PART B: COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

Part B applies to three WaterSense data collection efforts: a census survey of all partners and two  consumer surveys, one of which uses sampling techniques. Section I describes the required  elements for the annual reporting process, Section II discusses these elements for the consumer  awareness phone survey, and Section III discusses these elements for the Internet-based  consumer survey.

SECTION I: ANNUAL REPORTING CENSUS

B1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any  sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of  entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, or  persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample  are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the  strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rate for the collection as a  whole. If the collection has been conducted previously, include the actual response  rate achieved during the last collection.

WaterSense will collect data from all organizational partners (promotional partners,  manufacturers, and retailers/distributors,) via annual reporting each year from 2010 - 2013.  Beginning in 2011, irrigation partners, will also be required to report. As of April 2009,  WaterSense has 1,286 partners. This is a census survey and no sampling methods will be used.  Table B-1 summarizes the number of partners by type

B-1: WaterSense Partners by Partner Type, April 2009

Partner Type

Number

Promotional Partners

419

Manufacturers

83

Retailers/Distributors

104

Irrigation Partners

680

Total

1,286

Table B-2 summarizes the actual response rate received during previous data collections.

B-2: WaterSense Partner Reporting in 2008 and 2009

Partner Type

Reporting Year

Response Rate

Promotional Partners

2009

52 percent

2008

30 percent

Manufacturers

2009

65 percent

 2008

41 percent

Retailers/Distributors

2009

30 percent

2008

20 percent

Irrigation Partners

2008-2009

N/A – reporting not required

Total

2009

51 percent

2008

31 percent

B2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including: (a) statistical  methodology for stratification and sample selection, (b) estimation procedures, (c)  degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification, (d) unusual  problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and (e) any use of periodic  (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

 The WaterSense Helpline will receive Promotional Partner Annual Reporting forms via  fax, e-mail or U.S. mail. It is the Helpline’s responsibility to log the data. WaterSense contractor  will receive shipment and sales data from manufacturer and retailer/distributor partners. The data  will be recorded on annual reporting forms and received via the U.S. mail or private delivery  service. EPA anticipates that most, if not all, partners will request that shipment and sales data be  handled as CBI. WaterSense procedures assume that all shipment and sales data will be handled  as CBI. Upon receipt of an annual reporting form with shipment or sales data, the WaterSense  data manager provides a listing of reporting partners to the helpline staff. Helpline staff verify  eligibility of the partner to report by checking the listing of partners in the manufacturer or  retailer/distributor category. If the partner is not eligible to report, helpline staff contact the  partner to discuss their partnership category and revise the partner’s designation in Salesforce (if  necessary) or inform the data manager and the helpline manager that the partner incorrectly  submitted data. If the partner is not eligible to report, the data manager will not include the  partner’s data in subsequent analyses and note the decision on the partner’s reporting form. For  manufacturers, the data manager will conduct one additional step: the data manager, or her  designee, will contact the licensed certifying body that issued the WaterSense label to the  manufacturer, to ensure that the manufacturer is in fact the holder of the original certification  file. This step reduces the chances of double counting shipment data submitted by the original  manufacturer and others who rebrand and resell the products. After confirming eligibility to  submit data (i.e., data are from a bona fide partner, shipment data are from a manufacturer  partner who holds the original certification file), the data manager will review each submission  to determine:

• Are there internal inconsistencies in the report (e.g., number of WaterSense products  shipped (sold) exceeds the total number of products shipped (sold))?

• Are the data unrealistic for the given partner (e.g., are the shipments (sales) excessive for  what might be expected for a company of size reporting)?

• Is there evidence that the partner has provided estimated data rather than actual?

• Is there evidence that the partner has included international shipments or sales?

 If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, ERG will contact the partner to clarify. If the  partner cannot sufficiently explain the data, they will not be included in subsequent data  analyses.

B3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non- response. The accuracy and reliability of information must be shown to be adequate  for intended use. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be  provided for any collection that will not yield “reliable” data that can be generalized  to the universe studied.

