[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32826-32827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0396]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Application
for Employment With the Federal Aviation Administration Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is a Correction to the notice published on May 14,
2019, due to invalid Form Number and omission of the website's URL.
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites
public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
collection involves an automated application process for employment
with the Federal Aviation Administration by way of the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) USAJOBS website: www.usajobs.gov. The
Applicants begin the application process by building an account on
USAJOBS website and; thereafter, they are passed into the FAA Automated
Vacancy Information Access Tool for Online Referral (AVIATOR) to answer
specific questions related to FAA job vacancy of interest. This pass
through is a direct USAJOBS interface with AVIATOR and; hence, there is
no standalone link to be used by the applicants.
    The information collected is necessary to determine basic
eligibility for employment and potential eligibility for Veteran's
Preference, Veteran's Readjustment Act, and People with Disability
appointments. In addition, there are specific occupation questions that
assist the FAA Office of Human Resource Management (AHR) in determining
candidates' qualifications in order that the best-qualified candidates
are hired for the many FAA occupations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Toni Main-Valentin, FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center,
Office of Human Resource Management, P.O. Box 25082, Headquarters
Bldg1, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Main-Valentin by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0597.
    Title: Application for Employment with the Federal Aviation
Administration.
    Online website: www.usajobs.gov.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Under the provisions of Public Law 104-50, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) was given the authority and the
responsibility for developing and implementing its own personnel system
without regard to most of the provisions of Title 5, United States
Code, exceptions being those concerning veteran's preference and
various benefits.
    The OPM developed a suite of forms for use in automated employment
processes: All under a single OMB approval. The FAA AHR has the same
OMB approval for its automated application for employment. By
automating processes for employment application and the evaluation of
candidates, AHR has markedly improved the service it provides to the
public as well as its ability to locate and hire the best-qualified
applicants. Lastly, via this process, applicants are provided on-line
results immediately upon submitting their application questionnaires.
    The Agency is requesting certain information necessary to determine
basic eligibility for employment and potential eligibility for
Veteran's Preference, Veteran's Readjustment Act, and People with
Disability appointments. In addition, occupation specific questions
assist AHR in determining candidates' qualifications in order that the
best-qualified candidates are hired for the many FAA occupations. The
system currently in use for this collection is the Automated Vacancy
Information Access Tool for Online Referral (AVIATOR). This system
cannot be directly accessed. Applicants are transferred to the AVIATOR
system from OPM's USAJOBS website during the application process.
    Respondents: Over 180,000 U.S. citizens identified as applicants
for employment with the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Frequency: On occasion/as interested.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 180,000 hours.
    Approximately 180,000 respondents will complete an application form
on as needed basis. Based on this sample size, it will take the average
applicant approximately 1 hour to read the instructions and complete
the form. The estimated total burden is 180,000 hours annually.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2019.
Alpha Woodson-Smith,
Information Technology Project Manager, Finance and Management (AFN),
Information and Technology Services (AIT), Enterprise Program
Management Service (AEM-320).
[FR Doc. 2019-14555 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10107-10110]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 130

[Docket No. FDA-1995-N-0062 (Formerly 1995N-0294)]
RIN 0910-AC54

Food Standards; General Principles and Food Standards
Modernization; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is reopening the
comment period for the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register
of May 20, 2005, entitled ``Food Standards; General Principles and Food
Standards Modernization,'' to establish a set of general principles for
food standards for FDA to use when considering whether to establish,
revise, or eliminate a food standard. The proposed rule was issued
jointly with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and,
while FDA will continue to engage with USDA regarding the proposed
rule, we are reopening the comment period to receive new data,
information, or further comments only on FDA-specific aspects of the
proposed rule, including FDA's 13 general principles.

DATES: We are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule that
published in the Federal Register of May 20, 2005 (70 FR 29214). Submit
either electronic or written comments by April 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 21, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov

electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of April 21, 2020. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-1995-N-0062 (formerly 1995N-0294) for ``General Principles and Food
Standards Modernization; Reopening of the Comment Period.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rumana Yasmeen, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Proposed Rule

    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2005 (70 FR 29214), FDA and USDA
jointly issued a proposed rule entitled ``Food Standards; General
Principles and Food Standards Modernization,'' as a first step in
instituting a process to modernize FDA definitions and standards of
identity (and standards of quality and fill of container) consistent
with section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
341), and USDA's definitions and standards of identity or composition
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607(c) and 457(b)) (and standards of fill of
container). The proposed rule, if finalized, would establish general
principles that FDA and USDA would consider when determining whether to
establish, revise, or eliminate a food standard.
    Although the general principles were mostly consistent between FDA
and USDA, a few principles were not identical. Because FDA and USDA
regulate different products under different statutory authorities, some
principles were developed to reflect specific FDA or USDA regulatory
needs and perspectives. FDA and USDA stated that adherence to
principles identified in the proposed rule would result in standards
that would (1) better promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest
of consumers and protect the public; (2) allow for technological
advances in food production; (3) be consistent with international food
standards to the extent feasible; and (4) be clear, simple, and easy to
use for both manufacturers and the agencies that enforce compliance
with the standards.
    The Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) of the proposed
rule anticipated that the associated social costs of finalizing both
FDA and USDA principles would be small, however would likely yield
substantial benefits. The PRIA noted that:

    Standards that contain unnecessary elements or that fail to
provide flexibility in terms of allowable food technology, may
generate unnecessary production costs, and impede technological
innovation in the food industry. Such standards may also serve as
effective barriers to competition, thereby raising product prices
and transferring resources from consumers to producers. Finally,
some standards may be inconsistent with international standards,
which may impede international trade. Impeding international trade
may also restrict competition and lead to higher product prices.

