[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67765-67766]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-D-0219]

Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products--Labeling for
Dosing Based on Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-Use
Containers--``Dose Banding''; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled ``Human
Prescription Drug and Biological Products--Labeling for Dosing Based on
Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-Use Containers--`Dose
Banding.' '' The guidance is intended to assist applicants in
incorporating dose banding information, based on dosing information of
a previously approved drug product that is based on weight or body
surface area (BSA), into the proposed labeling of injectable drug
products that are the subject of certain marketing applications
submitted to FDA. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the
same title issued on July 21, 2022.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

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-2022-D-0219 for ``Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products--
Labeling for Dosing Based on Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-
Use Containers--`Dose Banding.' '' Received comments 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.'' The Agency 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Wheeler, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0151; or Anne Taylor, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products--Labeling
for Dosing Based on Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-Use
Containers--`Dose Banding.' '' This guidance provides recommendations
for incorporating dose banding information into the labeling of an
injectable drug product that is seeking approval through a new drug
application submitted under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
355(b)), a biologics license application submitted under section 351(a)
of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or a supplement to one of these
approved applications. The recommendations and examples in this
guidance are relevant to situations in which an applicant (1) proposes
to develop ready-to-use containers with a range of different strengths
for an injectable drug product and (2) seeks to incorporate dose
banding information into the prescribing information based on dosing
information of a previously approved drug product that is based on
weight or BSA.
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled ``Human
Prescription Drug and Biological Products--Labeling for Dosing Based on
Weight or Body Surface Area for Ready-to-Use Containers--`Dose Banding'
'' issued on July 21, 2022 (87 FR 43533). FDA considered comments
received on the draft guidance as it developed the final guidance.
Changes from the draft guidance are primarily intended to improve
clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Human Prescription Drug and Biological
Products--Labeling for Dosing Based on Weight or Body Surface Area for
Ready-to-Use Containers--`Dose Banding.' '' It does not establish any
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it
does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The
previously approved collections of information are subject to review by
Office of Management Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21
CFR part 201 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21
CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances,
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21558 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


segment in service at a maximum
                                allowable operating pressure calculated
                                under this section, address interference
                                issues on the segment.
                               (ii) To address interference issues, do
                                the following:
                                  (A) Conduct an interference survey to
                                   detect the presence and level of any
                                   electrical current that could impact
                                   external corrosion;
                                  (B) Analyze the results of the survey;
                                   and
                                  (C) Take any remedial action needed to
                                   protect the segment from deleterious
                                   current.
(7) Confirming external        (i) Within six months after placing the
 corrosion control through      cathodic protection of a new segment in
 indirect assessment.           operation, or within six months after
                                recalculating the maximum allowable
                                operating pressure of an existing
                                segment under this section, assess the
                                integrity of the coating and adequacy of
                                the cathodic protection through an
                                indirect method such as close-interval
                                survey, direct current voltage gradient,
                                or alternating current voltage gradient.
                               (ii) Remediate any construction damaged
                                coating with a voltage drop classified
                                as moderate or severe indication under
                                section 4, table 3 of NACE RP-0502-2002
                                (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                192.7).
                               (iii) Within six months after completing
                                the baseline internal inspection
                                required under paragraph (9) of this
                                section, integrate the results of the
                                indirect assessment required under
                                paragraph (7)(i) of this section with
                                the results of the baseline internal
                                inspection and take any needed remedial
                                actions.
                               (iv) For all segments in high consequence
                                areas, do periodic assessments as
                                follows:
                                  (A) Conduct periodic close interval
                                   surveys with current interrupted to
                                   confirm voltage drops in association
                                   with periodic assessments under
                                   subpart O of this part.
                                  (B) Locate pipe-to-soil test stations
                                   at half-mile intervals within each
                                   high consequence area ensuring at
                                   least one station is within each high
                                   consequence area.
                                  (C) Integrate the results with those
                                   of the baseline and periodic
                                   assessments for integrity done under
                                   paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) of this
                                   section.
(8) Controlling external       (i) If an annual test station reading
 corrosion through cathodic     indicates cathodic protection below the
 protection.                    level of protection required in subpart
                                I of this part, complete remedial action
                                within six months of the failed reading;
                                and
                               (ii) After remedial action to address a
                                failed reading, confirm restoration of
                                adequate corrosion control by a close
                                interval survey on either side of the
                                affected test station to the next test
                                station.
(9) Conducting a baseline      (i) Except as provided in paragraph
 assessment of integrity.       (d)(9)(iii) of this section, for a new
                                segment, do a baseline internal
                                inspection as follows:
                                  (A) Assess using a geometry tool after
                                   the initial hydrostatic test and
                                   backfill within six months after
                                   placing the new segment in service;
                                   and
                                  (B) Assess using a high resolution
                                   magnetic flux tool within three years
                                   after placing the new segment in
                                   service.

