[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50851-50853]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23568]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479; FRL-9968-42-Region 3]

Air Quality Plans; Pennsylvania; Lebanon County 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard Determination of Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Lebanon County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area (the
Lebanon County Area) has attained the 2012 annual fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). This proposed determination of attainment, also known as a
clean data determination, is based on quality assured and certified
ambient air quality data for the 2014-2016 monitoring period. If
finalized, the effect of this determination of attainment would be to
suspend certain planning requirements for the area, including the
requirement to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures. These requirements would
be suspended for as long as the area continues to meet the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, this proposed action is not a
redesignation to attainment for the area. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0479 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health
from fine particle pollution (the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS). See 78
FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). In that action, EPA strengthened the
primary annual PM2.5 standard, lowering the level from 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the
annual arithmetic means does not exceed 12.0 mg/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.18.
On December 18, 2014 (80 FR 2206), EPA made designation determinations,
as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. In that action, EPA designated the Lebanon County Area as
moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See
40 CFR 81.339.
    Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy,\1\ which was codified
in EPA's Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007), EPA may issue a determination of attainment after
notice and comment rulemaking determining that a specific area is
attaining the relevant standard. See 40 CFR 51.1004. The effect of a
clean data determination is to suspend the requirement for the area to
submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP plan, contingency
measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
related to attainment for as long as the area continues to attain the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient
Air Quality Standards,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, December
14, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (81 FR 58010, August
24, 2016), EPA reaffirmed the Clean Data Policy at 40 CFR 51.1015. The
rule states that, upon a determination by EPA that a moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the PM2.5
NAAQS, the requirements for the state to submit an attainment
demonstration, RACM (including reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for stationary sources), RFP, quantitative milestones and
quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures for the area
shall be suspended until such time as: (1) The area is redesignated to
attainment, after which such requirements are permanently discharged;
or, (2) EPA determines that the area has re-violated the
PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the state shall submit such
attainment plan elements for the moderate nonattainment area by a
future date to be determined by EPA and announced through publication
in the Federal Register at the time EPA determines the area is
violating the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1015.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Sec.  [thinsp]50.18 and
appendix N, the annual primary PM2.5 standard is met when
the 3-year average of PM2.5 annual mean mass concentrations
for each eligible monitoring site is less than or equal to 12 [mu]g/
m\3\. Three years of valid annual means are required to produce a valid
annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value. A year meets data
completeness requirements when quarterly data capture rates for all
four quarters are at least 75 percent (%) from eligible monitoring
sites. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
    By letter dated May 17, 2017, Pennsylvania certified its 2016
ambient air quality monitoring data. EPA issued final 2014-2016 design
values on July 27, 2017. There is one PM2.5 monitor in the
Lebanon County Area. Table 1 shows the Lebanon County Area design value
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the years 2014-2016 at
the Lebanon County monitor.
    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air quality monitoring data
for the 2014-2016

monitoring period for the Lebanon County Area, as recorded in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) database. This data can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2017-0479. As shown in Table 1, the data indicate a declining
trend in PM2.5 levels, with annual means decreasing steadily
from 2014 to 2016.
    As shown in Table 2, all but one quarter in 2014-2016 is complete,
reporting data capture rates of at least 75%. The second quarter in
2015 had a data capture rate of 70%. However, EPA can calculate a valid
design value for a monitor that doesn't meet the 75% capture rate each
quarter, as long as there is at least 50% data capture in each quarter.
In that case, EPA can perform a data substitution test, known as the
maximum quarter test, pursuant to 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section
4.1(c)(ii). EPA routinely performs this test for monitors with
deficient quarters (i.e., those with less than 75% but at least 50%
data capture). EPA first identifies the highest reported daily value
for that quarter, looking at that same quarter for all three years used
to calculate the design value. EPA substitutes the highest reported
daily PM2.5 value for that quarter for all missing daily
data in the deficient quarter to make that quarter 100% complete. Then,
EPA calculates a test design value (TDV) for the three-year period. If
that recalculated annual PM2.5 design value is less than or
equal to the level of the standard, then the annual PM2.5
design value passes the test and is valid, and the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is deemed to have been met in that 3-year
period.
    In this case, the second quarter in 2015 was deficient. The monitor
recorded 64 out of the 91 possible daily values in that quarter, which
included April, May, and June of 2015. Therefore, EPA looked at data
recorded at the Lebanon monitor in the second quarters of 2014, 2015,
and 2016, and identified the highest daily value, which was 30.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. EPA substituted that value 27 times to account for the 27 missing
daily values in 2017 and calculated a TDV of 11.7 [mu]g/m\3\ which is
lower than the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the
Lebanon County monitor passed the maximum quarter test, and has a valid
design value for the 2014-2016 monitoring period. The certified annual
design value for 2014-2016 is 11.2 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the 2012
annual primary PM2.5 standard of 12 [mu]g/m\3\. Therefore,
the Lebanon County Area has attained the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 50, Sec.
[thinsp]50.18 and appendix N.