    The PRIA stated that applying the principles set forth in the
proposed rule could help address these issues and that the benefits of
establishing the proposed principles outweighed the costs.
    Interested persons were originally given until August 18, 2005, to
comment on these proposed general principles and to provide additional
information as described in the Request for Comments section of the
proposed rule. While comments received were generally supportive, FDA
and USDA did not finalize the proposed rule due

to resource constraints and competing priorities.

II. FDA Principles in the Proposed Rule

    In the proposed rule, FDA proposed a set of 13 general principles
we would consider when establishing, revising, or eliminating a food
standard (see 70 FR 29214 at 29234 to 29235 (proposed 21 CFR 130.5(b)).
The first four general principles stated the purpose or function of a
food standard and were the most fundamental principles addressing
consumer economic protection. Therefore, if a food standard is
inconsistent with any one of these four principles, we would consider
eliminating it. The proposed rule also would revise or establish a new
food standard if it was consistent with the full set of 13 principles:
    1. Promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
    2. Describes the basic nature of the food to ensure that consumers
are not misled by the name of the food and to meet consumers'
expectations of product characteristics and uniformity.
    3. Reflects the essential characteristics of the food--or those
that define or distinguish a food or describe the distinctive
properties of a food and that may contribute to achieving the food's
basic nature or may reflect relevant consumer expectations of a food
product.
    4. Ensures food does not appear to be better or of a greater value
than it is. May be used as a vehicle to improve the overall nutritional
quality of the food supply.
    5. Contains clear and easily understood requirements to facilitate
compliance by food manufacturers.
    6. Permits maximum flexibility in the technology used to prepare
the food provided the technology does not alter the basic nature or
essential characteristics, or adversely affect the nutritional quality
or safety, of the food. Provides for any suitable, alternative
manufacturing process that accomplishes the desired effect, and
describes ingredients as broadly and generically as feasible.
    7. Harmonizes with international food standards to the extent
feasible.
    8. Is simple, easy to use, and consistent among all food standards.
Includes only those elements that are necessary to define the basic
nature and essential characteristics of a particular food, without
unnecessary details.
    9. Allows for variations in the physical attributes of the food.
Where necessary to provide for specific variations in the physical
attributes of a food within the standard, variations are consolidated
into a single food standard.
    10. Incorporates general requirements that pertain to multiple food
standards of a commodity group into general regulatory provisions that
address the commodity group whenever possible.
    11. Considers other relevant regulations. Any specific requirements
for foods intended for further manufacturing are incorporated within
the reference standard rather than provided as a separate standard.
    12. Provides terms that can be used to name a food and allows terms
to be used in any order that is not misleading to consumers.
    13. Names of ingredients and functional use categories in a food
standard should be consistent with other food standards and relevant
regulations in this chapter, and, when appropriate, incorporate current
scientific nomenclature.

III. FDA's Current Food Standards Modernization Efforts

    Since publication of the proposed rule, FDA announced our Nutrition
Innovation Strategy (NIS) with the goal of helping to reduce
preventable death and disease related to poor nutrition. The NIS
focuses on, among other things, providing incentives for food
manufacturers to produce products that have more healthful attributes.
Under the NIS, FDA is seeking to modernize food standards in a manner
that will achieve three primary goals: (1) Protect consumers against
economic adulteration; (2) maintain the basic nature, essential
characteristics, and nutritional integrity of food; and (3) promote
industry innovation and provide flexibility to encourage manufacturers
to produce more healthful foods.
    In July 2018, FDA held a public meeting on the NIS.\1\ At the
meeting, we led a breakout session to discuss our food standards
modernization goals and, among other things, to learn from stakeholders
what FDA should be aware of when reviewing our food standard
regulations and exploring how to modernize. At this public meeting, and
in comments submitted to the public meeting docket, stakeholders
expressed general support for FDA continuing its work with USDA to
finalize the proposed rule. However, stakeholders also shared that,
given the time that has passed since its publication, we should reopen
the comment period to allow the public the opportunity to provide data
and information on changes that have occurred in manufacturing, food
technology, market trends, and nutrition science that FDA should
consider when determining next steps for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information, please visit FDA's website at: https://www.fda.gov/food/workshops-meetings-webinars-food-and-dietary-supplements/public-meeting-discuss-fdas-nutrition-innovation-strategy-07262018-07262018 or see the public docket FDA-2018-N-2381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FDA intends to work with USDA if we pursue finalization of
the proposed rule, for purposes of this notice we are only interested
in comments, data, and information on FDA-specific aspects of the
proposed rule, including the 13 general principles listed above.

