salary data which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Agency Burden.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondent Universe Regulation Title ( A) # new sources per year ( B) # of initial reports for new sources ( C) # existing sources ( D) # of reports for existing sources ( E) total annual responses ( AxB.)+( CxD)

NSPS Subpart F 4 5 107 4 448 We estimate that there are currently 107 facilities subject to Subpart F. In addition, we estimate an annual growth rate of 4 new facilities that will become subject to this subpart over the next three ( 3) years. By the end of this ICR period we estimate that there will be 119 facilities subject to this subpart. Therefore, we estimate the total number of respondents to be 113, the median number of facilities subject to this subpart over the 3 year period. The number of total respondents averaged over the next 3 years is 113. The total number of annual responses is 448. This number is in column E of the Respondent Universe table. It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13 b. The total annual labor costs are $ 440,915.92. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form, only the burden hours are reflected in block 13 c. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Industry Burden.

The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 986,700. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 c. These costs are detailed in section 6 b ( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables Reference Tables 1 and 2.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is no increase in the estimated burden from the most recently approved ICR. Also note that the requirement for the notification of anticipated startup has since been removed. The use of more accurate industry and EPA hourly wages supported by information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics contributed to the increased hourly cost burden.

6( g) Burden Statement 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 10 and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to Ms. Susan Auby Collection Strategies Division, ( Mail Code 2822), Office of Environmental Information), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1051.08 and OMB Control Number 2060 0025 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18767-18768]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Preparation for International Cooperation on Cosmetics
Regulations; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulations
(ICCR)--Preparation for ICCR-5 Meeting in Paris, France'' to provide
information and receive comments on the International Cooperation on
Cosmetics Regulations (ICCR) as well as the upcoming meetings in Paris,
France. The topics to be discussed are the topics for discussion at the
forthcoming ICCR Steering Committee meeting. The purpose of the meeting
is to solicit public input prior to the next steering committee and
expert working group meetings in Paris, France scheduled on June 28
through July 1, 2011.

DATES:  Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on April 26,
2011, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the Washington Theater
room at the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting
Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: All participants must register with Kimberly
Franklin, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: Send registration
information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone, and
fax number), written material, and requests to make oral presentations,
to the contact person by April 22, 2011.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Kimberly Franklin (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in
advance.
    Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally
or in writing, on issues pending at the public meeting. Time allotted
for oral presentations may be limited to 10 minutes. Those desiring to
make oral presentations should notify the contact person by April 22,
2011, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the
evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses,
telephone number, fax, and e-mail of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information, 12420 Parklawn
Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the multilateral framework on
the ICCR is to pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to
international trade while maintaining global consumer protection.
    ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory
authorities from the United States, Japan, the European Union, and
Canada. These regulatory authority members will enter into constructive
dialogue with their relevant cosmetics' industry trade associations.
Currently, the ICCR members are Health Canada; the European Directorate
General for Enterprise and Industry; the Ministry of Health, Labor and
Welfare of Japan; and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. All
decisions made by the consensus will be compatible with the laws,
policies, rules, regulations, and directives of the respective
administrations and governments. Members will implement and/or

promote actions or documents within their own jurisdictions and seek
convergence of regulatory policies and practices. Successful
implementation will require input from stakeholders.
    The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the
Internet at http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/InternationalActivities/ConferencesMeetingsWorkshops/InternationalCooperationonCosmeticsRegulationsICCR/default.htm.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7966 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36768-36769]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0521]

Safety Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord Safety Zone, Suisun
Bay, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive on-
loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) from June 16, 2022
through

June 21, 2022. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion within the
explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all persons and vessels for
transitory use, but vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise
loiter within the safety zone must obtain the permission of the Captain
of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative. All persons
and vessels operating within the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. on June 16, 2022 until 11:59 p.m. on June 21, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant William Harris,
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, 415-
399-7443, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO)
regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on June 16, 2022 until 11:59 p.m. on
June 21, 2022, or as announced via marine local broadcasts. This safety
zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The
regulation for this safety zone, Sec.  165.1198, specifies the location
of the safety zone which encompasses the navigable waters in the area
between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier 2 in position 38[deg]03'30'' N,
122[deg]01'14'' W and 3,000 yards of the pier. During the enforcement
periods, as reflected in Sec.  165.1198(d), if you are the operator of
a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with the instructions of
the COTP or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators
desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must
contact Sector San Francisco Vessel Traffic Service at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: June 15, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-13299 Filed 6-16-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P