                               (ii) Except as provided in paragraph
                                (d)(9)(iii) of this section, for an
                                existing segment, do a baseline internal
                                assessment using a geometry tool and a
                                high resolution magnetic flux tool
                                before, but within two years prior to,
                                raising pressure as allowed under this
                                section.
                               (iii) If headers, mainline valve by-
                                passes, compressor station piping, meter
                                station piping, or other short portion
                                of a segment cannot accommodate a
                                geometry tool and a high resolution
                                magnetic flux tool, use direct
                                assessment to assess that portion.
(10) Conducting periodic       (i) Determine a frequency for subsequent
 assessments of integrity.      periodic inspections as if the segments
                                were covered by subpart O of this part.
                               (ii) Conduct periodic internal
                                inspections using a high resolution
                                magnetic flux tool on the frequency
                                determined under paragraph (d)(10)(i) of
                                this section.
                               (iii) Use direct assessment for periodic
                                assessment of a portion of a segment to
                                the extent permitted for a baseline
                                assessment under paragraph (d)(9)(iii)
                                of this section.
(11) Making repairs..........  (i) Do the following when evaluating an
                                anomaly:
                                  (A) Use the most conservative
                                   calculation for determining remaining
                                   strength or an alternative validated
                                   calculation based on pipe diameter,
                                   wall thickness, grade, operating
                                   pressure, operating stress level, and
                                   operating temperature: and
                                  (B) Take into account the tolerances
                                   of the tools used for the inspection.
                               (ii) Repair a defect immediately if any
                                of the following apply:
                                  (A) The defect is a dent discovered
                                   during the baseline assessment for
                                   integrity under paragraph (d)(9) of
                                   this section and the defect meets the
                                   criteria for immediate repair in Sec.
                                     192.309(b).
                                  (B) The defect meets the criteria for
                                   immediate repair in Sec.
                                   192.933(d).
                                  (C) The maximum allowable operating
                                   pressure was based on a design factor
                                   of 0.67 under paragraph (a) of this
                                   section and the failure pressure is
                                   less than 1.25 times the maximum
                                   allowable operating pressure.
                                  (D) The maximum allowable operating
                                   pressure was based on a design factor
                                   of 0.56 under paragraph (a) of this
                                   section and the failure pressure is
                                   less than or equal to 1.4 times the
                                   maximum allowable operating pressure.
                               (iii) If paragraph (d)(11)(ii) of this
                                section does not require immediate
                                repair, repair a defect within one year
                                if any of the following apply:
                                  (A) The defect meets the criteria for
                                   repair within one year in Sec.
                                   192.933(d).
                                  (B) The maximum allowable operating
                                   pressure was based on a design factor
                                   of 0.80 under paragraph (a) of this
                                   section and the failure pressure is
                                   less than 1.25 times the maximum
                                   allowable operating pressure.
                                  (C) The maximum allowable operating
                                   pressure was based on a design factor
                                   of 0.67 under paragraph (a) of this
                                   section and the failure pressure is
                                   less than 1.50 times the maximum
                                   allowable operating pressure.
                                  (D) The maximum allowable operating
                                   pressure was based on a design factor
                                   of 0.56 under paragraph (a) of this
                                   section and the failure pressure is
                                   less than or equal to 1.80 times the
                                   maximum allowable operating pressure.
                               (iv) Evaluate any defect not required to
                                be repaired under paragraph (d)(11)(ii)
                                or (iii) of this section to determine
                                its growth rate, set the maximum
                                interval for repair or re-inspection,
                                and repair or re-inspect within that
                                interval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Is there any change in overpressure protection associated with
operating at the alternative maximum allowable operating pressure?
Notwithstanding the required capacity of pressure relieving and
limiting stations otherwise required by Sec.  192.201, if an operator
establishes a maximum allowable operating pressure for a segment in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, an operator must:
    (1) Provide overpressure protection that limits mainline pressure
to a maximum of 104 percent of the maximum allowable operating
pressure; and
    (2) Develop and follow a procedure for establishing and maintaining
accurate set points for the supervisory control and data acquisition
system.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2008.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-4656 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13022]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04792]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-261, OMB Control No. 3235-0274]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-11