                                         Table 1--2014-2016 Annual PM2.5 Values for Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Annual mean ([mu]g/m\3\)                              Complete quarters                     2014-2016
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    Certified
            Monitor ID                                                                                annual design
                                         2014             2015             2016             2014             2015             2016        value ([mu]g/
                                                                                m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
420750100........................           12.73            11.15             9.72                4                3                4             11.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Table 2--Data Capture Rates (%) and Creditable Samples by Quarter (Q)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2014                                2015                                2016
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4       Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4       Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditable Samples..........................       89       89       90       84       90       64       76       85       91       91       91       92
Capture Rate................................       99       98       98       91      100       70       83       92      100      100       99      100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Lebanon County Area has
attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR
51.1015, finalization of this determination suspends the requirements
for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM,
RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIP requirements
related to the attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long
as this area continues to meet the standard. This determination of
attainment does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The
Lebanon County Area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment,
including an approved maintenance plan, pursuant to sections 107 and
175A of the CAA.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rulemaking action proposes to make a determination of
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on air quality and,
if finalized, would not impose additional requirements. For that
reason, this proposed determination of attainment:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to determine that the Lebanon
County Area attained the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS does not have
tribal implications, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because this proposed determination of
attainment does not apply in Indian country located in the states and
because EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-23568 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that would be regulated under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life as well as my Mom’s. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72702-72703]
[DOCID:fr21de07-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13056-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13056-000.
    c. Date Filed: November 5, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Buckhorn Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Middle Fork of the
Kentucky River in Perry County, Kentucky. It would use the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Buckhorn Lake Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr. John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn,
LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13056-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would use the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Buckhorn Lake Dam and would consist of: (1) A
proposed forebay and intake structure located upstream of the western
abutment of the dam; (2) a proposed steel lined power tunnel; (3) a
proposed powerhouse, containing two turbine/generator units with a
total installed capacity of 7.8 megawatts; (4) a tailrace channel; (5)
a new 2.5-mile-long 12.5 to 230 kV transmission line and, (6)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average
annual generation of 19.2 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified

comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24764 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                     Request for a Non-Substantive Change
                to an Existing Approved Information Collection
I.  Introduction

Why is EPA Requesting a Non-Substantive Change?
EPA is requesting a non-substantive change in order to implement changes to the e-PMN electronic reporting tool and related instructions. The action is intended to further streamline and reduce the administrative costs and burdens of TSCA section 5 notifications for both industry and EPA. However, EPA is not modifying the information collection requirements or adjusting Agency paperwork burden estimates.

II. Description of Non-Substantive Changes

What Information Collection Request (ICR) is EPA changing?

ICR Title:
TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals
ICR Numbers:
EPA ICR No. 1188.12; OMB Control No. 2070-0038

What is the current status of this ICR?
This ICR is currently approved through July 31, 2016.

What are the changes that EPA is making to this collection of information?
Respondents who must submit a significant new use notice to EPA, in compliance with a Significant New Use Rule, are already required to sign and submit them electronically. The January 2010 e-PMN final rule directs respondents prepare their Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) filings using a thick client version of the e-PMN software (i.e., the software is installed on their computers) before submitting them to EPA electronically through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). Following promulgation of that rule, EPA announced online, web-based (thin client) electronic reporting workflows for TSCA Chemical Data Reporting, TSCA section 4 test data submissions, TSCA section 8(a) preliminary assessment information rules, TSCA section 8(d) health and safety data reporting rules, and mandatory notifications of substantial risk under TSCA section 8(e) along with related, voluntary "For Your Information" submissions.