 Upon joining WaterSense, EPA requires partners to commit to submitting annual reports.  The importance of the annual reporting process is stressed to partners upon joining. To maximize  response EPA conducts the following activities:

• Require the submission of an annual reporting form for those partners wishing to be  considered for a WaterSense award

• Host a partner conference call to answer partner questions about the form

• Send emails and a postcard to remind partners of upcoming due dates

• Remind partners about reporting in quarterly newsletter

• Follow-up phone calls to non-reporting partners

• Coordination with a plumbing trade association whose members are also WaterSense  partners to encourage submission of annual reporting forms

• Require that an annual reporting form is completed in order to receive an award or  recognition from EPA/WaterSense

B4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is  encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize  burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to  identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may  be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of  data.

EPA provided draft versions of the annual reporting form to several partners (fewer than  10) for comment and revised the form accordingly. Upon the completion of each data collection  cycle, EPA examines the responses, form, and procedures and identifies potential changes for the  following year based on common questions or issues that arise.

B5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical  aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or  other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

 Laura Harwood of Eastern Research Group (ERG) is the task manager for the census  survey and can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Roy Sieber serves as ERG’s program manager and  can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Dr. Lou Nadeau is an ERG senior economist and can be  reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 SECTION II: CONSUMER AWARENESS PHONE SURVEY

B.1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any  sampling or other respondent selection methods to be used. Data on the number of  entities (e.g., establishments, State and local government units, households, or  persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample  are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the  strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as  a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response  rate achieved during the last collection.

 The target population for these two surveys will be households in the United States. This  corresponds to the target population of the WaterSense program. The sampling population will  be adults living in households that are surveyed. There are 116.8 million households in the  United States according to the most recently available Census Bureau numbers.1 From this, EPA  will select a sample of 400 respondents for each survey. The justification for this sample size  appears in response to Question B.2 below. The sampling frame will be a list provided by a  telephone survey contractor. Lists of U.S. households are readily available for this type of  survey.

 EPA has not previously conducted these surveys, thus it cannot estimate the expected  response based on past experience. Evaluation practitioners have documented that survey  response rates have been declining worldwide in recent years.2 In a recent study3 of response  rates for 205 telephone surveys conducted in the same survey lab over a three-year period, study  authors found that response rates varied from fewer than 10 percent to greater than 90 percent  response, with the largest number of surveys falling in the 25 – 45 percent range. Further, the  study authors found that response rates are affected by contextual variables including:

• Salience of the survey to the population

• Survey length

• Type of sample (listed versus random-digit dialing)

• Minutes per piece of sample (effort)

• Amount of time the survey was in the field.

A ten-minute increase in survey length results in a 7 percent decrease in the response rate. Since  the proposed WaterSense customer awareness survey is short, EPA anticipates a relatively high  response rate. In addition, EPA will take actions to maximize response rate (see discussion in  Section B.3 below). Given these factors, EPA estimates a response rate of approximately 40  percent for the consumer awareness survey.

1 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008/tabAVG1.xls.

2 See de Leeuw, Edith, and Wim de Heer. 2002. “Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and  International Comparison.” In Survey Nonresponse, ed. Robert M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, John L. Eltinge, and  Roderick J. A. Little, pp. 41–54. New York: Wiley; Singer, Eleanor. 2006. “Introduction - Nonresponse bias in  household surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5):637-645. DOI:10.1093/poq/nfl034.

3 McCarty, C., M. House, et al. (2006). “Effort in Phone Survey Response Rates: The Effects of Vendor and Client- Controlled Factors.” Field Methods 18(2): 172-188.

 B.2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:

• Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection,

• Estimation procedure,

• Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification,

• Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and

• Any use of periodic (less frequently than annual) data collection cycles to  reduce burden.

 Statistical Method for Stratification and Sample Selection

 This section discusses the statistical methods for stratification and sample selection used  in the survey. Before discussing those methods, the section begins by explaining EPA’s approach  to estimating the sample size for this collection.

 Sample Size Estimation

This section provides estimates of sample size needed to meet a set of specific statistical  criteria for the survey data. Choosing a sample size is a three-step process. First, statistical  criteria are set; second, an initial sample size is chosen based on the criteria; and third, if  necessary, the initial sample size is adjusted based on the population size. The third step,  however, is not needed for this survey due to the large universe size. The section begins with a  discussion of the statistical criteria and then discusses the estimated initial and adjusted sample  sizes.

The statistical criteria used in choosing a sample size are:

• Precision—The maximum difference in the parameter of interest between an estimate  for that parameter obtained from the sample and the value of that parameter in the  population.