IV. Additional Issues for Consideration

    In response to stakeholder comments and to inform our decision
regarding whether to proceed with finalizing the proposed rule, we seek
new information and public comment on how we could create general
principles for establishing new food standards and for revising or
eliminating existing food standards. While FDA and USDA jointly issued
the proposed rule, we are only seeking comments on the FDA-specific
aspects of the proposal. We encourage comments to be as specific as
possible and, when possible, to provide data and information for FDA to
consider.
    While the public may comment on any FDA aspects of the proposed
rule, we are particularly interested in comments on the following
questions:
    1. Should FDA finalize the proposed rule? Why or why not?
    2. Are there general FDA principles that should be added,
eliminated, revised, or retained?
    a. What is the specific principle?
    b. Why should the principle be added, eliminated, revised, or
retained?
    c. Are there specific product examples that illustrate why a
principle should be added, eliminated, revised, or retained?
    3. What specific revisions should FDA make to the proposed rule's
principles or framework to better reflect our modernization goals of:
    a. Protecting consumers against economic adulteration?
    b. Ensuring standardized foods continue to meet consumer
expectations?
    c. Maintaining the basic nature, essential characteristics, and
nutritional integrity of food?
    d. Promoting industry innovation?
    e. Providing flexibility to produce more healthful foods?
    f. Facilitating additional flexibility across all or broad
categories of standardized foods?
    4. How should FDA weigh the general principles?
    a. The proposed rule stated that the first four principles were the
most fundamental to addressing consumer

economic protection and therefore, FDA would consider eliminating a
food standard if it is inconsistent with any of these four principles.
    i. Please explain whether you agree with this framework.
    ii. If you do not agree, what principles should FDA consider when
deciding whether to eliminate a food standard?
    b. The proposed rule explained that FDA would consider revising or
establishing a new food standard only if it was consistent with all 13
principles.
    i. Please explain whether you agree with this framework.
    ii. If you do not agree, what principles should FDA consider when
deciding whether to revise or establish a new food standard?
    5. What explanation is needed to provide more clarity, certainty,
or context regarding:
    a. The rationale for the principles?
    b. How FDA will consider the principles when evaluating whether to
eliminate, revise, or establish a new food standard?
    c. How stakeholders should use the principles to inform the
preparation of petitions requesting that FDA eliminate, revise, or
establish a new food standard?
    6. What additional information should FDA consider when evaluating
the costs, benefits, and estimates of the annual reporting burden of
the proposed rule?

    Dated: February 13, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-03437 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5498]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01189]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0488; FRL-9921-76-Region 6]

New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to New Mexico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) as submitted
updated regulations for receiving delegation of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) authority for implementation and enforcement of
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and
non-part 70 sources). The delegation of authority under this action
does not apply to sources located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico or
sources located in Indian Country. EPA is providing notice that it is
updating the delegation of certain NSPS to NMED and taking direct final
action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to NMED.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or
before March 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Barrett,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving NMED's request for delegation of authority
to implement and enforce certain NSPS and NESHAP for all sources (both
part 70 and non-part 70 sources). NMED has adopted certain NSPS and
NESHAP by reference into New Mexico's state regulations. In addition,
EPA is waiving its notification requirements so sources will only need
to send notifications and reports to NMED.
    The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth
in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. If EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 19, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-01189 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53556-53558]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0111]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption
Renewal for Ford Motor Company

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew for a period of 5 years
Ford Motor Company's (Ford) current exemption allowing motor carriers
to operate Ford's Transit-based commercial motor vehicles (CMV) that do
not meet the exhaust system location requirements in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require (1) the exhaust
system of a bus powered by a gasoline engine to discharge to the
atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the
bus and (2) the exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor to
discharge to the atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if
the exhaust projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the
cab. Although the Ford Transit does not meet these requirements, it has
undergone performance-based testing that demonstrates that the exhaust
system achieves a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the
regulation. Ford performed carbon monoxide (CO) concentration tests,
which used CO monitors at various locations within the vehicle to
measure the concentration of CO ingress into the occupant compartment
(from the vehicles' own powertrain and exhaust system), under various
driving conditions including idle and top speed. The tests showed that
the resulting CO concentration is below every threshold used by Federal
Agencies. The Agency has concluded that granting this exemption renewal
will maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety provided by the rule restricting the location of
exhaust systems on CMVs to ensure that exhaust fumes will not affect
the driver's alertness or health or the health of passengers.

DATES: The renewal outlined in this notice extends the exemption from
August 15, 2017, through August 15, 2022. Comments on the decision must
be received on or before December 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0111 using any of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and

31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from certain portions
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). On August 20,
2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section
4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information
relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have
been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
    The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must
state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the
exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons
receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from
which an exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective
period of the exemption (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Ford's Application for Exemption

    On December 1, 2014, Ford applied for an exemption from 49 CFR
393.83 to allow motor carriers to operate Ford-manufactured Transit-
based CMVs that do not comply with the exhaust system location
requirements. Section 393.83, ``Exhaust systems,'' includes
requirements regarding the location of exhaust systems on CMVS to
ensure that exhaust fumes will not affect the driver's alertness or
health or the health of passengers. Specifically, Sec.  393.83(c)
states that ``[t]he exhaust system of a bus powered by a gasoline
engine shall discharge to the atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward
of the rearmost part of the bus''; and Sec.  393.83(e) states that
``[t]he exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor shall discharge
to the atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if the
exhaust projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the
cab.'' According to the 2014 exemption application:

    Although Ford Transit vehicles may not satisfy the exhaust
system location requirements of Sec.  393.83, Ford has several
internal requirements applicable to the design of the tailpipe
system that ensure the system will provide high levels of safety for
its customers. Ford's requirements address passenger compartment
exhaust gas intrusion and management of high temperature components.
These requirements include testing of the system and basic design
requirements for the location of the tailpipe in relation to
underbody components like the brake lines and fuel lines. Most
significantly Ford uses internal performance based tests that
demonstrate the system achieves a level of safety equivalent to or
greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by
complying with the regulation. The main test of interest is the
Carbon Monoxide Concentration test. This performance based test uses
CO monitors at various locations in the vehicle to measure the
concentration of CO ingress into the occupant compartment (from
vehicles' own powertrain and exhaust system) under various driving
conditions including idle and top speed.