EPA is implementing a thin client version of the e-PMN software and will require its use by respondents instead of the thick-client version. The thin client e-PMN software will reside as a module within Chemical Information Submission System (CISS) in CDX. The thin client version of the e-PMN software will eliminate certain firewall and file submission size limitations, as well as reduce the potential for invalid submissions through built-in validation procedures. In addition, EPA is offering an XML schema to submitters who choose to work on their submissions offline rather than online, which allows them to later upload their information to the thin client version of the e-PMN software for submission using CDX.

EPA expects that most TSCA section 5 submitters are already registered in CDX. Those users do not need to re-register with CDX, nor will they need to re-verify their identities. In order to use the Thin Client Version of the e-PMN software required under this direct final rule, users who have previously registered with CDX under the TSCA workflow to submit TSCA section 5 submissions, or other CDX workflows will only need to add the "Submission for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program (CSPP)" CDX workflow to their user profiles. New TSCA section 5 filers would also be able to take advantage of a more streamlined CDX registration process that also allows many respondents to use an online LexisNexis identity-proofing tool instead of submitting does not involve the submission of signed forms to EPA.

EPA has prepared a comprehensive user guide for CISS users (Attachment 2) that addresses CDX registration and electronic signatures, general submission preparation and completion, and submission status tracking notifications. This user guide will available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/ereporting. EPA has also prepared separate, role-specific user guides for the e-PMN software module in CISS (i.e., the Thin Client Version) (Attachments 3-8), which will be available at http://epa.gov/oppt/newchems/epmn/epmn-index.htm.

Does this change require a rulemaking?
Yes. The existing TSCA section 5 electronic reporting regulations at 40 CFR Parts 720, 721, 723 and 725 establish standards and requirements for use of EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) to electronically submit SNUNs, other TSCA section 5 notices, and support documents to the Agency, and requires users to obtain the thick client version of the software . EPA is issuing a direct final rule to amend the premanufacture notification regulations to mandate the use of the thin-client version of the e-PMN reporting software instead of the thick-client version.

Did EPA consult with stakeholders about this electronic reporting approach?
Yes. The EPA conducted several webinars for industry to explain the new e-PMN software. The agency also gave a presentation on the new software on February 25, 2013 at the Global Chemicals Conference in Baltimore, MD. Comments received in response to the webinars and public presentation strongly supported the agency's effort to move to the Thin Client Version of the e-PMN software.

In addition, the EPA has established a 180-day time frame between the publication date and effective date of this direct final rule to allow companies time to prepare to submit TSCA section notices to the agency through CDX using the e-PMN module in CISS. During this time, the EPA will offer testing and training opportunities for the electronic reporting tool and schedule webinars for stakeholders to further gain experience with its use. The EPA also plans to hold further training and outreach sessions at which industry representatives and others who will submit materials under TSCA may express remaining questions and concerns regarding operation of the reporting tool.

Will this change impact the annual ICR burden estimate?
No.  The changes do not affect the estimated annual burden. Although EPA is implementing a new reporting tool, the respondent activities are the same.
                              List of Attachments

                                 Attachment 1:
TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting; Revisions to Notification Regulations; Direct Final Rule [RIN 2070-AJ98]
                                 Attachment 2:
CDX Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs (CSPP) Registration User Guide
                                 Attachment 3:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Primary Authorized Official
                                 Attachment 4:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Primary Agent/Consultant
                                 Attachment 5:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Primary Support
                                 Attachment 6:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Secondary Authorized Official
                                 Attachment 7:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Secondary Agent/Consultant
                                 Attachment 8:
Section 5 Notices and Supports User Guide  -  Secondary Support


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of
Lead-based Paint Activities and Renovation Contractors

Response to Public Comments

February 2009

One commenter claimed that because the joint HUD/EPA renovator courses
appears to be the basis of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule
initial and refresher training courses, the additional costs of any
modifications to this existing program should be minimal.