• Confidence—The probability of correctly accepting a true hypothesis.

• Power—The probability of correctly rejecting a false hypothesis.

Simultaneously setting values for each criterion will generate a sample size estimate. In  general, however, there are limited acceptable choices in terms of power and confidence and,  therefore, most of the emphasis is in choosing a reasonable precision. To select sample size using  these criteria, EPA has used statistical power analysis techniques (Cohen, 1988). The use of each  in choosing a sample size is discussed in what follows.

Precision

The precision of a sample is the maximum difference (in units of the key question) that  one is willing be away from the population parameter of interest. The parameter of interest for

 4 EPA has specified a range for precision due to uncertainty over the baseline level of awareness. This will be  discussed in more detail below under sample size estimation.

this survey is awareness of the WaterSense program. There are two key aspects of this  parameter:

• The level of awareness (i.e., what percentage of households are aware of the  program?), and

• Whether or not awareness is increasing over time (i.e., is there a statistically  significant increase in awareness between surveys?)

The first reflects estimation of a proportion (percentage of households aware of the program) and  the second reflects a change in a proportion over time. Thus, precision will need to be in terms of  percentage points. EPA has determined that the sample size should provide valid data for the  second aspect (change in awareness over time), but should also provide reasonable reliable data  to determine the level awareness also. EPA has determined that the sample should be able to  detect three to five point change in awareness over time.4 For example, if awareness is found to  be 5 percent in this survey and a subsequent survey finds awareness to be 10 percent, the sample  sizes for each survey should be large enough to find that change to be statistically significant.

Power

The power of a statistical test is one minus the probability of a Type II error (not rejecting  a false hypothesis), or the probability of correctly rejecting a false hypothesis. In this sense,  power corresponds to finding the specified effect size (i.e., precision) when that effect in fact  exists. Traditional hypothesis tests set, by default, power to 50 percent. Following Cohen’s  (1988) suggestion, EPA will use 80 percent power. Thus, in terms of the second aspect identified  above under precision (change in awareness over time), the sample size will have an 80 percent  chance of detecting the specified change in awareness if that change actually occurred.

 Confidence

Confidence is the probability of accepting a true hypothesis. For purposes of sampling,  confidence defines the likelihood that the population mean will be contained in the interval  around the sample mean defined by the precision for the sample. EPA will use 90 percent  confidence in setting the sample size. Furthermore, since EPA is interested in increases in  awareness, EPA will use a one-sided confidence interval.

 Sample Size Estimates

 The initial sample size estimates are based on the methods of Cohen (1988), Chapter 6,  which provides power analytic methods for detecting differences between proportions over time.  EPA combined these methods with the precision, power, and confidence setting discussed above  and an assumption on the current level of awareness in the universe. Setting a sample size for  proportions requires either having some knowledge of proportion for the population beforehand,  or making an assumption on the proportion for the population. EPA expects that awareness of

 WaterSense is fairly low among the universe and has assumed it to be between two and ten  percent. Thus, the sample size should be able to detect three to five percent increase in awareness  (precision) between surveys from the assumed baseline levels of awareness at 90 percent  confidence and 80 percent power. Table B-3 provides sample sizes needed to detect the increases  in awareness for the assumed range of baseline awareness (for the set power and confidence).  Based on this table, EPA has selected a sample size of 400 households. Sample sizes in the table  that are less than 400 households are depicted in bold italics. As can be seen, a sample of 400  households will allow for detection of a five point increase in awareness from all baseline levels,  detection of a four point increase in awareness for baseline awareness in the two to five percent  range of baseline awareness, and detection of a three point increase in awareness for very low  baseline awareness (2 percent).

Table B-3. Sample Sizes Needed to Detect the Specified  Precision Values for Assumed Values of Baseline Awareness  Between Two and Ten Percent at 90 Percent Confidence and  80 Percent Power

Assumed  Baseline  Level of  Awareness in  the Universe

Precision: Increase in Awareness to be  Detected

Three  Percentage  Points

Four  Percentage  Points

Five

Percentage  Points

2%

323

203

143

3%

419

257

178

4%

512

310

212

5%

602

360

244

6%

689

409

275

7%

774

457

306

8%

857

503

335

9%

938

548

364

10%

1016

592

391

Note: The values in Table B-3 are calculated using the following  formula:

()nnprp= +- 01210022. arcsinarcsin

where n0.1 is equal to 902 (in this case) and is derived from Cohen,  Chapter 6, table 6.4.1 (third panel) and reflects a base sample size  for one-sided 90 percent confidence and 80 percent power, p are  the baseline awareness values, and r are the precision values.

