[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54803-54804]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification
of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on August 27, 2018.
    This collection involves the submission of forms and other
reporting and recordkeeping activities. The information to be collected
is necessary to ensure compliance with regulations governing the
manufacture and certification of light-sport aircraft, the training and
certification of light-sport pilots and instructors, and the
certification of light-sport aircraft Designated Pilot Examiners.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to 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 attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0690.
    Title: Certification of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8130-15, 8710-11, 8710-12
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on August 27, 2018 (83 FR 43725). That rule generated a
need for new designated pilot examiners and designated airworthiness
representatives to support the certification of new light-sport
aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. This
information collection requires applicants for certification as sport
pilots to complete FAA form 8710-11, log training, take and pass a
knowledge test, and requires organizations to develop and maintain
training courses for sport pilots.
    This collection also requires light-sport aircraft owners and
manufacturers to submit FAA form 8130-15, which is used to process an
applicant's request to obtain a Special Airworthiness certificate for
Light Sport Aircraft. FAA Airworthiness inspectors and designated
inspectors review the required data submissions to determine that
aviation products and their manufacturing facilities comply with ASTM
requirements, and that the products have no unsafe features
    Finally, this collection requires applicants for the authorities
and privileges of Designated Pilot Examiners to submit FAA form 8710-
12, Light-Sport Standardization Board-Designated Pilot Examiner
Candidate Application.
    Respondents: Manufacturers, aircraft owners, pilots, flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating, and maintenance personnel.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2.2 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Sport pilot applicants: 3,289 hours.
Sport pilot instructor applicants: 1,176 hours. Special Light-Sport
Airworthiness certification applicants: 3,782 hours. Designated Pilot
Examiner applicants: 20 hours. Total burden: 8,267.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-23721 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16956-16960]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA Docket No. 2008-0030]

Highway Safety Programs; Model Specifications for Screening;
Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily Fluids

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice revises Model Specifications for Screening Devices
to Measure Alcohol in Bodily Fluids (Model Specifications) published in
the Federal Register on August 2, 1994 (59 FR 39382). These devices
test for the presence of alcohol using breath or bodily fluids such as
saliva. The Model Specifications support State laws that target
youthful offenders (i.e., ``zero tolerance'' laws) and the Department
of Transportation's regulations on Alcohol Misuse Prevention, and
encourage industry efforts to develop new technologies (e.g., non-
breath devices) that measure alcohol content from bodily fluids.
    This notice removed testing of Interpretive Screening Devices
(ISDs) and use of the Breath Alcohol Sample Simulator (BASS) device
from the Model Specifications. The ISDs did not provide an unambiguous
test result, as test results for ISDs are subjective and require
interpretation by a test administrator or technician. Because the
agency has determined the BASS device is not necessary for inclusion in
the Model Specifications, this notice removes all references to the
BASS device.
    Additionally, in order to ensure product integrity, this notice
provides guidelines for retesting devices when manufacturers
contemplate changes, revisions, or upgrades to alcohol screening
devices on the Conforming Products List (CPL).
    These revisions to the Model Specifications will not affect devices
currently listed on the CPL.

DATES: Effective Date: Revisions to these Model Specifications become
effective on March 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Ms. De Carlo
Ciccel, Behavioral Research Division, NTI-131, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues: Mr. David Bonelli,
Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    As indicated in the Model Specifications published in 1994, the
agency will modify and improve the Model Specifications as new data and
test procedures become available and will alter the test procedures, as
necessary, to meet unique design features of specific devices. Since
publication of the Model Specifications, the agency encountered
difficulties ensuring the accuracy of testing ISDs and also determined
the use of the BASS is not necessary for inclusion in the Model
Specifications. These events made it necessary to revise the Model
Specifications.
    On December 14, 2007, (72 FR 71188), NHTSA proposed and sought
comments on amendments and revisions to the Model Specifications
published in 1994. In the notice, NHTSA explained that the 1994 Model
Specifications allowed for evaluation of screening devices that require
subjective interpretation of test results by a test administrator or
technician. These ISDs differ from devices that provide objective test
results, including the use of digital technology or the appearance of
lights or marks based on the presence or absence of alcohol. For
instance, use of pass/fail lights or enzymes that react with alcohol to
produce an unambiguous mark provide objective test results. Also, the
1994 Model Specifications required that interpretive devices be
evaluated subjectively under five lighting conditions (fluorescent,
incandescent, mercury, sodium and daylight) by a panel of ten novice
evaluators who are not color blind. Since publication of the 1994 Model
Specifications, NHTSA evaluated eight separate ISDs. Of those eight ISD
evaluations, none resulted in a successful outcome in the panel test
described above. In one evaluation, the device passed the test under
all lighting conditions except sodium. This device is no longer
manufactured. Although many novice evaluators were able to judge the
correct test outcome in the eight ISD evaluations, some could not, even
though the manufacturers' instructions were conveyed to the evaluators
and all evaluators passed tests to determine their color perception
ability. This subjective interpretation of test results does not ensure
accuracy and precision required to protect public safety. Due to
repeated problems in evaluating ISDs, NHTSA proposed to remove
altogether testing of ISDs and all references to interpretive or color
indicator tests from the Model Specifications.
    The 1994 Model Specifications provided for the use of the Breath
Alcohol Sample Simulator (BASS) device for delivering alcohol-in-air
test samples. The use of the BASS device is not necessary for inclusion
in the Model Specifications because the BASS device is intended for use
in testing the sampling efficiency of evidential breath testers. There
is no sampling efficiency test in the Model Specifications for alcohol
screening devices. The alcohol-in-air test sample for breath alcohol
screening devices is supplied by a calibrating unit. Therefore, the
agency proposed to remove all references to the BASS device from the
Model Specifications.
    The 1994 Model Specifications also provide procedures to conduct
special investigations and re-test a device if information gathered
indicates that a device listed on the CPL is not performing in
accordance with the Model Specifications. The agency proposed the
addition of Appendix B to provide guidance regarding notification and
re-testing when manufacturers contemplate revisions to devices listed
on the CPL. The proposed Appendix follows the language used in the
Model Specifications for evidential breath testing devices (58 FR
48705). Upon notification by a manufacturer of a contemplated change to
a device listed