    Ford tested the 2015 model year Transit in accordance with ``Ford
global common engineering test procedures,'' which limits CO levels to
27 parts-per-million (ppm) for a 30 minute Time Weighted Average (TWA)
during continuous driving. Ford stated that the 27 ppm limit is based
on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Acute Exposure Guideline
Level limits for CO exposure for 8 hour TWA, which is more severe than
both the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's (OSHA)
permissible exposure limit of 50 ppm for an 8 hour TWA and the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) permissible
exposure limit of 35 ppm for a 10 hour TWA. Under ``worst-case
conditions,'' Ford measured the CO level to be 17 ppm for the model
year 2015 Transit, well below the EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH limits.
    Additionally, Ford stated that it has internal requirements to
establish the appropriate clearance required between a vehicle and the
ground to meet a minimum level of on-road functionality. Ford has
specific departure angle requirements for the vehicle to reduce
tailpipe contact with the ground, curbs, ramps, etc., during various
driving modes, thus avoiding damage to the exhaust system that may
adversely affect the exhaust function.
    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on April 17, 2015, and asked for public comment (80 FR 21294). FMCSA
granted the exemption on August 12, 2015 (80 FR 48408). The Agency
concluded that granting the temporary exemption to allow the operation
of model year 2015 Ford Transit-based gas bus models (of all gross
vehicle weight ratings), vans over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating, and corresponding future Transit-based models of the same
design produced during the effective period of the exemption will
provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption. Ford conducted
performance-based testing that demonstrates that the design of the
exhaust system for the model year 2015 and later Fort Transit CMVs (1)
results in CO exposure limits that are well below EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH
established thresholds, and (2) will maintain a level of safety that is
equivalent to the level of safety achieved without the exemption. The
exemption was granted for a 2-year period, beginning August 12, 2015
and ending August 14, 2017.

Ford's Request To Renew the Exemption

    At the time the exemption was granted, the term of temporary
exemptions was limited by statute to a maximum of 2 years. However, on
December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, which now allows an exemption to be granted
for a period of 5 years (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2)) if FMCSA finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption'' (31315(b)(1)). Ford has requested a 5-year extension for
the exemption from 49 CFR 393.83 to allow motor carriers to operate
model year 2015 Ford-manufactured Transit-based CMVs, and later model
year Transit-based models that do not comply with the exhaust system
location requirements.

Basis for Renewing Exemption

    FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that the operation of
model year 2015, 2016, or 2017 Ford Transit-based gas bus models (all
gross vehicle weight ratings), vans over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating, and Transit-based models of the same design produced
during the current exemption has resulted in any degradation of safety.
The Agency believes that extending the exemption for a period of 5
years will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Performance-based testing conducted by Ford has demonstrated that the
design of the exhaust system for the model year 2015 and later Ford
Transit CMVs (1) results in CO exposure limits that are well below EPA,
OSHA, and NIOSH established thresholds, and (2) will maintain a level
of safety that is

equivalent to the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
    The renewal outlined in this notice extends the exemption from
August 12, 2017 through August 12, 2022, and requests public comment.
The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or
commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions
of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the
safety record of motor carriers operating Model Year 2015 Ford-
manufactured Transit based CMVs, and corresponding future Transit-based
models of the same design in accordance with the conditions of the
exemption. The Agency will evaluate adverse evidence submitted during
the comment period and at any time during the 5-year period of the
exemption. If safety is being compromised or if continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take immediate steps to
revoke the Ford exemption.

    Issued on: November 8, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-24826 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59921]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP12-517-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.
    Description: Application for a Limited Jurisdictional Blanket
Certificate of Public Convenience and necessity, pursuant to Section
284.224.
    Filed Date: 9/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120907-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/12.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: September 24, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23946 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17962-17967]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06720]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69180; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Elimination of SPY Position Limits