 Sample Allocation

 EPA will allocate the sample across the United States in proportion to the distribution of  households in the United States.

 5 This will not be true once weighting for nonresponse is done.

6 A number of questions asked in the surveys can be thought of as yes/no questions (e.g., explicit yes/no questions as  well as ‘check all that apply’ questions). The ‘totals’ from these will be the number that respond ‘yes’ to the  question.

 Estimation Procedure

 Estimation of population parameters (means, totals, and variances) will be done by  appropriately weighting the sample values. The weight for any responding sample unit can be  calculated as:

weight = (weight associated with sampling) × (weight that adjusts for nonresponse)

Estimation of these weights are discussed below, followed by calculation of weighted estimates  for the population parameters.

The weights associated with sampling can be estimated as the reciprocal of the selection  probabilities. These can be estimated as:

wNnwhjhhh== (6)

where Nh is the population for stratum h and nh is the sample chosen from the stratum h. The  second equality indicates that the weight for each sample unit from a specific stratum will be the  same as all of sampled units from that stratum.5

 To account for nonresponse, EPA will use a weighting class adjustment procedure.  Specifically, EPA assumes that the probability that any population unit responds to the survey is  the product of the selection probability (above) and a response probability. To estimate response  probabilities, EPA will divide the respondents in each survey into a small number of classes  (strata). The exact classes for each survey will depend on the nature of the data available for each  group. The response probabilities are then:

.ksumofweightsforrespondentsinksumofweightsforselectedsampleink= () ()  (7)

where k indexes the nonresponse weighting classes. Thus, the weight for a respondent in class k  and stratum h becomes:

~wNnhkhhk= 1. (8)

The weighted total for any question in these surveys can be found using the following  formula:6

 7 Additionally, because equation (8) defines weights for each respondent, the class-level indexing in equation (8) can  be replaced by respondent-level indexing. That is, equation (8) defines a value for each respondent (~whj).

8 The method of Rao and Wu (1988) has been coded into available software packages.

$~YwhjhjjJhHh= == SS11  (9)

where $Yis the weighted estimate of the population total for variable/question y, h indexes strata,  H is the total number of strata used in the survey, j indexes sample respondents within each  stratum, Jh is the total number of respondents in stratum h, ~whj is the nonresponse-adjusted  sampling weight for the jth unit in stratum h,7 and yhj is the value for the variable/question y for  the jth unit in stratum h. Estimates of the population means can then be found as:

$ $ ~ YYwhjjJhHh= == SS11  (10)

Estimation of the variance for the expressions in equations (9) and (10) will require more  complex methods. The variance of both expressions will need to account for (a) the fact that each  represents a sample estimate of a population parameter and (b) the fact that the response weights  defined in (7) are sample quantities (i.e., they are not fixed). To calculate these variances, EPA  will use a bootstrap method. Bootstrap methods involve repeated sub-sampling (with  replacement) of the selected sample and calculating the variance from the repeated samples. In  theory, if the sample is reflective of the population distribution, then repeated sub-sampling of  the sample will result in an unbiased and reliable estimate of the variance. OLMS will use the  Rao and Wu (1988) method for bootstrap estimation of a variance. This method is summarized in  Lohr (1999, p. 307).8

 Degree of Accuracy

See above.

 Unusual Problems

None.

 Use of Periodic Rate Less Than Annually

 Data collected under these surveys are one-time and are thus less frequent than annual.

 B.3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of  non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be  adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must

 be provided for any collection that will not yield “reliable” data that can be generalized to  the universe studied.

 EPA will employ a number of procedures to maximize response rates and to mitigate issues  associated with non-response. A number of nonresponse issues may arise during the data collection  process. Table B-4 summarizes issues related to nonresponse and the approach to handling those  issues. EPA will analyze the known data on non-respondents (e.g., region, size, etc) for patterns.  This analysis will indicate whether the data collected through the survey will have any potential  biases.