on the CPL, NHTSA proposed that it would determine whether re-testing
is required. Such determination would look at several factors,
including the nature and reason for the change, the scope of the
change, the effects of the change on the performance of the device, and
how the change will be documented for the benefit of the user. NHTSA
would list device revisions and whether re-testing was required in the
next update to the CPL. Appendix B also would state that NHTSA may re-
test any device listed on the CPL at any time to determine continued
compliance and performance with the Model Specifications. A device
found not to perform in accordance with the Model Specifications would
be subject to the special investigation procedures discussed below.
    Having received no comments on any aspect of the agency's proposal,
this notice adopts the proposed revisions, including the ``Procedures''
and ``Model Specifications for Alcohol Screening Devices,'' without
change.

II. Procedures

    This section describes the current procedures. The DOT Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC), RTV-4F, Kendall Square,
Cambridge, MA 02142 tests products manufacturers submit to determine
whether the products meet the model specifications. Tests are conducted
semiannually, or as necessary. Manufacturers are required to apply to
NHTSA for a test date by writing to the Office of Behavioral Safety
Research, NTI-130, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590. At least 30 days are typically required from the date of
notification until the test can be scheduled.
    One week prior to the scheduled initiation of the test program,
manufacturers must deliver their devices to VNTSC. If the devices are
disposable, the manufacturer must deliver at least 300 such devices; if
the devices are reusable, the manufacturer need submit only a single
device. If a manufacturer of a reusable device wishes to submit a
duplicate, backup instrument, it may so do. The manufacturer is
responsible for ensuring that the devices operate properly and are
packaged correctly. The manufacturer must also deliver the operator's
manual (or instructions) and the maintenance manual (if any) that is to
be supplied with the purchase of the device, as well as specifications
and drawings fully describing the device and its use. Information
determined to be proprietary will be respected. (See 49 CFR Part 512,
regarding the procedure by which NHTSA will consider claims of
confidentiality.)
    In addition, the manufacturer must submit a self-certification,
certifying that the manufacturer meets the requirements according to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Good Manufacturing
Practices regulations for devices used for medical purposes (21 CFR
Part 820), and that the device's label meets the requirements in FDA's
Labeling regulations for devices used for medical purposes (21 CFR Part
809.10), even if the devices are not to be used for medical purposes.
See Appendix A to this notice.
    The manufacturer has the right to check its device(s) between the
time of arrival at VNTSC and the start of the tests, but will have no
access to the device(s) during the tests. Any malfunction of a device
resulting in failure to complete any of the tests satisfactorily will
result in a determination that the device does not conform to the Model
Specifications. If a device is found not to conform to the Model
Specifications, it may be resubmitted for the next testing cycle after
appropriate corrections have been made. However, the agency reserves
the discretion to determine whether to conduct any retest.
    The agency intends to update and republish the CPL in the Federal
Register annually. Republications of the CPL add conforming alcohol
screening devices tested since the last CPL republication.
    NHTSA will continue to provide notification in the Federal Register
when the agency amends the Model Specifications as new data and test
procedures become available and will retest devices when necessary.
    The NHTSA Office of Behavioral Safety Research is the point of
contact for information about acceptance testing and field performance
of devices that are in the marketplace. NHTSA requests that users of
alcohol screening devices provide both acceptance and field performance
data to the Office of Behavioral Safety Research when such data
indicate potential performance problems. Information from users will
help NHTSA monitor whether alcohol screening devices are performing
according to the NHTSA Model Specifications.
    If information gathered indicates that a device on the CPL is not
performing in accordance with the Model Specifications, NHTSA may
direct VNTSC to conduct a special investigation. An investigation may
include visits to users and additional tests of devices obtained on the
open market. If the investigation indicates that a device actually sold
on the market does not meet the Model Specifications, the manufacturer
will be notified that the device may be removed from the CPL. In this
event, the manufacturer will have 30 days from the date of notification
to reply. Based on the VNTSC investigation and any data provided by the
manufacturer, NHTSA will decide whether the device should remain on the
CPL. If the device is removed from the CPL, the manufacturer will be
permitted to resubmit an improved device to VNTSC for testing when it
believes the problems causing its failure have been resolved. Upon
resubmission, the manufacturer must submit a statement describing what
has been done to overcome the problems that led to failure of the
device. The agency reserves the discretion to determine whether to
conduct any retest.
    If information gathered indicates that the manufacturer of a device
on the CPL does not comply with the requirements in FDA's Good
Manufacturing Practices regulations for devices used for medical
purposes or that the device's label does not comply with the
requirements in FDA's labeling regulations for devices used for medical
purposes, NHTSA may investigate the matter in consultation with FDA and
will notify the manufacturer that the device may be removed from the
CPL. The manufacturer will have 30 days from the date of notification
to reply. Based on any data provided by the manufacturer and
investigative findings, NHTSA will decide whether the device should
remain on the CPL. If the device is removed from the CPL, the
manufacturer will be permitted to resubmit a self-certification,
certifying that the manufacturer or its device complies with these FDA
requirements when it believes the problems causing its non-compliance
have been resolved. Upon resubmission, the manufacturer must submit a
statement describing what has been done to overcome the problems that
led to non-compliance.
    In accordance with the foregoing, the amendments of the Model
Specifications for Screening Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily
Fluids, are set forth below.