March 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 11, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to eliminate position limits for options on the
SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] exchange-traded fund (``SPY ETF''),\3\
which list and trade under the symbol SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add new rule text in
a new section entitled ``Supplementary Material'' at the end of Chapter
III, Section 7 (Position Limits) to specifically state that there shall
be no position limits for SPY options subject to a Pilot Program.
Background
    Position limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to address
potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding
the use of options. The Exchange understands that the Commission, when
considering the appropriate level at which to set option position and
exercise limits, has considered the concern that the limits be
sufficient to prevent investors from disrupting the market in the
security underlying the option.\4\ This consideration has been balanced
by the concern that the limits ``not be established at levels that are
so low as to discourage participation in the options market by
institutions and other investors with substantial hedging needs or to
prevent specialists and market-makers from adequately meeting their
obligations to maintain a fair and orderly market.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22,
1999), 64 FR 4911, 4912-4913 (February 1, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-23)
(citing H.R. No. IFC-3, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 189-91 (Comm. Print
1978)).
    \5\ Id. at 4913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPY options are currently the most actively traded option class in
terms of average daily volume (``ADV'').\6\ The Exchange believes that,
despite the popularity of SPY options as evidenced by their significant
volume, the current position limits on SPY options could be a deterrent
to the optimal use of this product as a hedging tool. The Exchange
further believes that position limits on SPY options may inhibit the
ability of certain large market participants, such as mutual funds and
other institutional investors with substantial hedging needs, to
utilize SPY options and gain meaningful exposure to the hedging
function they provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SPY ADV was 2,156,482 contracts in April 2012. ADV for the
same period for the next four most actively traded options was:
Apple Inc. (option symbol AAPL)--1,074,351; S&P 500 Index (option
symbol SPX)--656,250; PowerShares QQQ Trust\SM\, Series 1 (option
symbol QQQ)--573,790; and iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index
Fund (option symbol IWM)--550,316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that current experience with the trading of
SPY

options, as well as the Exchange's surveillance capabilities, has made
it appropriate to consider other, less prophylactic alternatives to
regulating SPY options, while still seeking to ensure that large
positions in SPY options will not unduly disrupt the options or
underlying cash markets. Generally with respect to position limits for
options traded on CBOE and NOM, the CBOE position limits are the
applicable position limits pursuant to the Exchange's Rules at Chapter
III, Section 7(a). CBOE recently filed to eliminate SPY position
limits.\7\ Accordingly, the Exchange's position limits on SPY options
shall also be eliminated in accordance with CBOE's Rules. The Exchange
is memorializing the elimination of SPY options [sic], which is subject
to a Pilot Program, in the Supplementary Material at Chapter III,
Section 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67937 (September 27,
2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091). Prior to
this filing CBOE's position limit for SPY options was 900,000
contracts on the same side of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing the elimination of position limits on SPY options, the
Exchange has considered several factors, including (1) the availability
of economically equivalent products and their respective position
limits, (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security,
(3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the
related index, (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements
surrounding margin, and (5) the potential for market on close
volatility.
Economically Equivalent Products
    The Exchange has considered the existence of economically
equivalent or similar products, and their respective position limits,
if any, in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an elimination of
position limits for SPY options.
    For example, AM-settled options on the S&P 500 Index, which list
and trade exclusively on CBOE under the symbol SPX, are currently not
subject to position limits.\8\ Moreover, SPX options are 10 times the
size of SPY options, so that a position of only 90,000 SPX options is
the equivalent of a position of 900,000 SPY options, which is the
current position limit for SPY options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44994 (October 26,
2001), 66 FR 55722 (November 2, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-22). Position
limits were also eliminated for options on the S&P 100 Index (option
symbol OEX) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (option symbol
DJX).
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the reduced-value option on the S&P
500 Index (option symbol XSP) is the equivalent size of SPY options
and, similar to SPX options, is not subject to position limits. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56350 (September 4, 2007), 72 FR
51878 (September 11, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the C2 Options Exchange (``C2'') has recently introduced
a PM-settled S&P 500 cash settled contract (``SPXPM''), which also is
not subject to position limits.\10\ This contract, unlike the existing
SPX contract, is cash-settled based on the closing value of the S&P 500
Index. In this respect, SPXPM is very much like SPY options in that it
is settled at the close, albeit into cash as opposed to shares of the
underlying like SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008) (``SPXPM
Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, because SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options are
ultimately derivative of the same benchmark--the S&P 500 Index--they
should be treated equally from a position limit perspective. As a
practical matter, investors utilize SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options and
their respective underlying instruments and futures to gain exposure to
the same benchmark index: The S&P 500. Further, because the creation
and redemption process for the underlying SPY ETF allows large
investors to transfer positions from a basket of stocks comprising the
S&P 500 index to an equivalent number of ETF shares (and the reverse)
with relative ease, there is no reason to disadvantage options
overlying the one versus the other. The Exchange believes that this
view is supported by the recent expansion on other options exchanges,
including CBOE, of various exemptions from position limits, such as the
Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemptions which allows SPY option positions
to be delta-hedged by positions in SPX options. Given that SPX options
are not subject to position limits, a member or member organization (or
non-member affiliate thereof) could theoretically establish a position
in SPY options far in excess of the current 900,000 contract limit,
provided that the position is hedged with SPX options. The Exchange
believes that this situation accurately reflects the economic
equivalence of SPX and SPY options, supporting the Exchange's proposal
to further acknowledge this equivalence by eliminating position limits
in SPY options.
    The Exchange also believes that Commission findings in approving
the SPXPM options further support treating SPY options in the same
manner as SPX and SPXPM options for purposes of position limits. In
particular, the Commission noted in approving SPXPM options that ``C2's
proposal will offer investors another investment option through which
they could obtain and hedge exposure to the S&P 500 stocks,'' and that
``C2's proposal will provide investors with the ability to trade an
option on the S&P 500 index in an all-electronic market, which may
better meet the needs of investors who may prefer to trade
electronically.'' \11\ The Commission also noted that ``C2's proposal
will provide investors with added flexibility through an additional
product that may be better tailored to meet their particular
investment, hedging, and trading needs.'' \12\ The Exchange believes
that these Commission findings apply equally to SPY options. In this
respect, SPY options with no position limit will (1) offer investors
another investment option through which they could obtain and hedge
significant levels of exposure to the S&P 500 stocks, (2) be available
to trade on the Exchange (and presumably all other U.S. options
exchanges) electronically, and (3) provide investors with added
flexibility through an additional product that may be better tailored
to meet their particular investment, hedging, and trading needs,
because, among other things, they are PM-settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SPXPM Approval at 55975.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, with respect to competition amongst
economically equivalent products, a 2005 paper by Hans Dutt and
Lawrence Harris that set forth a model to determine appropriate
position limits for cash-settled index derivatives observed that
``markets and their regulators should take a closer look at the
underlying economic rationale for the levels at which they currently
set their position limits to ensure that the limits adequately protect
markets from manipulation and that inconsistent position limits do not
produce competitive advantages and disadvantages among contracts.''
\13\ On this point, the Exchange believes that if no position limits
have been found to be warranted on both SPX and SPXPM options, then
such treatment should be extended to SPY options so that inconsistent
position limits do not produce competitive advantages and disadvantages
among contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 25, No. 10, 945-965,
949 (2005) (``Position Limits for Cash-Settled Derivative
Contracts,'' by Hans R. Dutt and Lawrence E. Harris) (``Dutt-Harris
Paper''). In the paper, the authors examined existing position
limits to determine whether they were consistent with the model the
authors developed, and found that the results indicated that
existing limits were not correlated with the limits suggested by
their model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that the Dutt-Harris Paper focuses
its attention on the concerns relating to manipulation of cash-settled