Table B-4. Nonresponse Issues and Techniques Used to Minimize the Impact of Those  Issues

Nonresponse Issue

Techniques to Be Used to Minimize Impact of  Nonresponse

Refusals—Observational unit  refuses to take survey

• EPA will be using a professional survey firm that is  skilled in converting refusals.

• EPA will replace refusals with similar households (e.g.,  within the same geographic region).

• EPA will develop a questionnaire that limits the burden  imposed on observational units.

Not available—Observational  unit not available at the time the  phone survey firm calls

• The survey firm will call the household back up to three  times before considering them non-respondents and  excluding them from the sample.

• EPA will replace refusals with similar households (e.g.,  within the same geographic region).

Refusal to answer specific  questions—Observational unit  refuses to answer specific  questions

• EPA will be using a professional survey firm that is  skilled in converting refusals.

• EPA will develop a questionnaire that limits the burden  imposed on observational units.

B.4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken.

 EPA will pre-test the survey instruments using a small set of households. The purpose of  the pre-tests will be to assess the questionnaire validity in collecting the necessary data.

 No other tests of procedures or methods will be used for these surveys. EPA expects that  the sampling scheme and the implementation process are relatively straightforward and should  be accomplished without need for testing the methods.

B5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical  aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or  other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

 Dr. Lou Nadeau, ERG,<PHONE_NUMBER>

 SECTION III: CONSUMER SURVEY (INTERNET-BASED)

B1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any  sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of  entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, or  persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample  are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the  strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rate for the collection as  a whole. If the collection has been conducted previously, include the actual response  rate achieved during the last collection.

 The purpose of this survey is to increase understanding of market barriers that exist with  water-efficient products and services, develop messages that will address these barriers, and test  the results of the findings in key markets. Participants will be invited to provide feedback on  promotions and messaging.

 Approximately four hundred US adults will be invited to participate in the research effort.  Only homeowners will be sampled, since renters are unlikely to be responsible for purchasing  low-flow plumbing equipment. Data will be stratified by whether the individuals live in water  rich or water poor areas of the nation.

 The goal of this research is to determine which methods of communicating water  efficient-products are most effective (i.e., translate into the most positive attitudes toward and  intentions to buy) to U.S. consumers. We are not trying to estimate a population parameter (e.g.,  such as general awareness of a program or logo), rather we are comparing efficacy of  communication techniques. The survey will utilize 20-30 respondents in each communication  condition.

 The sample will be drawn using an electronic panel of homeowners and will not be using  a random sample; thus, information regarding nonresponse is not available. Nonresponse bias is  of concern when attempting to generalize from the sample estimate to a population parameter,  but becomes somewhat unimportant when the goal is to determine differences between treatment  groups.

B2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including: (a) statistical  methodology for stratification and sample selection, (b) estimation procedures, (c)  degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification, (d) unusual  problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and (e) any use of periodic  (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

a) A statistical methodology will not be used for stratification and sample selection since the  goal of the research is to determine differences between groups.

b) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance  (MANCOVA) will be used to test for differences between groups and to control for  covariates.

 c) A “by-invitation-only” only panel recruitment method is used by the on-line panel provider  that will be collecting the data for this study. This means that only pre-validated individuals  participate. Thus, a cross-section of “real” consumers, as opposed to regular survey takers,  will be included in the sample. The panel to be used does not employ an “open” online panel  recruitment method which simply allows individuals to self-select into the study.

d) There are no unusual problems that will require specialized sample procedures.

e) Data will not be collected periodically. This is a one-time study.

B3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-  response. The accuracy and reliability of information must be shown to be adequate  for intended use. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be  provided for any collection that will not yield “reliable” data that can be generalized  to the universe studied.

 Since the purpose is to test for differences between groups, generalizability to the  population at large (i.e., external validity) is less important than assurance that the experimental  condition created the effect (internal validity). In such situations, nonresponse bias is not a major  concern in the study design.

Incentives and reward programs are used to increase the response rate. Specifically,  Qualtics (the panel owner) compensates the panel members based on the amount of time they  spend answering questions. For each unit of time, panel members earn online currency which  they can redeem for their choice of a variety of rewards.

B4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is  encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize  burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to  identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may  be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of  data.