Model Specifications for Alcohol Screening Devices

1. Purpose and Scope
    These specifications establish performance criteria and methods for
testing of alcohol screening devices. Alcohol screening devices use
bodily fluids to detect the presence of 0.020 or more BAC (see below)
with sufficient

accuracy for screening purposes. These specifications are intended
primarily for use in the conformance testing of alcohol screening
devices.
2. Classification
    2.1 Disposable Alcohol Screening Devices.
    Alcohol screening devices designed for a single use.
    2.2 Reusable Alcohol Screening Devices.
    Alcohol screening devices designed to be reused.
3. Definitions
    3.1 Alcohol.
    The intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol or other
low molecular weight alcohols including methyl or isopropyl alcohol.
    3.2 Alcohol Screening Device.
    A device that is used to detect the presence of 0.020 or more BAC.
The device may measure any bodily fluid for this purpose, but shall
provide output in BAC units. Test results must be indicated
unambiguously by numerical read-out or by other means, such as by the
use of lights or by the appearance of a distinctive mark but not by
color change.
    3.3 Blood alcohol concentration (BAC).
    Grams alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams alcohol per 210
liters of breath in accordance with the Uniform Vehicle Code, Section
11-903(a)(5) \1\ (BrAC is often used to indicate that the measurement
is a breath measurement); or grams alcohol per 100 milliliters of
saliva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Laws and Ordinances, 107 S. West Street,  10, Alexandria,
VA 22314. Web site address: http://www.ncutle.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.4 Calibrating Unit.
    A device that produces an alcohol-in-air test sample of known
concentration and that meets the NHTSA Model Specifications for
Calibrating Units (72 FR 34742).
    3.5 Bodily Fluid.
    Any bodily fluid capable of being used to estimate alcohol
concentration, provided the relationship between such bodily fluid and
BAC has been established according to scientifically acceptable
standards. Such fluids include but are not limited to blood, exhaled
deep lung breath and saliva.
    3.6 Scientifically Acceptable Substitutes.
    Fluids that have been scientifically accepted as equivalent to
bodily fluids for testing purposes, such as aqueous alcohol test
solutions on a one-to-one basis for blood or saliva.
4. Test Methods and Requirements
    Testing will be performed according to the instructions that
normally accompany the submitted device and under the conditions
specified in the tests below.
    4.1 Test 1. Precision and Accuracy.
    Perform 40 trials under normal laboratory conditions including 20
trials at 0.008 BAC and 20 trials at 0.032 BAC. Use a calibrating unit
for this test for breath devices and preparations of bodily fluids or
scientifically acceptable substitutes for non-breath devices. Perform
tests using a VNTSC investigator.
    To conform at 0.008 BAC, not more than one positive result. To
conform at 0.032 BAC, not more than one non-positive result.
    4.2 Test 2. Blank Reading.
    Perform 20 trials under normal laboratory conditions at 0.000 BAC.
Use non-alcoholic human breath for breath devices and non-alcoholic
bodily fluids or scientifically acceptable substitutes for non-breath
devices. Perform tests using a VNTSC investigator.
    To conform: no positive results. If the device is capable of
providing a reading of greater than 0.000 BAC and less than 0.020 BAC,
not more than one such result.
    4.3 Test 3. Cigarette smoke interference (only breath and saliva
test devices).
    Perform five trials at 0.000 BAC. Select an alcohol-free person who
smokes cigarettes for this test. Ask the person selected to smoke
approximately one half of a cigarette. Within one minute after smoking,
or after a waiting period specified in the manufacturer's instructions,
administer the alcohol screening device test according to the
manufacturer's instructions. Then ask the person to take another smoke
and repeat the test to produce a total of five trials.
    To conform: no positive results.
    4.4 Temperature.
    Test at low and high ambient temperature.
    4.4.1 Test 4.1. Low Ambient Temperature.
    Perform 40 trials at 10 degrees Centigrade (C), including 20 trials
at 0.008 BAC and 20 trials at 0.032 BAC. Use a calibrating unit for
this test for breath devices and preparations of bodily fluids or
scientifically acceptable substitutes for non-breath devices.
    To conform at 0.008 BAC, not more than one positive result. To
conform at 0.032 BAC, not more than one non-positive result.
    4.4.2 Test 4.2 High Ambient Temperature.
    Perform trials of 40 devices at 40 degrees C, including 20 trials
at 0.008 BAC and 20 trials at 0.032 BAC. Use a calibrating unit for
this test for breath devices and preparations of bodily fluids or
scientifically acceptable substitutes for non-breath devices.
    To conform at 0.008 BAC, not more than one positive result. To
conform at 0.032 BAC, not more than one non-positive result.
    4.5. Test 5. Vibration.
    Perform 40 trials, including 20 trials at 0.008 BAC and 20 trials
at 0.032 BAC. Use a calibrating unit for this test for breath devices
and preparations of bodily fluids or scientifically acceptable
substitutes for non-breath devices.
    Mount the screening device on a shake table and vibrate the table
in simple harmonic motion through each of its three major axes, as
specified below. Sweep through each frequency range in 2.5 minutes,
then reverse the sweep to the starting frequency in 2.5 minutes.
Disposable testers may be placed in a suitable box mounted on the shake
table. Test after vibration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amplitude
                                                               (inches,
                     Frequency (hertz)                         peak to
                                                                peak)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 to 30...................................................         0.30
30 to 60...................................................         0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conform at 0.008 BAC, not more than one positive result. To
conform at 0.032 BAC not more than one non-positive result.
    Appendix A--Labeling Instructions for Alcohol Screening Devices'
Intended Use Provide the intended use including the specimen matrix
(e.g. saliva, breath), the assay type (quantitative, semi-
quantitative), the purpose of performing the assay, and the individual
designated to perform the assay.
    e.g.: This product is intended for the (quantitative, semi-
quantitative) determination of alcohol in --define matrix (for e.g.,
saliva, breath, sweat) to perform screening alcohol assays.
     This product is recommended for use by individuals who have been
trained in the administration of screening devices.
Description of Testing System
    Provide the principles of the procedure for performing the alcohol
screening assay.
    e.g.: This product uses (alcohol dehydrogenase, infrared
technology, etc.) to perform the test.
Chemical Reaction Sequence
    Describe the chemical reaction sequence, if applicable.