EPA would like to point out that the costs that the Agency is recovering
through the fees in the final rule do not include the cost of developing
the initial and refresher renovator trainings.  The fees recover costs
for other activities such as enforcement, managing the FLPP database and
reviewing applications.

One commenter stated that, if EPA continued the lower fee for workers,
the Agency should not shift the costs from workers to training
providers.

In the final rule, the Agency continued the lower fee for workers that
is $100 less than the fee for other individuals under the Lead-based
Paint Activities Regulations and spread the costs to training providers
and firms.  The Agency believes it is more equitable to shift fees to
training providers and firms to minimize the impacts on either group.

With regard to the lower fees for Tribes, one commenter asked what type
of supporting documentation must be submitted by the Tribe to determine
whether a firm is owned by a Tribe.

Tribal firms and employees will indicate their status with their
applications.

One commenter pointed out that the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations are not clear in regards to the Tribal certification fees
for individuals.  The commenter stated that the proposed regulations,
which read “Tribes (all disciplines),” implied that the $10 Tribal
certification fee covered multiple applications from a single person.

	To address this comment and eliminate any possible confusion, the
Agency has changed the regulatory text that was in the proposed rule to
clarify that the $10 Tribal certification fee must be paid with each
individual application.

Once commenter asked if a Tribal firm certified under the Renovation,
Repair and Painting program could perform renovations in both
EPA-administered Tribal jurisdictions and EPA-administered State
jurisdictions.  The commenter also wanted to know what would the fee be
for a Tribal certification in multiple states and Tribal lands..

	Under the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, firm certifications and
training provider accreditations are valid in all EPA administered
states and Tribal jurisdictions.  A Tribal firm would pay only the $20
certification fee to become certified to perform renovations in all EPA
administered states and Tribal lands.

One commenter asked for clarification of how the multi-jurisdiction fee
under the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations is applied.
Specifically, the commenter asked if an individual certified under the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations can work in both
EPA-administered Tribal jurisdictions and EPA-administered State
jurisdictions after paying an additional fee, how much the fee would be,
and if a Tribal employee who pays at $10 certification fee would have to
pay the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee.

An individual that is certified under the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations can perform lead-based paint activities in another
jurisdiction by paying the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee.  The Agency did
not make any changes to multi-jurisdiction fee in this rulemaking.
Therefore, an individual employed by a Tribe who pays a $10
certification fee would have to pay the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee to
work in an additional jurisdiction.  The Agency believes it is unlikely
that Tribal employees would need to work in additional jurisdictions
because their certification will allow them to work in all Indian Tribes
without authorized programs within a given EPA Region.

One commenter asked if the certification of a Tribal employee is
contingent on continued employment by a Tribe.

An individual who qualifies for the $10 Tribal certification fee would
not have to pay the non-Tribal certification fee until that person must
re-certify in that discipline.

One commenter stated that the reduced Tribal certification fees could
create problematic administrative challenges to the Agency.

EPA disagrees that a reduced fee for Tribes will be problematic for the
Agency.  A Tribal firm or Tribal employee applying for certification
will indicate on the application that the firm or individual is part of
a Tribe.  This information will be put in the FLPP database along with
all the information EPA captures from applications.  The Agency believes
that this will be a simple process that will not pose any administrative
challenges.

The Agency also solicited comment on how the fees should be adjusted for
other accreditations and certifications if they are lowered for state
and local government firms and individuals. One commenter stated that
fee should not be shifted to training providers because they have no
opportunity to recover these extra costs.

EPA did not implement this lower fee and thus did not need to shift the
fees to other entities.

The Agency solicited comment on how many State and local government
firms and individuals must comply with the Lead-base Paint Activities
regulations and the Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule.

One commenter responded to this but claimed that they were not in a
position to offer feedback.

With respect to a reduced fee for state and local governments, one
commenter foresees few situations where a state or local government
health or environmental department would need to become a certified firm
to perform renovation or install interim controls.

The Agency agrees that the number of state and local governments that
will have to apply for firm certification under the Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Rule will be small.