 Pretesting of the questionnaire design and procedures will be conducted in two different  ways. First, using the methods described in Dillman (2000), a verbal protocol will be used with  less than ten home owners to gain a better understanding of how the target population is  interpreting questions and whether the appropriate response categories are included. Second, the  on-line survey will be pretested with a group of students studying social marketing to insure that  it is working properly, is user-friendly and that the data can be downloaded adequately.

*Don A. Dillman (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY,  NY.

B5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical  aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or  other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency

 Laura Harwood, ERG,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Dr. Lou Nadeau, ERG,<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Qualtrics Corporation will be collecting the data via an electronic consumer panel. The firm’s  phone number is 1-800-340-9194.

REFERENCES

Cohen, Jacob, 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition,  Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, N.J.

Lohr, Sharon, 1999. Sampling: Design and Analysis, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA.

Rao, J.N.K., and C.F.J. Wu, 1988. “Resampling Inference with Complex Survey Data,” Journal  of the American Statistical Association, 83: 231-241.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46000]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19637]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84032; File No. SR-ICC-2018-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Relating to ICC's Risk Management Model Description Document and
ICC's Risk Management Framework

September 5, 2018.
    On July 5, 2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to transition ICC from a stress-based methodology to a Monte
Carlo-based methodology for the spread-response and recovery-rate-
sensitivity-response components of the initial margin model (SR-ICC-
2018-008) (``Proposed Rule Change''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on July 24, 2018.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comments on the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83662 (July 18, 2018),
83 FR 35033 (July 24, 2018) (SR-ICC-2018-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change
is September 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the Proposed Rule Change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates October 22, 2018 as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule
change SR-ICC-2018-008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19637 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57722-57725]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23176]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796; EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0862; A-1-FRL-9933-92-Region
1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on November 15, 2012. This revision amends New Hampshire's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) programs to make the programs consistent with the
federal requirements. EPA is also conditionally approving a commitment
from the state to submit revised regulations addressing three elements
of EPA's PSD and NNSR programs that were not submitted with the
November 15, 2012 submittal. EPA is also approving revisions to two
definitions related to New Hampshire's permitting programs that were
submitted on July 1, 2003. This action is being taken in accordance
with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796 and EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0862. All
documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics,
and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6
Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan McCahill, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. What action is EPA approving in this document?
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2860), EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of New

Hampshire. The NPR proposed to approve a November 15, 2012 SIP
submittal revising the state's PSD program under PART Env-A 619,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration.'' The NPR also proposed to
approve a July 21, 2003 SIP submittal revising the following
definitions under PART Env-A 101, ``Definitions;'' (1) ``minor permit
amendment,'' and (2) ``state permit to operate.''
    On April 24, 2015 EPA (80 FR 22956), EPA published a separate NPR
for the state of New Hampshire. The NPR proposed to approve a separate
portion of the November 15, 2012 SIP submittal revising the state's
NNSR program under PART Env-A 618, ``Nonattainment New Source Review''
The NPR also reaffirmed EPA's January 21, 2015 proposed approval of the
November 15, 2012 SIP submittal revising PART Env-A 619, ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration'' and the July 21, 2003 SIP submittal
revising PART Env-A 101, ``Definitions.''
    In addition, the April 24, 2015 NPR proposed to conditionally
approve the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services' (NHDES)
commitment to submit revised regulations addressing the following three
provisions of the federal NNSR and PSD programs:
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) that state approval
to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan
and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law;
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) that meet the
federal regulations applicable to projects at major stationary sources
that are not major modifications based on the actual-to-projected
actual test but have a ``reasonable possibility'' of resulting in a
significant emission increase; and
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv) requiring notice of
a draft PSD permit to state air agencies whose lands may be affected by
emissions from the permitted source.
    The specific requirements for the two SIP submittals and the
rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the January 21,
2015 and April 24, 2015 NPRs and will not be restated here. EPA did not
receive any public comments on the April 24, 2015 NPR.