    Reagents: List the concentration, strength, and composition of the
reactive ingredients.
    List the non-reactive ingredients.
Reagent Preparation and Storage
    Provide instructions for preparing the reagents, if applicable.
    Provide instructions for storing the reagents, if applicable.
    Provide any signs of deterioration of the reagents, if applicable.
    Provide the reagents' shelf life and opened expiration dating, if
applicable.
    e.g.: Tests in unopened packaging are stable until the date printed
on the product container when stored at 22-28 degrees C. If packaging
is opened, tests must be conducted at once.
    Provide a caution not to use the reagents beyond the expiration
date.
Precautions
    1. List any reagents that may be hazardous such as caustic
compounds, sodium azide or other hazardous reagents and instructions
for disposal, if applicable.
    2. Provide warning to user to treat all samples as potentially
infective. Include instructions for handling and disposal of the
sample.
Specimen Collection
    Provide instructions for collecting and handling the sample.
    Provide criteria for specimen rejection, if applicable.
Calibration
    Disposable tests are pre-calibrated. No additional calibration is
required.
    Reusable (Instrumented) tests require calibration.
    Provide information regarding how calibrations are to be conducted,
if applicable, including the number and concentration of calibrators,
and the frequency of calibration.
    Provide instructions for calibration and recalibration.
    Provide the criteria for acceptability of calibration.
Test Procedure (Disposable)
    Provide adequate step-by-step instructions for performing the test
and determining the results.
Test Procedure (Re-usable/Instrumented)
    Provide adequate step-by-step instruction for performing the test.
    Provide the installation procedures and, if applicable, any special
requirements.
    Provide the space and ventilation requirements.
    Provide the description of the required frequency of equipment
maintenance and function checks.
    Provide the instructions for any remedial action to be taken when
the equipment performs outside of its operating range.
    Provide any operational precautions and limitations.
    Provide instructions for the protection of equipment and
instrumentation from fluctuations or interruptions in electrical
current that could adversely affect test results and reports, if
applicable.