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-11 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-11), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-11 requires every registered recordkeeping transfer agent
to report certain information to issuers and its appropriate regulatory
agency in the event that the aggregate market value of an ``aged record
difference'' exceeds certain thresholds. A ``record difference'' occurs
when the number of shares or principal dollar amount of securities in
an issuer's records do not equal those in the master securityholder
file as indicated, for instance, on certificates presented to the
transfer agent for purchase, redemption or transfer. An ``aged record
difference'' is a record difference that has existed for more than 30
calendar days. In addition, the rule requires every registered
recordkeeping transfer agent to report certain information to issuers
and its appropriate regulatory agency concerning buy-ins of all issues
for which it acts as recordkeeping transfer agent. Further, the rule
requires every registered recordkeeping transfer agent to report to its
appropriate regulatory agency when it has failed to post certificate
detail to the master securityholder file within five business days of
the time required by Rule 17Ad-10 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-10). Transfer agents
must also maintain a copy of any report required under Rule 17Ad-11 for
a period of not less than three years following the date of the report,
the first year in an easily accessible place.
    Because the information required by Rule 17Ad-11 is already
available to transfer agents, any collection burden for small transfer
agents is minimal. Based on a review of the number of Rule 17Ad-11
reports the Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (collectively, the ``appropriate regulatory
agencies'') received since 2015, the Commission staff estimates that 8
respondents will file a total of approximately 10 reports annually. The
Commission staff estimates that, on average, each report can be
completed in 30 minutes. Therefore, the total annual time burden for
the entire transfer agent industry is approximately 5 hours (0.5 hours
x 10 reports). Assuming an average hourly rate of $72 for a compliance
staff employee at a transfer agent, the average total internal cost of
compliance for each report is $36. The total annual internal cost of
compliance for the estimated 8 respondents is thus approximately $360
($36 per report x 10 reports).
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17Ad-11 is not less than three years following the date of a report
prepared pursuant to the rule. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17Ad-11 is mandatory to assist the Commission and other regulatory
agencies in monitoring transfer agents who are not performing their
functions promptly and accurately. This rule does not involve the
collection of confidential information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing by May 9, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04792 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16415-16416]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07783]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

    Reports of Evidence of Material Violations, SEC File No. 270-
514, OMB Control No. 3235-0572

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501-3520, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit the existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension.
    On February 6, 2003, the Commission published final rules,
effective August 5, 2003, entitled ``Standards of Professional Conduct
for Attorneys Appearing and Practicing Before the Commission in the
Representation of an Issuer'' (17 CFR 205.1-205.7). The information
collection embedded in the rules is necessary to implement the
Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys prescribed by the rule
and required by Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15
U.S.C. 7245). The rules impose an ``up-the-ladder'' reporting
requirement when attorneys appearing and practicing before the
Commission become aware of evidence of a material violation by the
issuer or any officer, director, employee, or agent of the issuer. An
issuer may choose to establish a qualified legal compliance committee
(``QLCC'') as an alternative procedure for reporting evidence of a
material violation. In the rare cases in which a majority of a QLCC has
concluded that an issuer did not act appropriately, the information may
be communicated to the Commission. The collection of information is,
therefore, an important component of the Commission's program to
discourage violations of the federal securities laws and promote
ethical behavior of attorneys appearing and practicing before the
Commission.
    The respondents to this collection of information are attorneys who
appear and practice before the Commission and, in certain cases, the
issuer, and/or officers, directors and committees of the issuer. We
believe that, in providing quality representation to issuers, attorneys
report evidence of violations to others within the issuer, including
the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Executive Officer, and, where
necessary, the directors. In addition, officers and directors
investigate evidence of violations and report within the issuer the
results of the investigation and the remedial steps they have taken or
sanctions they have imposed. Except as discussed below, we therefore
believe that the reporting requirements imposed by the rule are ``usual
and customary'' activities that do not add to the burden that would be
imposed by the collection of information.
    Certain aspects of the collection of information, however, may
impose a burden. For an issuer to establish a QLCC, the QLCC must adopt
written procedures for the confidential receipt, retention, and
consideration of any report of evidence of a material violation. We
estimate for purposes of the PRA that there are approximately 10,712
issuers that are subject to the rules.\1\ Of these, we estimate that
approximately 319, which is approximately 3 percent, have established
or will establish a QLCC.\2\ Establishing the written procedures
required by the rule should not impose a significant burden. We assume
that an issuer would incur a greater burden in the year that it first
establishes the procedures than in subsequent years, in which the
burden would be incurred in updating, reviewing, or modifying the
procedures. For purposes of the PRA, we assume that an issuer would
spend 6 hours every three-year period on the procedures. This would
result in an average burden of 2 hours per year. Thus, we estimate for
purposes of the PRA that the total annual burden imposed by the
collection of information would be 638 hours. Assuming half of the
burden hours will be incurred by outside counsel at a rate of $500 per
hour would result in a cost of $159,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure is based on the estimated 7,625 operating
companies that filed annual reports on Form 10-K, Form 20-F, or Form
40-F during the 2017 calendar year, and the estimated 3,087
investment companies that filed periodic reports on Form N-SAR
during that same time period.
    \2\ This estimate is based on issuer-filings made with the
Commission between January 1, 2015 and March 18, 2018 that include a
reference to the issuer's QLCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden[s]
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-

Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 [email protected].

    Dated: April 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07783 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44092-44093]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-529-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 9, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), filed in Docket No. CP15-529-000, a prior
notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and National
Fuel's blanket authorization issued in Docket No. CP83-4-000. National
Fuel seeks authorization to modify or remove piping and abandon one
natural gas injection/withdrawal in National Fuel's Swede Hill Storage
Field located in McKean County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
for public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to: Janet
R. Bayer, Senior Regulatory Analyst, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the

Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for
this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it
will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the
Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: July 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18107 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33799-33800]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13507]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-346, OMB Control No. 3235-0392]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 15g-3

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-3--Broker or dealer
disclosure of quotations and other information relating to the penny
stock market (17 CFR 240.15g-3) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15g-3 requires that brokers and dealers disclose to customers
current quotation prices or similar market information in connection
with transactions in penny stocks. The

purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to investors
concerning penny stocks generally and specific penny stock
transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 178 broker-dealers will
each spend an average of approximately 87.0833333 hours annually to
comply with this rule. Thus, the total time burden is approximately
15,501 hours per year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 21, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13507 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47227-47228]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0022; OMB No. 1660-0054]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and Fire
Prevention and Safety Grants--Grant Application Supplemental
Information

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

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a currently
approved collection with revisions. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the
applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program,
the Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants program, the Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants program, and the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program--COVID-19 Supplemental (AFG-
S). These programs focus on enhancing the safety of the public and
firefighters with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. The changes
proposed will acknowledge the FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) system as
the new collection instrument for the AFG, AFG-S, SAFER, and FP&S
programs. The individual forms will be combined into a question bank to
allow the FEMA GO system to fully utilize its technology to simplify
the process by reducing unnecessary questions.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2022-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID, and will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is
available via a link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Dunham, Fire Program
Specialist, FEMA, Grant Programs Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. You may contact the Information Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority for these grant programs is
derived from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act, Div. B (Pub. L. 116-136); and Sections 33 and 34 of the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, Public Law 93-498, as amended
(15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a). The information collected is grant application
information that is necessary to assess the needs of the applicants as
well as the benefits to be obtained from the use of funds. The
information collected through the program's application is the minimum
necessary to evaluate grant applications and is necessary for FEMA to
comply with mandates delineated in the law.
    FEMA is consolidating several forms associated with these programs
into the FEMA GO electronic system, FF-207-FY-21-116. Transitioning and
consolidating these forms into the electronic system will allow FEMA to
retire the following forms: FEMA Form 080-0-2, AFG Application (General
Questions and Narrative); FEMA Form 080-0-2a, Activity Specific
Questions for AFG Vehicle Applicants; FEMA Form 080-0-2b, Activity
Specific Questions for AFG Operations and Safety Applications; FEMA
Form 080-3, Activity Specific Questions for Fire Prevention and Safety
Applicants; FEMA Form 080-0-3a, Fire Prevention and Safety; FEMA Form
080-0-3b, Research and Development; FEMA Form 080-0-0-13, Semi-Annual
Performance Plan; FEMA Form 080-0-0-16, Final Performance Plan; FEMA