II. What action is EPA approving in this document?

    EPA is approving and incorporating into the SIP, PART Env-A 618,
``Nonattainment New Source Review'' and PART Env-A 619, ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration'' that New Hampshire submitted on November
15, 2012. EPA is approving New Hampshire's definitions of ``minor
permit amendment,'' and ``state permit to operate'' under PART Env-A
101, ``Definitions'' into the SIP.
    Additionally, EPA is approving the commitment letter submitted by
the NHDES on March 20, 2015, in which the NHDES committed to adopt
revised NNSR and PSD regulations to address three provisions required
by the federal NNSR and PSD program regulations. In that letter, NHDES
committed to adopt these revisions no later than one year from the date
of EPA's conditional approval, and to submit them to EPA for approval
into the SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving New Hampshire's July 23, 2003 SIP submittal
amending the definitions of ``minor permit amendment,'' and ``state
permit to operate'' under PART Env-A 101, ``Definitions.''
    EPA is approving New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal
amending PART Env-A 618, ``Nonattainment New Source Review'' and PART
Env-A 619, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration.'' With this
action, PART Env-A 618 and PART Env-A 619 will supersede all other NNSR
and PSD Program regulations currently approved in New Hampshire's SIP.
    EPA is conditionally approving NHDES's commitment to adopt and
submit to EPA by September 26, 2016 revised NNSR and PSD regulations
which address the following provisions of the federal NNSR and PSD
program regulations:
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i),
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7), and
     Provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv).
    If the State fails to do so, the State's commitment to address
these three provisions will become a disapproval on that date. EPA will
notify the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time,
this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved New Hampshire
SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically
converted to disapproval. If the State meets its commitment, within the
applicable time frame, the conditionally approved submission will
remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or
disapproving the State's SIP submittal of the revised NNSR and PSD
regulations which address the three provisions. If EPA approves the
submittal, the three provisions will be fully approved in their
entirety and will replace the conditional approval in the SIP.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, such
action will trigger EPA's authority to impose sanctions under section
110(m) of the CAA at the time EPA issues the final disapproval or on
the date the State fails to meet its commitment. In the latter case,
EPA will notify the State by letter that the conditional approval has
been converted to a disapproval and that EPA's sanctions authority has
been triggered. In addition, the final disapproval triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of PART Env-
A 618, ``Nonattainment New Source Review;'' PART Env-A 619,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration;'' and PART Env-A 101,
``Definitions'' described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 24, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 27, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Section 52.1519 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1519  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

    (a) * * *
* * * * *
    (5) On November 15, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES) submitted to a request to amend New
Hampshire's Chapter Env-A 600 ``Statewide Permit System'' as a revision
to New Hampshire's State Implementation Plan. The amendment included
revisions to the state's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs. On March 20,
2015, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt
revised regulations which address the provisions at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(5)(i) and (a)(6) and (7) and 51.166(q)(2)(iv) required for
EPA to fully approve New Hampshire's NNSR and PSD Programs.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  52.1520, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for Env-A 100 ``Organizational Rules: Definitions'' and
Env-A 600 ``Statewide Permit System'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                     EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   State effective
        State citation            Title/subject         date        EPA approval date \1\       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Env-A 100.....................  Organizational    May 3, 2003.....  September 25, 2015     Adding definition of
                                 Rules:                              [Insert Federal        ``Minor permit
                                 Definitions.                        Register citation].    amendment'' and
                                                                                ``State permit to
                                                                                operate.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
Env-A 600.....................  Statewide Permit  September 1,      September 25, 2015     Approve revisions to
                                 System.           2012.             [Insert Federal        Env-A 618 ``NNSR'' &
                                                                     Register citation].    Env-A 619 ``PSD
                                                                                Program'' and
                                                                                withdrawal of Env-A
                                                                                610 and 622 ``NNSR
                                                                                Program,'' and Env-A
                                                                                623 ``PSD Program.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-23176 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6560-6562]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02332]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77032; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Options Regulatory Fee

February 2, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 20, 2016, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make adjustments to its Options Regulatory
Fee (``ORF'') by amending Section IV, Part D of the Pricing Schedule.
    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on February 1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the ORF from $0.0035 to $0.0034
as of February 1, 2016 to account for additional fine revenue, cost
reductions and to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the
anticipated costs and potential fines.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that it previously filed a rule change to
amend the ORF as of February 1, 2016 to $0.0040. This rule change
supersedes that filing. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
75749 (August 21, 2015), 80 FR 52073 (August 27, 2015) (SR-Phlx-
2015-71).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The ORF is assessed to each member for all options transactions
executed or cleared by the member that are cleared at The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the Customer range (i.e., that clear
in the Customer account of the member's clearing firm at OCC). The
Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to
ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs. The ORF is imposed upon all
transactions executed by a member, even if such transactions do not
take place on the Exchange.\4\ The ORF also includes options
transactions that are not executed by an Exchange member but are
ultimately cleared by an Exchange member.\5\ The ORF is not