Quality Control (QC)

Disposable Tests
    If applicable, the function and stability of the test can be
determined by the examination of the procedural ``built in'' controls
contained in the product. If these controls are not working, the test
is invalid and must be repeated.
Disposable/Instrumented Devices
    If external quality control materials are used, provide the number,
type, matrix and concentration of the QC materials.
    Provide directions for performing quality control procedures.
    Provide an adequate description of the remedial action to be taken
when the QC results fail to meet the criteria for acceptability.
    Provide directions for interpretation of the results of quality
control samples.
Results
    Describe how the user obtains the test results, e.g., from an
instrument read-out, printout, etc.
    Describe the results in terms of blood alcohol concentration.
    Describe what concentration indicates a positive result and what
concentration indicates a negative result.
Limitations
    List the substances or factors that may interfere with the test and
cause false results including technical or procedural errors.
Dynamic Range
    Provide the operating range of the product.
Precision and Accuracy
    Only devices that meet the precision and accuracy of these Model
Specifications will be included on NHTSA's Conforming Products List for
alcohol screening devices.
Specificity
    List the substances that have been evaluated with your product that
do or do not interfere at the concentration indicated.
References
    Provide pertinent bibliography.
Technical Assistance
    List an 800 number the user may contact for further information or
technical assistance.
Appendix B--Guidelines for Re-testing of Modified Screening Devices
    Manufacturers contemplating revisions to an alcohol screening
device listed on the Conforming Products List (CPL) are advised that
the revision may affect the status of the device on the CPL. The
manufacturer should inform NHTSA of the contemplated change so that a
judgment can be made whether or not re-testing the revised alcohol
screening device is necessary. The following lists the type of
information NHTSA uses in determining the necessity to re-test an
alcohol screening device, and is provided as guidance to manufacturers:
     Manufacturer and Model Name.
     Nature and reason for change(s).
     Scope of change(s) (e.g., Will existing devices be
retrofitted? Will the change apply to some users but not others?)
     Will the change(s) affect performance of the device with
regard to the Model Specifications? (Precision and accuracy, blank
reading, temperature operations, or vibrations.)
     How will the change(s) be documented for the benefit of
the user? (e.g., Will the change(s) be documented in service bulletins
and/or service manuals? If not, why not?)
    If necessary for clarity, drawings of the listed and changed device
may also be helpful in NHTSA's deliberations.
    If, upon review of information provided by a manufacturer, it is
determined that re-testing is not warranted, a statement to that effect
will be included in the next scheduled CPL update.
    NHTSA reserves the right to test any CPL-listed device on the open
market to determine continued compliance and performance in accordance
with these Model Specifications. Devices found not to comply with or
perform in accordance with the Model Specifications are subject to the
investigation provisions stated above in section II, Procedures.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 403; 49 CFR 1.50; 49 CFR Part 501.

    Issued on: March 25, 2008.
Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator for the Office of Research and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-6520 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22989-22996]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09026]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91677; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend The Nasdaq Options Market's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 1, General Provisions, and Options 7, Section 2, Nasdaq Options
Market--Fees and Rebates

April 26, 2021.
    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 April 13, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The

Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market's
(``NOM'') Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions,
and Options 7, Section 2, Nasdaq Options Market--Fees and Rebates.
    The Exchange originally filed the proposed pricing changes on April
1, 2021 (SR-NASDAQ-2021-016). On April 9, 2021, the Exchange withdrew
SR-NASDAQ-2021-016 and filed SR-NASDAQ-2021-019. The Exchange is
withdrawing SR-NASDAQ-2021-019 and filing this rule change on April 13,
2021.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, 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 amend NOM's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 1, General Provisions. The Exchange proposes to relocate
certain rule text concerning equity tier calculations from current
Options 7, Section 2(4) to Options 7, Section 1 and add a new defined
term to Options 7, Section 1. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7,
Section 2(1) to add rule text to make clear the applicable pricing and
also amend the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Symbols. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 2(2) to
amend a title. Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 7,
Section 2(3) regarding Nasdaq BX Inc.'s (``BX'') Routing Fees. Each
change shall be described below.
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange proposes to define the term ``Non-Customer'' within
Options 7, Section 1. The Exchange proposes to provide, ``The term
``Non-Customer'' applies to transactions for the accounts of NOM Market
Makers, Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms, Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
JBOs.'' This defined term will bring greater clarity to NOM's Options 7
Rules. The term ``Non-Customer'' is currently utilized within the fees
for routing at Options 7, Section 2(3). The addition of this defined
term does not amend the manner in which the Exchange currently applies
the term with respect to its Routing Fees. The term ``Customer'' \3\ is
currently defined and this term applies to Participants that are not
customers. This change would be non-substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(a)(47)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 2
    Currently, the below rule text is located within Options 7, Section
2(4).
    (a) For purposes of determining equity tier calculations under this
section, any day that the market is not open for the entire trading day
will be excluded from such calculation.
    (b) Removal of Days for Purposes of Options Pricing Tiers:
    (i)
    (A) Any day that the Exchange announces in advance that it will not
be open for trading will be excluded from the options tier calculations
set forth in its Pricing Schedule; and (B) any day with a scheduled
early market close (``Scheduled Early Close'') may be excluded from the
options tier calculations only pursuant to paragraph (iii) below.
    (ii) The Exchange may exclude the following days (``Unanticipated
Events'') from the options tier calculations only pursuant to paragraph
(iii) below, specifically any day that: (A) The market is not open for
the entire trading day, (B) the Exchange instructs Participants in
writing to route their orders to other markets, (C) the Exchange is
inaccessible to Participants during the 30-minute period before the
opening of trade due to an Exchange system disruption, or (D) the
Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60
minutes during regular trading hours.
    (iii) If a day is to be excluded as a result of paragraph (i)(B) or
(ii) above, the Exchange will exclude the day from any Participant's
monthly options tier calculations as follows:
    (A) the Exchange may exclude from the ADV calculation any Scheduled
Early Close or Unanticipated Event; and
    (B) the Exchange may exclude from any other applicable options tier
calculation provided for in its Pricing Schedule (together with
(ii)(A), ``Tier Calculations'') any Scheduled Early Close or
Unanticipated Event.
    Provided, in each case, that the Exchange will only remove the day
for Participants that would have a lower Tier Calculation with the day
included.
    This rule text describes the equity tier calculations when
excluding certain days. The Exchange is relocating this rule text,
without change, to Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions. The
Exchange believes that this information is better suited to Section 1
along with other general information because the rule applies to
Options 7 pricing.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the qualification for the Tier 3
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols. Fees and Rebates for
Execution of Contracts on The Nasdaq Options Market are as follows:
    \3\ The NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols
will be paid per the highest tier achieved below.