Form 080-0-4, SAFER (General Questions for All Applicants); FEMA Form
080-0-4a, SAFER Hiring of Firefighters Application (Questions and
Narrative); FEMA Form 080-0-4b, SAFER Recruitment and Retention of
Volunteer Firefighters Application (Questions and Narrative); FEMA Form
087-0-0-2, SAFER Quarterly Report and Payment Request Form; and the
AFG-S Application.
    Temporary forms, FF-207-FY-22-120, Assistance to Firefighters Gant
Programmatic Performance Report, FF-207-FY-22-120-A, Fire Preventions
and Safety Programmatic Performance Report, FF-207-FY-22-120-B,
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Hiring Programmatic
Performance Report, and FF-207-FY-22-120-C, Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Response Recruitment and Retention Programmatic
Performance Report, will be used to collect required performance
reports until the system is able to collect this information
electronically.

Collection of Information

    Title: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and Fire Prevention
and Safety Grants-Grant Application Supplemental Information.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0054.
    FEMA Forms: FF-207-FY-21-116, Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Programs; FF-207-FY-22-120; Assistance to Firefighters Gant
Programmatic Performance Report; FF-207-FY-22-120-A, Fire Preventions
and Safety Programmatic Performance Report; FF-207-FY-22-120-B,
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Hiring Programmatic
Performance Report; and FF-207-FY-22-120-C, Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Response Recruitment and Retention Programmatic
Performance Report.
    Abstract: The Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants program, the
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants
program, and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program--COVID-19
Supplemental (AFG-S) focus on enhancing the safety of the public and
firefighters with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. FEMA uses
this information to ensure that FEMA's responsibilities under the
legislation can be fulfilled accurately and efficiently. The
information will be used to objectively evaluate each of the
anticipated applicants to determine which of the applicants' proposals
in each of the activities are the closest to the established program
priorities.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; Not-for-Profit
Institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 24,112.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 24,112.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 191,720.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $12,345,373.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $433,412.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-16503 Filed 8-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 75574]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0036; OMB No. 1660-0126]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMPG).
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0126.
    Form Titles and Numbers: No forms.
    Abstract: The Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Program assists State and local governments in enhancing and sustaining
all-hazards emergency management capabilities. The EMPG Work Plan
narrative must demonstrate how proposed projects address gaps,
deficiencies, and capabilities in current programs and the ability to
provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the program and
guidance provided by FEMA. FEMA uses the information to provide
details, timelines, and milestones on proposed projects.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 58.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 174 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $5,603.00. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$362,093.40.

    Dated: December 4, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-29653 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

10/01/2007 12:06 PM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

RE: RESEND:  SAB letter on extrapolated costs

I just sent a note to Jim DeMocker who runs the 812 analysis for OAR to look into your questions.  He is out of the office until the 8th.  Can you wait until next week for answers on these contextual questions?

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/01/2007 10:48 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: RESEND:  SAB letter on extrapolated costs

Can you provide the context for this letter?  It appears as though the

questions were being posed for previous rulemakings; i.e., what was the

ozone naaqs std being modeled in the background review document?

"The Project Team has been unable to identify measures that yield

sufficient emission

reductions to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) and relies on

unidentified pollution control measures to make up the difference.

Emission reductions attributed to

unidentified measures appear to account for a large share of emission

reductions required for a few

large metropolitan areas but a relatively small share of emission

reductions in other locations and

nationwide."

Which naaqs and levels does this refer to?

Rob


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE NSPS Subpart QQ Graphic Arts Industry 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NSPS Subpart QQ  Graphic Arts Industry Subject to New Source Performance Standards 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Subpart QQ were proposed on October 28, 1980, and promulgated on November 8, 1982. These standards apply to the following facilities in NSPS Subpart QQ, each publication rotogravure printing press ( not including proof presses) commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ. Owners or operators of the affected facilities described have certain notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements under this rule. One example of each is: a one time only notification of the date of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; keep records of monthly emissions calculations, and a report of the initial performance test. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such reports and records. Approximately 30 facilities are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that an additional 3 facilities will become subject to the standard in the next three years, for a total of 31. The existing 30 facilities each have an average of 9 units subject to this rule. It is further assumed that less than half of those facilities will add or modify a press at their facility during the three year period. The 3 new facilities will begin operations with 6 presses each. Therefore there are 270 existing presses subject to this standard and an additional 10 affected units will be added each year. This is based upon the AIRS Facility Subsystem Report. The annual cost of this ICR will be $ 153,949.67. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office. Information is entered into the AIRS database.