derivatives, stating that ``[a]lthough several scholars have argued
that cash settlement may increase the risk of market manipulation,
until recently, the theoretical problems arising from potential cash
settlement manipulation has been considered minor, as evidenced by the
lack of academic interest in this area.'' \14\ The paper further noted
that ``[t]he reason for this may arise from the fact that most
exchange-traded derivative index contracts that are cash settled are
broad-based, and each of the underlying components typically possesses
ample liquidity,'' and that ``manipulation of the underlying components
would likely be extremely costly to the would-be manipulator.'' \15\
This suggests that whatever manipulation risk does exist in a cash-
settled, broad-based product such as SPXPM, the corresponding
manipulation risk in a physically-settled, but equally broad-based
product such as SPY, is likely to be equally low, if not lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 946.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange notes that in the Dutt-Harris Paper the
authors observed that the lack of scholarly interest in the cash-
settlement manipulation problem may have been ``due to the fact that,
until recently, most U.S. exchange-traded cash-settled derivative
contracts were based on broad indices of very liquid stocks,'' and that
``[m]anipulation of such instruments require very large trades that are
costly to make and easy to detect through conventional surveillance.''
\16\ This observation applies equally to SPY options, which are based
on a broad index of very liquid stocks and can easily be created by
submitting a position in the underlying securities. Moreover, it
provides additional support for the Exchange's view that the enhanced
reporting and surveillance for SPY options discussed below adequately
address concerns about manipulation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 948.
    \17\ The authors of the Dutt-Harris Paper further posited that
``position limits need only apply during the period when cash
settlement takes place.'' Id. at 964. The Exchange notes that no
such period exists with respect to SPY options, which are physically
settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity in the Option and the Underlying Security
    The Exchange has also considered the liquidity of SPY options and
the underlying SPY ETF in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an
elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    In approving the elimination of position and exercise limits on SPX
options, the Commission noted that the deep, liquid markets for the
securities underlying the S&P 500 Index reduced concerns regarding
market manipulation or disruption in the underlying markets.\18\ The
Commission further noted that removing position limits for SPX options
could also bring additional depth and liquidity, in terms of both
volume and open interest, without increasing concerns regarding
intermarket manipulations or disruptions of the options or the
underlying securities.\19\ The Exchange similarly believes that this
would be the case if position limits for SPY options were eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4 at 4913.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, both the SPY ETF and SPY options similarly exhibit
deep, liquid markets. However, SPY options are not as active as SPX
options when adjusted for the difference in their notional size.\20\ As
described below, the Exchange believes that this is partly due to the
existence of position limits for SPY options. The table below compares
the ADV in both SPX and SPY options, and includes an ``implied SPY
volume'' figure that reflects theoretical SPY ADV without the
constraint of position limits:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ SPX options have a notional value 10 times greater than SPY
options (i.e., one SPX contract equals 10 SPY contracts).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Implied SPY
           Date range               Trade days      SPX options     SPY options     Implied SPY     option ADV
                                                        ADV             ADV         option ADV       shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011...             252       1,567,535       5,789,511      15,675,353       9,885,842
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012...              75       1,343,735       4,525,709      13,437,353       8,911,644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that certain factors may result in SPX
options--adjusted for their larger notional size--currently trading
with greater volume than SPY options.\21\ In this regard, the Exchange
believes that, based on input from various market participants, the
existence of position limits in SPY options is reason in itself to
instead utilize SPX options. Anecdotally, market participants perceive
value in avoiding the regulatory risk of exceeding the SPY option
position limit by instead using SPX options for their hedging needs.
The Exchange also believes that, while exemptions are available with
respect to position limits for SPY options, such exemptions, and the
regulatory burden attendant therewith, may dissuade investors from
using SPY options when they can instead use an SPX option without the
need for such an exemption. Because SPY and SPX options are
economically equivalent products, an investor deciding between the two
would generally trade the product with the least barriers or
requirements to engage in such activity. In this respect, SPX options
are currently the easier product to trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange notes that the ``Implied SPY Option ADV
Shortfall'' has narrowed over time and at an accelerated rate, which
the Exchange believes is a direct result of the implementation of
the Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption that allows SPY options to be
hedged via SPX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further comparison, the following table sets forth certain
data for both the SPY ETF and the combined volume for the component
securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                S&P 500 Index
                                                                  S&P 500 Index       underlying component                         SPY ETF average daily
                         Date range                            underlying component   average daily value        SPY ETF ADV            value traded
                                                                     ADV \22\                traded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011...............................          3,289,595,675     $4,149,726,217,456            218,227,747        $27,297,097,993
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012...............................          2,851,457,600      3,860,704,307,080            145,164,527         19,684,577,239
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This data shows that there is tremendous liquidity in both SPY ETF
shares and the component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is
based. While the ADV for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than the ADV for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that SPY
ETF volume has been, is currently and will likely continue to be within
a range that the Commission has previously determined to be a deep,
liquid market.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The data considers the aggregate volume for all component
stocks of the S&P 500 Index.
    \23\ See supra note 4 at n. 13. The ADV for the components of
the indexes underlying the options for which position limits were
eliminated were 94.77 million shares (DJX), 244.3 million shares
(OEX), and 757.5 million shares (SPX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Capitalization of the Underlying Security and the Related Index
    The Exchange has also considered the market capitalization of the
SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index in assessing the appropriateness of
proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    The Exchange understands that the Commission similarly considered
the market capitalization of the underlying index when it approved the
elimination of position limits in SPX options. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the capitalization of and the deep, liquid
markets for the underlying SPY ETF reduces concerns regarding market
manipulation or disruption in the underlying market. The table below
shows the market capitalization of the SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date range average S&P   Date range average S&P
               Date range average S&P 500 Index                        500 Index                500 Index
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011.................................      $11,818,270,341,270          $89,533,777,897
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012.................................       12,547,946,920,000           99,752,986,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This data shows the enormous capitalization of both the SPY ETF and the
component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based. While the
capitalization for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than that for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that the SPY
ETF capitalization has nonetheless been, is currently and will likely
continue to be at a level consistent with that which the Commission has
previously determined to be enormously capitalized.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 9 at 51879. Specifically, the market
capitalization of the component securities of the Russell 2000 Index
(``RUT'') of $1.73 trillion was determined to be enormously
capitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the theoretical limit on one's ability to
hedge both SPX and SPY options is the full market capitalization of the
S&P 500 Index itself. This similarly contributes to the Exchange's
determination that it is appropriate for position limits on SPY options
to be eliminated.
Large Position Reporting and Margin Requirements
    The Exchange has also considered the reporting of large option
positions and related margin requirements in assessing the
appropriateness of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY
options.
    The Exchange notes that the Exchange's Rules at Chapter III,
Section 10 entitled ``Reports Related to Position Limits'' would
continue to apply. Section 10 of Chapter III requires Participants to
maintain and furnish to Nasdaq Regulation all reports required by the
applicable rule of any options exchange of which it is a member with
respect to reports related to position limits. Additionally, it should
be noted that the clearing firm carrying the account will be subject to
capital charges under Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 to the extent
of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirements.
    Monitoring accounts maintaining large positions provides the
Exchange with the information necessary to determine whether to impose
additional margin and/or whether to assess capital charges upon a
member organization carrying the account. In addition, the Commission's
net capital rule, Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\25\ imposes a capital charge on members to the extent of
any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement,
which should serve as an additional form of protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving SPXPM, the Commission addressed concerns about the
lack of a position limit by noting that the Exchange will rely on its
enhanced surveillance requirements and procedures for SPX options to
monitor trading activity in SPXPM options.\26\ Similarly, the Exchange
notes that certain option products are currently traded without
position limits (e.g., the NASDAQ[supreg] 100 Index option (option
symbol NDX) and the Russell 2000[supreg] Index option (option symbol
RUT)), and believes that the reporting, surveillance and monitoring
mechanisms in place for these products are effective and could easily
accommodate SPY options if position limits thereon are eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SPXPM Approval at 55972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market on Close Volatility
    The Exchange has also considered the potential for resulting or
increased market on close volatility in assessing the appropriateness
of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    SPY options are American-style, physically settled options that can
be exercised at any time and settle into shares of the underlying SPY
ETF. A key characteristic of the SPY ETF is that the number of shares
outstanding is limited only by the number of shares available in the
component securities of the S&P 500 Index, which can be used to create
additional SPY ETF shares as needed. This in-kind creation and
redemption mechanism has proven to be quite robust, as evidenced by the
SPY ETF's close tracking of its benchmark index and the relatively
small premiums or discounts to Net Asset Value (``NAV'') that it has
historically exhibited.\27\ Additionally, the ability to hedge with SPX
options against the stocks underlying the S&P 500 is limited to the
shares outstanding for those stocks--the same limit that applies to
hedging with SPY options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
risk of distortions to the market resulting from the elimination of
position limits in SPY options is no greater than the risk presented by
SPX options not being subject to position limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF Trust, Annual Report
(September 30, 2011), available at https://www.spdrs.com/librarycontent/public/SPY%20Annual%20Report%2009.30.11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a physically-settled option, SPY options can be easily hedged
via long or short positions in SPY ETF shares, which, as noted above,
can be easily created or redeemed as needed. With a physically-settled
contract such as SPY options, once a hedge in the form of a long or
short position is obtained, that hedge can only be lost if the
underlying security becomes hard to borrow and