                             Monthly Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...................  Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity
                            in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols of
                            up to 0.10% of total industry customer
                            equity and ETF option average daily volume
                            (``ADV'') contracts per day in a month.
Tier 2...................  Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity
                            in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols
                            above 0.10% to 0.20% of total industry
                            customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts
                            per day in a month.

Tier 3...................  Participant: (a) Adds NOM Market Maker
                            liquidity in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny
                            Symbols above 0.20% to 0.60% of total
                            industry customer equity and ETF option ADV
                            contracts per day in a month: Or (b)(1)
                            transacts in all securities through one or
                            more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
                            represent 0.70% or more of Consolidated
                            Volume (``CV'') which adds liquidity in the
                            same month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, (2)
                            transacts in Tape B securities through one
                            or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
                            that represent 0.18% or more of CV which
                            adds liquidity in the same month on The
                            Nasdaq Stock Market, and (3) executes
                            greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-Close/
                            Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume within
                            The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing Cross in the
                            same month.
Tier 4...................  Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity
                            in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols of
                            above 0.60% of total industry customer
                            equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
                            in a month.
Tier 5...................  Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity
                            in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols of
                            above 0.40% of total industry customer
                            equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
                            in a month and transacts in all securities
                            through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
                            Center MPIDs that represent 0.40% or more of
                            Consolidated Volume (``CV'') which adds
                            liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq
                            Stock Market.
Tier 6...................  Participant: (a)(1) Adds NOM Market Maker
                            liquidity in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny
                            Symbols above 0.95% of total industry
                            customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts
                            per day in a month, (2) executes Total
                            Volume of 250,000 or more contracts per day
                            in a month, of which 30,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a month must be
                            removing liquidity, and (3) adds Firm,
                            Broker-Dealer and Non-NOM Market Maker
                            liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of 10,000 or
                            more contracts per day in a month; or (b)(1)
                            adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny
                            Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols above 1.50%
                            of total industry customer equity and ETF
                            option ADV contracts per day in a month, and
                            (2) executes Total Volume of 250,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a month, of which
                            15,000 or more contracts per day in a month
                            must be removing liquidity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * ``Total Volume'' shall be defined as Customer, Professional,
Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume
in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols which either adds or removes
liquidity on NOM.
    NOM proposes to amend the qualification for the Tier 3 Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols to require:
    Participant: (a) Adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Symbols
and/or Non-Penny Symbols above 0.20% to 0.60% of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month: Or
(b)(1) transacts in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.80% or more of Consolidated Volume
(``CV'') which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock
Market, (2) transacts in Tape B securities through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.15% or more of CV which
adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, and (3)
executes greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close
(``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing Cross in
the same month.
    This proposal would amend the second part of the qualification for
the Tier 3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols at
(b)(1) by requiring Market Makers to transact in all securities through
one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.80% or
more of Consolidated Volume (``CV'') which adds liquidity in the same
month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, an increase from 0.70%. Also, this
proposal would amend the second part of the qualification for the Tier
3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols at (b)(2) by
requiring Market Makers to transact in Tape B securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.15% or more of
CV which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, a
decrease from 0.18%. The final portion of the second part of the
qualification for the Tier 3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Symbols at (b)(3) \4\ is not being amended. Although the first
component of the qualification requiring Market Makers to transact in
all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs is
being increased and the second component requiring Market Makers to
transact in Tape B securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs is being decreased, the Exchange believes that these
amendments may incentivize additional Market Makers to transact greater
volume on The Nasdaq Stock Market in order to qualify for the Tier 3
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols. The Exchange
believes that Tier 3 continues to incentivize Participants to direct
additional order flow to NOM and The Nasdaq Stock Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Part (b)(3) of the qualification for the Tier 3 Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols requires that Market Makers
execute greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close
(``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing Cross in
the same month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOM is not proposing to amend the corresponding Tier 3 Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 2(1) to add rule
text after the title of Section 2(1), Fees and Rebates for Execution of
Contracts on The Nasdaq Options Market. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add the following note:
    Orders executed in the Opening Cross per Options 3, Section 8 are
not subject to Options 7, Section 2(1) pricing, instead, these orders
are subject to the pricing within Options 7, Section 2(2).
    This note ``*'' will explain at the beginning of Options 7, Section
2(1) the pricing applicable to the transaction fees within Section
2(1). The Exchange believes the addition of this rule text will bring
clarity to the Section 2 pricing and make clear that the transaction
fees within Options 7, Section 2(1) apply intra-day. This new note
``*'' does not represent a substantive change. The proposed new note
``*'' is intended to serve as a guidepost to Participants referring to
the NOM Pricing Schedule.
    Currently, the Exchange's Opening Cross pricing is contained within
Options 7, Section 2(2). The Exchange proposes to add a citation to the
title of Options 7, Section 2(2) to the Opening Cross rule. Options 7,
Section 2(2) would state, ``Opening Cross per Options 3, Section 8.''
    Current Options 7, Section 2(3) provides the Fees for routing
contracts to markets other than NOM. The Exchange proposes to amend the
BX Routing Fees.
    Currently, Non-Customers \5\ are assessed a $0.99 per contract to
any options exchange. Customers \6\ are