One commenter contended that if the fees are too high for local
governments, then grants should be available to ensure the ability to
participate in the program.  The commenter further claims that it is
more equitable to establish fee reductions through grants, subsidies and
other economic incentives.

The Agency recognizes that States often need external support in the
development of their programs. However, the Agency does not give grants
or subsidies to State and local governments for the purpose of paying
federal fees.

One commenter suggested that, if EPA lowers certification fees for firms
earning low revenues, the Agency should make it easy to enforce to keeps
costs down.  The commenter also suggested that EPA use an existing
threshold that exists within the Small Business Administration for
determining whether a firm qualifies for the lower fee.

The Agency did not lower fee for firms earning low revenues and,
therefore, no extra enforcement burden was put upon the Agency.

One commenter considered the fees for the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Rule to be a “double taxation” for training providers,
firms and individuals already accredited and certified under the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.

For several reasons, the Agency disagrees with the commenter that
training providers, firms and individuals have to needlessly pay a
“double” fee.  In each case, the fee covers the cost of processing
the application itself as well as related enforcement costs—there is
no “double” charge.  Moreover, individuals do not pay a separate fee
to EPA to become certified under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Rule.  Under that rule, renovators and dust sampling technicians do not
apply to EPA for certification negating the need for EPA to charge them
fees.  Rather, the training certificate serves as the individual’s
certification.  In addition, the Agency decided to asses a single fee of
$550 for firms that apply for certification under the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations and the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule on
a single application.  Finally, the fees charged for training provider
applications recover the costs to EPA to review and process the
application and review new renovator and/or dust sampling technician
training course materials.  EPA is obligated to recover costs such as
these through its accreditation fees.

	EPA requested comment on whether the enforcement and Headquarters
administrative costs should be apportioned this way to make the revised
fees being proposed in this document more consistent with the existing
fees for the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.  The Agency
received one comment on this.  The commenter opposed this stating that
there is no basis for apportioning costs solely to generate fees similar
to the original fees for the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.

The Agency agrees that the fees should not be apportioned consistent
with the original fees for the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations,
but rather apportioned to reflect the cost to EPA for each application.
The final rule contains fees based on the cost to EPA of each type of
application with certain adjustments such as the lower fee for abatement
workers.

Three commenters expressed opposition to combining the costs for the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations and Renovation, Repair, and
Painting program.  Doing so would yield accreditation, re-accreditation,
firm certification, and firm re-certification fees that are the same for
both programs.  One commenter claimed that the programs should be
separate because they may be administered in separate agencies or
administrative entities.  Another commenter contended that the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting program should be evaluated on its own
because it is a new program with many unknowns.

The Agency has decided to finalize the rule as proposed by not combining
fees for the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations and Renovation,
Repair, and Painting program.

One commenter contended that the cost of the Federal Lead-Based Paint
Program (FLPP) database is excessive.  The commenter claims that EPA
should use commonly available database software instead in order to
lower costs.  However, the commenter does not give examples of software
that EPA should use, the costs associated with such software, or if it
will meet the needs of the program.

The Agency disagrees with this commenter.  EPA believes that the cost to
maintain the FLPP database is reasonable considering that it must
process thousands of applications annually.  Further, the Agency
believes that the transition to the FLPP database and the associated
centralized data processing has resulted reduced costs EPA.

EPA received one comment on the section in the preamble to the proposed
that listed the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes of entities potentially affected by the rule.  The commenter
stated the term "professional" is a term that is generally reserved for
protected titles such accountants, mechanical engineers, architects,
etc, but not people who perform lead abatements.  The commenter would
like the preamble to say “lead abatement contractors and
professionals.”

The Agency agrees with the commenter and has changed to preamble to read
“lead abatement contractors and professionals.”

One commenter provided EPA with an estimate of the number of lead
abatement and asbestos contractors in the state of California that may
apply for certification under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule.

EPA would like to thank the commenter for the information.

One commenter asked for clarification of how the multi-jurisdiction fee
under the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations is applied.
Specifically, the commenter asked if an individual certified under the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations can work in both
EPA-administered Tribal jurisdictions and EPA-administered State
jurisdictions after paying an additional fee, how much the fee would be,
and if a Tribal employee who pays at $10 certification fee would have to
pay the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee.