the short position is bought in.\28\ The Exchange believes that this
ability to hedge with shares of the SPY ETF is very important, and
reduces the likelihood of market on close volatility in the component
securities underlying the S&P 500 Index (i.e., a market participant can
remain fully hedged through expiration via shares of the SPY ETF),
which should also be the case if position limits for SPY options are
eliminated. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the
elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase
market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
The Exchange believes that any potential concern regarding volatility
at the closing that could result from an elimination in the position
limits for SPY options is further alleviated by the current trading
environment, including that there are markets for individual securities
on more than one exchange, via unlisted trading privileges, that there
is wide dispersion of trading across multiple exchanges, and that
exchange procedures and systems are designed to facilitate orderly
closings, even when there is volatility.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As noted, the in-kind creation and redemption process
allows for short term imbalances in supply and demand to be resolved
readily, which in turn reduces the likelihood of getting ``bought
in'' on a short position in SPY. Since the implementation of
Regulation SHO, SPY has never been on the threshold security list,
which further evidences the efficacy of the in-kind creation and
redemption process in resolving imbalances in supply and demand.
    \29\ See, e.g., Rule 133 titled ``Trading Halts Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility'' [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    In addition to Commission approval [sic], the implementation of
this proposed rule change will be contingent on other factors,
including the completion of any changes that may be necessary to the
Exchange's regulatory and surveillance program. The Exchange will
announce the implementation of the elimination of position limits on
SPY options through a notice to ATP holders after any Commission
approval of this proposed rule change [sic].
Pilot Program
    The Exchange proposes that this rule change be adopted pursuant to
a pilot program, set to expire [fourteen (14) months after the
beginning of the Pilot Progam [sic]]. The Exchange will perform an
analysis of the initial pilot program to eliminate position limits in
SPY after the first twelve (12) months of the pilot program (the
``Pilot Program'' [sic]). The Pilot Report will be submitted within
thirty (30) days of the end of such twelve (12) month time period. The
Pilot Report will detail the size and different types of strategy
employed with respect to positions established as a result of the
elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the report will
note whether any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any
other information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of
the pilot program. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the
pilot program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility
in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration.
In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements
such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make
available to Commission staff data elements relating to the
effectiveness of the pilot program.
    Conditional on the findings in the Pilot Report, the Exchange will
file with the Commission a proposal to either extend the pilot program,
adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate [fourteen
(14) months after the beginning of [sic] the Pilot Program.] If the
Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by
[fourteen (14) months after the beginning of the Pilot Program], the
position limits for SPY would revert to limits in effect at the
commencement of the pilot program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \30\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \31\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be
beneficial to market participants, including market makers,
institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to
establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and
needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products
should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory
arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and
SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits
is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable
principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that
the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase
market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that
the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar
filings by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed
rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges and to establish uniform positions for a multiply listed
options class.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \34\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \35\

permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay, noting that doing so will ensure fair competition among options
exchanges and immediately benefit market participants who are Exchange
members and members of other exchanges, such as NYSE Amex and CBOE, by
ensuring consistency and uniformity across options exchanges with
respect to the multiply listed SPY options class. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \36\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-046 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-NASDAQ-2013-046. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-NASDAQ-2013-046 and should
be submitted on or before April 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06720 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59608]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP12-1042-000]

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 18, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2012), Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (GTN), filed a
petition seeking a declaratory order from the Commission declaring that
the phrase ``commercially free'' as set forth and used in GTN's tariff
does not mean that the natural gas GTN transports on its system must be
``entirely free'' of compressor oil.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, October 18, 2012.

    Dated: September 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23931 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33957-33958]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0258]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0048

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0048, Vessel Reporting Requirements. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review
and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August
15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0258] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2019-0258], and must be received by August 15,
2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0048.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 19096, May 3, 2019)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel Reporting Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.
    Summary: Owners, Charterers, Managing Operators, or Agents of U.S.
vessels must immediately notify the Coast Guard if they believe the
vessel may be lost or in danger. The Coast Guard uses this information
to investigate the situation and, when necessary, plan appropriate
search and rescue operations.
    Need: Section 2306(a) of 46 U.S.C. requires the owner, charterer,
managing operator, or an agent of vessel of the United States to
immediately notify the Coast Guard if: (1) There is reason to believe
that the vessel may have been lost or imperiled, or (2) more than 48
hours have passed since last receiving communication from the vessel.
These reports must be followed by written confirmation submitted to the
Coast Guard within 24 hours. The implementing regulations are contained
in 46 CFR part 4.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 137
hours to 138 hours a year, due to an adjustment in the agencies
estimate. The change in annual burden is an ADJUSTMENT (i.e., increase)
due to a mathematical error in the agencies estimate in the previous
submission. There is no proposed change to the reporting requirements
of this collection. The reporting requirements and methodology for
calculating burden, remains unchanged.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: July 11, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-15051 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P