currently assessed a Routing Fee to Phlx of $0.13 per contract (``Fixed
Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. Customers
are also currently assessed a Routing Fee to BX of $0.13 per contract.
In addition, as it relates to all other options exchanges, Customers
are currently assessed a Routing Fee of $0.23 per contract (``Fixed
Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. If the away
market pays a rebate, the Routing Fee is $0.13 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As proposed within Options 7, Section 1, the term ``Non-
Customer'' applies to transactions for the accounts of NOM Market
Makers, Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms, Professionals, Broker-Dealers
and JBOs.
    \6\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(a)(47)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the BX Routing Fee to include
the actual transaction fee assessed in addition to the ``Fixed Fee'' of
$0.13 per contract. The proposed changes will align BX's Routing Fee
with the current Phlx Routing Fee.
    The Exchange is proposing to recoup the actual transaction fee (in
addition to the Fixed Fee) that is incurred by the Exchange in
connection with routing orders, on behalf of its Participants, to BX.
Previously, the Exchange retained the rebates paid by BX to recover the
costs associated with providing its routing services, did not assess
the actual transaction fees charged by BX for Customer orders, and only
assessed such orders the $0.13 per contract Fixed Fee. This is because
when orders are routed to BX, such orders are considered as removing
liquidity on BX, and BX previously assessed rebates to Customer orders
for removing liquidity. In particular, prior to the Recent Rule
Change,\7\ Customer orders executed on BX received Penny Symbol Rebates
to Remove Liquidity when trading against a Non-Customer, Lead Market
Maker, BX Options Market Maker, Customer or Firm that ranged from $0.00
to $0.35 per contract,\8\ depending on the volume tier achieved.
Customers also previously received Non-Penny Rebates to Remove
Liquidity of $0.80 per contract, regardless of tier and contra-party.
As part of the Recent Rule Change, the aforementioned rebates were
removed from the BX Pricing Schedule and replaced with a maker/taker
fee structure where market participants are assessed a rebate or fee
for adding liquidity to the market, or charged a fee for removing
liquidity from the market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91473 (April 5,
2021), 86 FR 18562 (April 9, 2021) (SR-BX-2021-009) (``Recent Rule
Change'').
    \8\ Participants that executed less than 0.05% of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month would receive
no Penny Symbol Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Tier 1. Participants
that execute 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month would receive a $0.25
per contract Penny Symbol Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Tier 2.
Participants that execute 0.15% or more of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month will receive a $0.35
per contract Penny Symbol Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Tier 3.
    \9\ See note 3 [sic] above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this recent change in the structure of BX's Pricing Schedule,
the Exchange proposes to align the Routing Fees to BX with the current
Routing Fees to Phlx. With this proposal, the Exchange will no longer
retain rebates paid by BX as BX no longer provides rebates for Customer
orders removing liquidity on BX and instead charges a taker fee for
such orders. The Exchange will continue to assess the $0.13 per
contract Fixed Fee for routing Customer orders to BX, and will propose
to also charge the actual transaction fee assessed by BX.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 2(3) to lowercase
``PHLX'' and add a space that was missing within the Routing Fees to
Phlx. The Exchange also proposes to amend the name of the Exchange from
``BX Options'' to ``BX'' and add the words ``per contract'' within the
Routing Fee to all other options exchanges. This amendment is not a
substantive change, rather it is a clarification.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to renumber Options 7, Section 2(6),
Market Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS''), to Options 7, Section
2(4). The Exchange notes that the Pricing Schedule did not contain a
Section 2(5).
Applicability to and Impact on Participants 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On May 21, 2019, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets
(the ``Division'') issued fee filing guidance titled ``Staff
Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees'' (``Guidance'').
Within the Guidance, the Division noted, among other things, that
the purpose discussion should address ``how the fee may apply
differently (e.g., additional cost vs. additional discount) to
different types of market participants (e.g., market makers,
institutional brokers, retail brokers, vendors, etc.) and different
sizes of market participants.'' See Guidance (available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees). The Guidance
also suggests that the purpose discussion should include numerical
examples. Where possible, the Exchange is including numerical
examples. In addition, the Exchange is providing data to the
Commission in support of its arguments herein. The Guidance covers
all aspects of a fee filing, which the Exchange has addressed
throughout this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the NOM Market Maker Tier 3 rebate within Options
7, Section 2(1), the Exchange believes that amending the second part of
the qualification \11\ will attract greater volume to both NOM and The
Nasdaq Stock Market.\12\ Any NOM Market Maker may obtain the Tier 3
rebate provided the qualifications are met. Furthermore, NOM Market
Maker Tier 3 provides two ways to achieve the NOM Tier 3 rebate of
$0.30 per contract.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ With this proposal, the Exchange is amending the second
part of the tier qualification for the Tier 3 Market Maker Rebate to
Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols at (b)(1) by requiring Market Makers
to transact in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.80% or more of Consolidated
Volume (``CV'') which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq
Stock Market, an increase from 0.70%. Also, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the second part of the qualification for the Tier
3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols at (b)(2) by
requiring Market Makers to transact in Tape B securities through one
or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.15% or
more of CV which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq
Stock Market, a decrease from 0.18%.
    \12\ All NOM Participants are required to become members of The
Nasdaq Stock Market pursuant to General 3 Membership and Access
rules.
    \13\ NOM Participants may also add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols above 0.20% to 0.60% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month to achieve the Tier 3 rebate. See Options 7, Section 2(1).
Also, Participants who achieve the Tier 3 rebate will receive $0.40
per contract to add liquidity in the following symbols: AAPL, SPY,
QQQ, IWM, and VXX. See Options 7, Section 2(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Makers have certain obligations \14\ on NOM, unlike other
market participants. Market Maker [sic] are a source of liquidity. The
proposed amendments are generally designed to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange by incentivizing NOM Market Makers. Greater
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and attracting greater participation by market makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads. These incentives are intended to benefit
all NOM market participants who will be able to interact with
additional liquidity which this incentive attracts to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Options 2, Section 5. Also, transactions of a Market
Maker in its market making capacity must constitute a course of
dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market, and Market Makers should not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such
course of dealings. See also Options 2, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, no NOM Market Maker has earned the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols a Market Maker based on the
second part of the qualification in the last two months. The Exchange
notes that other NOM Market Makers could have qualified for this Tier 3
rebate, although they have qualified for different NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols. NOM Market Maker Rebate to
Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols are paid per the highest tier achieved,
so if a NOM