charged for member proprietary options transactions because members
incur the costs of owning memberships and through their memberships are
charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are not applicable
to non-members. The dues and fees paid by members go into the general
funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs
of regulation. The ORF is collected indirectly from members through
their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ORF applies to all ``C'' account origin code orders
executed by a member on the Exchange. Exchange Rules require each
member to record the appropriate account origin code on all orders
at the time of entry in order to allow the Exchange to properly
prioritize and route orders and assess transaction fees pursuant to
the Rules of the Exchange and report resulting transactions to OCC.
See Exchange Rule 1063, Responsibilities of Floor Brokers, and
Options Floor Procedure Advice F-4, Orders Executed as Spreads,
Straddles, Combinations or Synthetics and Other Order Ticket Marking
Requirements. The Exchange represents that it has surveillances in
place to verify that members mark orders with the correct account
origin code.
    \5\ In the case where one member both executes a transaction and
clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the member only once
on the execution. In the case where one member executes a
transaction and a different member clears the transaction, the ORF
is assessed only to the member who executes the transaction and is
not assessed to the member who clears the transaction. In the case
where a non-member executes a transaction and a member clears the
transaction, the ORF is assessed to the member who clears the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a portion of the costs to the
Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members, including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of
revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with
its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs,
the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to
the Commission.
ORF Adjustments
    The Exchange is proposing to decrease the ORF from $0.0035 to
$0.0034 as of February 1, 2016 in order to account for regulatory
revenue from disciplinary actions taken by the Exchange. The Exchange
regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with
its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
The Exchange believes this adjustment will permit the Exchange to cover
a material portion of its regulatory costs, while not exceeding
regulatory costs.
    The Exchange notified members of this ORF adjustment thirty (30)
calendar days prior to the proposed operative date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Options Trader Alert #2015-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that lowering the ORF from $0.0035 to $0.0034
as of February 1, 2016 is reasonable because the Exchange's collection
of ORF needs to be balanced against the amount of regulatory revenue
collected by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
adjustments noted herein will serve to balance the Exchange's
regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs. It is
further reasonable because this adjustment results in a price
reduction.
    The Exchange believes that lowering the ORF from $0.0035 to $0.0034
as of February 1, 2016 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because this adjustment would be applicable to all members on all of
their transactions that clear as Customer at OCC. In addition, the ORF
seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities.
    The ORF is not charged for member proprietary options transactions
because members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are
not applicable to non-members. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF
ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those members that require
more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of Customer
options business they conduct.
    Regulating Customer trading activity is more labor intensive and
requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than
regulating non-Customer trading activity. Surveillance, regulation and
examination of non-Customer trading activity generally tends to be more
automated and less labor intensive. As a result, the costs associated
with administering the Customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are anticipated to be higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-Customer component of its
regulatory program. The Exchange proposes assessing higher fees to
those members that will require more Exchange regulatory services based
on the amount of Customer options business they conduct.\9\
Additionally, the dues and fees paid by members go into the general
funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs
of regulation. The Exchange believes that the proposed ORF is a small
cost for Customer executions.\10\ The Exchange has in place a
regulatory structure to surveil for, exam [sic] and monitor the
marketplace for violations of Exchange Rules. The ORF assists the
Exchange to fund the cost of this regulation of the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in categories
other than the Customer range at OCC (e.g., Market Maker orders)
because members incur the costs of memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that
go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is
used to help pay the costs of regulation.
    \10\ The Exchange does not assess a Customer any transaction
fees in Multiply Listed Options, except in SPY, and pays Customer
rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The Exchange does not believe that reducing its ORF creates an
undue burden on intra-market competition because the adjustment will
apply to all members on all of their transactions that clear as
Customer at OCC. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of
regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
Additionally, the dues and fees paid by members go into the general
funds of the Exchange,

a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. The
Exchange's members are subject to ORF on other options markets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The following options exchanges assess an ORF, Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options
Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') and [sic] NYSE AMEX LLC
(``NYSEAmex''), BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and The NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-04 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-Phlx-2016-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 29, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02332 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P