	An individual that is certified under the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations can perform lead-based paint activities in another
jurisdiction by paying the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee.  The Agency did
not make any changes to multi-jurisdiction fee in this rulemaking.
Therefore, an individual employed by a Tribe who pays a $10
certification fee would have to pay the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee to
work in an additional jurisdiction.  The Agency believes it is unlikely
that Tribal employees would need to work in additional jurisdictions
because their certification will allow them to work in all Indian Tribes
without authorized programs within a given EPA Region.

The Agency solicited comment on whether the numerical estimates of the
numbers of lessors and property managers that will require firm
certification under the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule.

Only one commenter responded and stated that they did not have a
specific basis to challenge EPA's estimate and that EPA should get input
from other trade associations.

One commenter claimed that the estimate of enforcement cost is
understated and the share of fees set aside for administrative costs
should be designated for enforcement infrastructure.

EPA disagrees that the enforcement costs are understated.  The
enforcement cost estimates for the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations were generated based on the actual resources currently
allocated for enforcement under that program.   EPA is not currently
conducting enforcement activities related to the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting program, so the enforcement costs for the program must be
estimated based on projected EPA resources to be devoted to enforcement
of the program, rather than on actual enforcement activities.  EPA also
disagrees that administrative costs should be designated for
enforcement.  EPA would like to point out that administrative and
enforcement costs are used to determine the fees EPA will charge but the
fees paid by the regulated community are not received by the Agency.
All of the fees go to the U.S. Treasury, not EPA.  Thus, EPA can not
allocate fees paid by the regulated community toward its enforcement
costs.

One commenter stated that if the fees are intended to be a user fee then
the fees should be charged according to use of the program.

As required by section 402 of TSCA, the Agency must collect fees to
recover the cost of administering these programs.

One commenter contended that EPA should encourage reciprocity among
states to make it easier for contractors and training providers to
acquire accreditation and certification in multiple authorized states.

EPA agrees that reciprocity among authorized State, Territorial, and
Tribal programs, and with the Federal program, is preferable. However,
authorized programs have some latitude to customize their program,
including with respect to reciprocity, provided they are as protective
as the federal program and contain the same basic elements listed in 40
CFR § 745.326 and § 745.327.

One commenter stated that EPA should remove the exemption for training
provider accreditation fees for non-profits.  The commenter claims that
this exemption gives non-profit organizations a competitive advantage.

Section 402 of TSCA exempts non-profit and other organizations from
paying training provider accreditation fees.  The Agency does not have
the ability to alter this statutory exemption.

One commenter claimed that individuals certified under the Lead-based
Paint Activities Regulations should not have to get certification under
the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule because they are already
qualified.

The Agency appreciates the commenter’s recommendations but notes that
today’s rulemaking does not address the certification requirements for
individuals under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, it merely
establishes the fees that will be paid by firms and training providers
under the rule.

One commenter contended that there should be an exemption for EPA and
State accredited training providers that are accredited under the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations when they apply to become
accredited to teach the renovator training.  This commenter claims that
the trainings required under this program are much more rigorous than
the renovator training. Because these training providers have been
accredited to a higher standard they should be able to teach the
renovator course under their current accreditation.

EPA does not believe that there should be an exemption for accredited
training providers that apply for accreditation under the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Rule.  The fees charged for training provider
applications cover the costs for EPA to review and process the
application, review training course materials and conduct site visits to
training facilities.  EPA is obligated recover costs such as these
through its accreditation fees.

One commenter contended that for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Rule to be effective in reducing childhood lead poisoning it will
require certified professional remodeling firms to perform renovations,
not part-time handymen, and for that reason, the commenter opposes any
reduced fees for firms earning below $25,000 in annual revenue.  The
commenter further states that a firm certification fee of $300 is not
burdensome to any reputable firm. However, if a firm will not pay–or
is unable to pay–the $60 per year over the five year certification, it
is unlikely to pay $20 a year under a reduced fee.