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

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

In addition, Section 114( a) states that:

... the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to ( A) establish and maintain such records, ( B) make such reports, ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such interval, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and ( D) sample such emissions, ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical, ( F) submit compliance certifications, and ( G) provide such other information as he may reasonably require. In the Administrator's judgment, volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) emissions from NSPS Subpart QQ cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ .

2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA The control of emissions of volatile organic compounds from NSPS Subpart QQ requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from NSPS Subpart QQ are the result of operation of the publication rotogravure printing presses. These standards rely on the use of waterborne ink systems, or solvent bourne ink systems in conjunction with either fixed bed carbon adsorption/ solvent recovery systems or a solvent vapor capture system to control VOC emissions. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the standard is being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. The information generated by the monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to achieve compliance with the NSPS. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. 3 The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ. If the standard has not been delegated the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement NSPS Subpart QQ, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal Standard. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2000, ( 65 FR 55955); no comments were received.

3( c) Consultations No additional consultations were conducted..

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

3( e) General Guidelines None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 60 or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

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

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 60 or otherwise pertinent to this request contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are NSPS Subpart QQ ( SIC Code 2754) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after October 28,1980.

4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( I) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ. Provide notification of  construction/ reconstruction ( 60.7( a)( 1) )  anticipated startup ( 60.7( a)( 2))  actual startup ( 60.7( a)( 3))  initial performance test ( 60.8( d))  physical or operational change ( 60.7( a)( 4)) Report on  initial performance test ( 60.8 ( a), 60.433( e)( 6)) Record  startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions ( 60.7( b))  records necessary to determine conditions of the performance test ( 60.8( c) and 60.433( a)( 5), and 60.7( f))  records showing information to make monthly calculations for emissions ( 60.434( a) and 60.7( f))

Records are required to be retained for 2 years.

b. Respondent Activities  Read instructions 5  perform initial performance test, Reference Method 24A test, and repeat performance tests if necessary  write the notifications and reports listed above  enter information required to be recorded above.  submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information;  developing systems and acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology if necessary for the purpose of processing and maintaining information;  developing systems and acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology if necessary for the purpose of disclosing and providing information;  adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;  training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;  transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information 5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the information required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ:  Observes initial and repeat performance tests  Reviews notifications and reports required to be submitted by industry  Audits facility records  Compiles data in the AIRS database 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for internal Agency use in compliance and enforcement programs. Information contained in the reports is entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters. EPA can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data via PC terminals. 6 The records required by this NSPS must be retained by the owner or operator for ( two) years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There are no small businesses affected by this standard.

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

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been in existence since 1982. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. ( 40 CFR Part 60, and the U. S Code Section 111 of the Clean Air Act) The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 3871 person hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received about time to prepare reports.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses labor rates of $ 18.94 plus 110% overhead for the technical occupation labor level from the Employment Cost Index from the Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics. The testing, reporting, notifications, and recordkeeping requirements are all tasks that are accomplished by the technical personnel who actually design and run the test, and run and maintain the equipment. There should be no management or clerical involvement. Labor rates for industry are consistent with the hourly wage rates from a Bureau of Labor Statistics publication on employment and earnings. Rates also include the cost of overhead and fringe benefits, as appropriate. 7 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor costs.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs It is not applicable since there is no continuous monitoring.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 20,565.83. This cost is based on an average wage of a GS10 step 1 employee rate and travel associated with compliance activities. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Agency Burden.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ is 30. The number of new sources expected to be subject to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQ is 3. There are an average of 9 affected units at each facility source. The burdened is based on less than half of the facilities will be adding or modifying presses during the three year period. The total annual labor costs are $ 153,949.67 and total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 0.00 dollars. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Industry Burden.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables See attached tables.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an increase in the number of facilities affected by this rule. 8 6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20503. Include the EPA ICR number 0657.07 and OMB control number 2060 0105 in any correspondence.

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


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65218-65221]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98406; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

September 15, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 14, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to modify the fee
for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change, among
other changes, on June 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-026). On June 10, 2022,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-029. On
August 5, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CBOE-2022-042. On September 26, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-050 to address the proposed fee
change relating to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment
Fee. On November 23, 2022, the Exchange advised of its intent to
withdraw that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-060. On January 20,
2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2022-060 and submitted SR-CBOE-
2023-008. On March 21, 2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2023-008
and submitted SR-CBOE-2023-016. On May 19, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew SR-CBOE-2023-016 and submitted SR-CBOE-2023-028. On July
18, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-
2023-035. On September 11, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing
and submitted SR-CBOE-2023-046. On September 14, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal. Notably, no
comment letters were received in connection with any of the
foregoing rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the
Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and
Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject
to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the
Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial
fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.\4\ The SPX
(and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee for Floor Market-Makers currently
applies to any Market-Maker that executes any contracts in SPX and/or
SPXW on the trading floor.\5\ The Exchange now seeks to increase the
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment from $3,000
per Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit to $5,000 per Market-Maker Floor
Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that the fee is not assessed to a Market-
Maker Floor Permit Holder who only executes SPX (including SPXW)
options transactions as part of multi-class broad-based index spread
transactions. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Tier
Appointment Fees, Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes
to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the
reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee
Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted
Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the
duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a
modified manner in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.\6\ Among
other changes, Footnote 24 provided that the monthly fee for the SPX/
SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee was to be increased to
$5,000 per Trading Permit from $3,000 per Trading Permit. As the
Exchange now proposes to maintain the $5,000 rate on a permanent basis
(i.e., regardless of whether the Exchange is operating in a modified
state due to COVID-19 pandemic), the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
reference to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee in
Footnote 24.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89189 (June 30,
2020), 85 FR 40344 (July 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-058).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that since its transition to a new
trading floor facility on June 6, 2022, it has not been operating in
a modified manner. As such Footnote 24 (i.e., the modified fee
changes it describes) does not currently apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable as the
Exchange believes it remains commensurate with the value of operating
as a Market-Maker on the Exchange's trading floor in the SPX pit, which
has the largest physical presence on the Exchange's trading floor. For
example, the Exchange recently transitioned from its previous trading
floor, which it had occupied since the 1980s, to a brand new, modern
and upgraded trading floor facility. The Exchange believes customers
continue to find value in open outcry trading and rely on the floor for
price discovery and the deep liquidity provided by floor Market-Makers.
The build out of a new modern trading floor reflects the Exchange's
commitment to open outcry trading and focus on providing the best
possible trading experience for its customers, including Market-Makers.
For example, the new trading floor provides a state-of-the-art
environment and technology and more efficient use of physical space,
which the Exchange believes better reflects and supports the current
trading environment. The Exchange also believes the new infrastructure
provides a cost-effective, streamlined, and modernized approach to
floor connectivity. For example, the new trading floor has more than
330 individual kiosks, equipped with top-of-the-line technology that
enables floor participants to plug in and use their devices with
greater ease and flexibility. The new trading floor provided by the
Exchange also provides floor Market-Makers with more space and
increased capacity to support additional floor-based traders on the
trading floor. Moreover, the new trading floor is conveniently located
across the street from the LaSalle trading floor, which resulted in
minimal disruption to TPH floor participants, many of whom have office
space nearby, including in the same facility in which the trading floor
is located. The Exchange believes the new location, which was also home
to the Exchange's original trading floor in the 1970s and early 1980s,
is also able to support robust trading floor infrastructure as it
currently hosts several banks, trading firms and even trading floors
(i.e., trading floors for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and BOX
Options Market). The Exchange also believes the relocation to the new
trading floor resulted in a streamlined and simplified trading floor
and facility fee structure, as further described in the Exchange's
proposal to amend certain facility fees in connection with the new