The Agency appreciates the comment.  After considering the reduced fee
and the comments regarding the fee, EPA decided not to lower fees for
firms earning below $25,000 in annual revenue.  Regarding yearly cost to
firms, the Agency does not know how likely it is that a firm won’t pay
$20 per year for certification if it is unwilling to pay $60 per year.

A variety of comments were submitted that were unrelated to the proposed
rule.  Some commenters asked for clarification of program requirements
(either the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule or Renovation, Remodeling,
and Painting Rule) while others commented on issues addressed in past
rulemakings.  The list below summarizes these comments and questions.

Why is there a difference between the two definitions of firm under
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations and the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Rule?

Can individuals certified under the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations provide the service without being employed by a certified
firm?  What standing does a report generated by a certified individual
certified who does not work for a certified firm?

The current application for firms has a field for business address.
However, there is no assurance that this is the same address as the
location of the records generated by the firm or individuals working for
the firm.

What is the criteria the regulated community to use to determine whether
there is a change in ownership?  When a firm is sold, EPA should allow
the firm’s certification to be transferred as an asset instead of
requiring the firm to certify under the new ownership.

The decision to forego collection of fees for certified renovators and
sampling technicians is correct.

Exemption from training accreditation fees for non-profit and
government-operated training firms is proper, consistent with Title X.

Accreditation and certification schedules should be the same for
everyone.

It appears as if in this rulemaking in this fee change, and the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, that the "home builders
associations", and "Contractor associations" were taken into account.

An accredited abatement contractor can do lead renovations. Does a lead
abatement trainer, need to accredited for another class while a
certified abatement individual can do lead renovations without getting
another certification?

The Agency appreciates these comments and questions.  However, these
comments are directed at the requirements of the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations and the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule,
not the certification and accreditation fees.  Because they are not
comments on the proposed rule, they will not be addressed in this
rulemaking.  Rather, EPA will address comments and questions like these
in other forums outside of this rulemaking.

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81130-81131]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25670]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98957; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.13 To Expand the
Nonstandard Expirations Program To Include P.M.-Settled Options on
Broad-Based Indexes That Expire on Tuesday or Thursday