trading floor.\11\ The Exchange also notes that is has not sought to
pass through a number of costs incurred in connection with the new
trading floor, including design, construction and other on-going
maintenance costs. The Exchange also intends to offer free coffee and
beverages on the new trading floor. Moreover, the Exchange has not
modified many of its facilities fees in several years. The Exchange
therefore believes the proposed increase to the SPX (and SPXW) Floor
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the Exchange's
investment in its new modern cutting-edge trading floor has improved
the quality of the trading floor, particularly to the benefit of SPX
Market-Makers as they operate in the largest pit on the new trading
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96001 (October 6,
2022), 87 FR 62129 (October 13, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal to increase the fee is
reasonable as the Exchange has provided further value to Market-Makers
by expanding the suite of SPX products available to Market-Makers on
the trading floor since 2010 when the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker
Tier Appointment fee was first adopted. For example, in 2013, the
Exchange began listing SPXPM.\12\ In 2016, the Exchange began listing
SPX Weekly options with Monday and Wednesday expirations.\13\ Most
recently in 2022, the Exchange added SPX Weekly options with Tuesday
and Thursday expirations.\14\ The introduction of these products means
SPX options now have an available expiration every trading day of the
week, thereby providing Floor Market-Makers with additional
opportunities to trade SPX and greater trading flexibility as compared
to 2010. Moreover, average daily volume (ADV) in SPX has increased
nearly 30%. In particular, Market-Maker open outcry ADV in SPX has
increased nearly 15% since 2010. Further, increased ADV, and
specifically increased Market-Maker open outcry in SPX provides
increased trading opportunities for SPX Market-Makers which the
Exchange believes is commensurate with the value of the proposed
increase of the Tier Appointment Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68888 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-120).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14,
2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2015-106). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78531 (August 10, 2016), 81 FR
54643(August 16, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-146).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94682 (April 12,
2022), 87 FR 22993 (April 18, 2022) (CBOE-2022-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate the value the Exchange believes Marker-Makers find
transacting with SPX on the trading floor (notwithstanding the proposed
fee change), Market-Maker presence on the new trading floor in SPX and
SPXW has actually increased. Particularly, as of December 30, 2022,
there are 12 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the
trading floor as compared to May 2022 (which was the month prior to the
proposed fee change being implemented on a permanent basis and
transition to the new trading floor).\15\ Further, in June 2022, the
month in which the proposed fee change took effect on the new trading
floor on a permanent basis, there were 5 additional Market-Makers
trading SPX and SPXW on the trading Floor as compared to May 2022.
Further, as of December 30, 2022, there are 4 additional Market-Makers
trading SPX and SPXW on the trading floor as compared to March 2020,
which was the last month the Exchange assessed $3,000 for the SPX and
SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee. The Exchange believes the
increasing SPX and SPXW Market-Maker presence on the trading floor
since the last time the Exchange assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW
Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee (i.e., March 2020) and since
the time the current proposal was submitted (i.e., June 2020) speaks
not only to the value Market-Makers find in participating as a Market-
Maker in SPX and SPXW on the (new and improved) trading floor, but also
to the reasonableness of the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, the Exchange has been assessing $5,000 for
the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee since June
2020 as the Exchange was operating in a modified state until its
transition to the new trading floor in June 2022, at which time the
Exchange submitted this proposal to make such increase permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange finally believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and
SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as it is
the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote 24 for the last
three years. Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal to
increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not been increased
since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.\16\ Particularly,
since its adoption 13 years ago, there has been notable inflation.
Indeed, the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 2.6% per year
between 2010 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of
approximately 40% inflation since 2010, when the SPX and SPXW Floor
Market-Maker Tier Appointment was first adopted.\17\ Additionally, for
nearly ten years, Market-Makers were only subject to the original rate
that was adopted in 2010 (i.e., $3,000) notwithstanding an average
inflation rate of 2.6% per year. The Exchange acknowledges its proposed
fee exceeds 40%. However, the Exchange believes such increase is
reasonable given many Market-Makers for nearly 10 years did not have to
pay increased fees notwithstanding yearly inflation. For example, by
not increasing the fee each year to correspond to the average per year
inflation rate of 2.6%, Market-Makers trading SPX on the trading floor
since 2011 through 2020 (when then Exchange originally increased the
fee due to the COVID-19 pandemic) have saved nearly $10,000. Moreover,
the Exchange historically does not increase fees every year,
notwithstanding inflation. The Exchange therefore believes that
proposing a fee in excess of the cumulative 40% inflation rate is still
reasonable, especially when considered in conjunction with all of the
additional and further rationale discussed above. The Exchange is also
unaware of any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a
yearly or cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
    \17\ See https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the
trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW
floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not
subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to.
For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an
appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange
and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers
must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets
electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the
Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.50(a) and (e). See also Cboe
Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale.

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that
trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor
Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because
electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are
not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding
Scale.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product
exclusively listed on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe its proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CBOE-2023-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-047. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-047 and should be
submitted on or before October 12, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20426 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P