November 15, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On September 28, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') 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
amend Rule 4.13(e), which governs its Nonstandard Expirations Program
(``Program''), to permit p.m.-settled options on any broad-based index
eligible for standard options trading that expire on Tuesday or
Thursday. The proposed rule change published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2023.\3\ The Commission did not receive any
comment letters and is approving 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. 98621 (September 28,
2023), 88 FR 68896 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13(e), which governs its
Program, to permit p.m.-settled options on any broad-based index
eligible for standard options trading that expire on Tuesday or
Thursday. Currently under the Program, the Exchange is permitted to
list p.m.-settled options on any broad-based index eligible for
standard trading that expire on: (1) any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday
(other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an
end-of-month expiration and, with respect to options on the S&P 500
Index (``SPX options'') and the Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP options'')
any Tuesday or Thursday (``Weekly Expirations'') and (2) the last
trading day of the month (``End of Month Expirations'' or ``EOMs'').\4\
The proposal expands the availability of Tuesday and Thursday Weekly
Expirations to all broad-based indexes eligible for standard options
trading.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 4.13(e).
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 68897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program for Weekly Expirations will apply to any broad-based
index option with Tuesday and Thursday expirations in the same manner
as it currently applies to all other p.m.-settled broad-based index
options with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday expirations and to SPX and
XSP options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations.\6\ Specifically, as
set forth in Rule 4.13(e), Weekly Expirations, including the proposed
Tuesday and Thursday expirations, are subject to all provisions of Rule
4.13 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that
expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however,
that Weekly Expirations are p.m.-settled, and new series in Weekly
Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for
an expiring Weekly Expiration.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each
Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration, Tuesday expiration,
Wednesday expiration, Thursday expiration, or Friday expiration, as
applicable) in a given class is the same as the maximum number of
expirations permitted in Rule 4.13(a)(2) for standard options on the
same broad-based index.\8\ Weekly Expirations need not be for
consecutive Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday expirations
as applicable; however, the expiration date of a nonconsecutive
expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last
expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed
consecutively.\9\ Weekly Expirations that are first listed in a given
class may expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date.\10\ In
addition, like all Weekly Expirations, pursuant to Rule 4.13(e)(3),
transactions in expiring broad-based index options with Tuesday and
Thursday expirations may be effected on the Exchange between the hours
of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. eastern time on their last trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ For a more detailed description of the proposed Tuesday or
Thursday expirations, see Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\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 Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that the Commission
recently approved the listing of Tuesday and Thursday expirations for
SPX and XSP options in addition to Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
expirations for options on any broad-based index eligible for standard
options trading.\13\ The Exchange states that the introduction of
Tuesday and Thursday expirations for all broad-based index options
(rather than offering those expirations for just two indexes) will
provide investors with expanded hedging tools and greater trading
opportunities and flexibility, and will allow market participants to
trade in a manner more aligned with specific timing needs and more
effectively tailor their investment and hedging strategies and manage
their portfolios.\14\ The Exchange further believes that the listing of
additional p.m.-settled options on other broad-based indexes will not
have any significant economic impact on the underlying component
securities surrounding the close as a result of expiring p.m.-settled
options or impact market quality.\15\ Finally, the Exchange represents
it has sufficient capacity to handle additional traffic associated with
trading of broad-based index options with Tuesday and Thursday
expirations, and will monitor the trading volume associated with any
possible additional options series listed as a result of this proposal
and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market
fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated
systems.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98456 (September
20, 2023), 88 FR 66091 (September 26, 2023) (SR-CBOE-2023-020)
(permanent approval of nonstandard expirations pilot program)
(``Nonstandard Approval Order'').
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 68898.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has had concerns about the adverse effects and
impact of p.m.-settlement upon market volatility and the operation of
fair and orderly markets on the underlying cash market at or near the
close of trading on expiration days.\17\ However, the Commission
recently approved proposals from several exchanges, including the
Exchange, to permanently establish programs permitting the listing and
trading of certain p.m.-settled broad-based index options.\18\ In
approving these proposals, the Commission reviewed data provided by the
exchanges in their filings, the exchanges' pilot data and reports, as
well as an analysis conducted at the direction of Staff from the
Commission's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis and concluded that
analysis of the pilot data did not identify any significant economic
impact on the underlying component securities surrounding the close as
a result of expiring p.m.-settled options nor did it indicate a
deterioration in market quality for an existing product when a new
p.m.-settled expiration was introduced.\19\ Further, the Commission
stated that significant changes in closing procedures in the decades
since index options moved to a.m. settlement may also serve to mitigate
the potential impact of p.m.-settled index options on the underlying
cash markets.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969, at 55972 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008)
(Order approving proposed rule change to establish a pilot program
to list and trade SPXPM options on the C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated).
    \18\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 98454
(September 20, 2023), 88 FR 66103 at 66103-04 (September 26, 2023)
(SR-CBOE-2023-005) (Order approving p.m.-settled Third Friday SPX
options); 98450 (September 20, 2023), 88 FR 66 111 (September 26,
2023) (SR-ISE-2023-08) (Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Make Permanent Certain
P.M.-Settled Pilots); 98451 (September 20, 2023), 88 FR 66088
(September 26, 2023) (SR-Phlx-203-07) (Order approving a nonstandard
expirations pilot program and p.m.-settled XND options); and
Nonstandard Approval Order.
    \19\ See e.g., Nonstandard Approval Order, 88 FR at 66094.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange currently may list Tuesday and
Thursday expirations for SPX and XSP options in addition to Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday expirations for options on any broad-based index
eligible for standard options trading.\21\ The Exchange's proposal,
which would permit Tuesday and Thursday expirations for options on any
broad-based index, is reasonably designed as a limited expansion of
existing p.m.-settled broad-based index option programs and may provide
the investing public and other market participants more flexibility to
closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. The Exchange has
represented that it has adequate systems capacity and that it will
monitor trading of broad-based index options with Tuesday and Thursday
expirations.\22\ The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to
monitor any potential risks from large p.m.-settled positions and take
appropriate action on a timely basis if warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 13.
    \22\ See supra note 16 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2023-054) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25670 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P