Market Maker qualifies for Tiers 4-6, that NOM Market Maker would
receive the highest rebate they qualify for even if they qualified for
Tier 3. With this proposal, the Exchange seeks to attract additional
NOM Market Maker order flow in Penny Symbols from Participants that
currently qualify for NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Symbols Tiers 1 and 2.
    With respect to the amendments to NOM's Routing Fees to BX, the
Exchange notes that the proposed Routing Fee would apply to all NOM
Participants uniformly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ 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, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also
consistent with Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of
the national market system for securities. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that its proposal complies with Commission guidance on SRO fee
filings that the Commission Staff issued on May 21, 2019.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \17\ See Guidance, supra note 7 [sic]. Although the Exchange
believes that this filing complies with the Guidance, the Exchange
does not concede that the standards set forth in the Guidance are
consistent with the Exchange Act and reserves its right to challenge
those standards through administrative and judicial review, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange perceives no regulatory, structural, or cost
impediments to market participants shifting order flow away from it
as a result of this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to define the term ``Non-Customer'' within
Options 7, Section 1 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the amendment will bring greater clarity to NOM's
Options 7 Rules. The term ``Non-Customer'' is currently utilized within
the fees for routing at Options 7, Section 2(3). The addition of this
defined term does not amend the manner in which the Exchange currently
applies the term with respect to its routing fees. The term
``Customer'' \21\ is currently defined and this term applies to
Participants that are not customers. This change would be non-
substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(a)(47)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to relocate the rule text relating to tier
calculations from Options 7, Section 2(4), without change, to Options
7, Section 1, General Provisions is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that this information is
better suited to Section 1 along with other general information because
the rule applies to Options 7 pricing and all Participants transacting
on BX.
Options 7, Section 2
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for the Tier 3
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols is reasonable.
Amending the second part of the qualification for the Tier 3 Market
Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols at (b)(1), by requiring
Market Makers to transact in all securities through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.80% or more of Consolidated
Volume (``CV'') which adds liquidity in the same month on The Nasdaq
Stock Market, is an increase from 0.70%. Amending the second part of
the qualification for the Tier 3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Symbols at (b)(2), by requiring Market Makers to transact in
Tape B securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
that represent 0.15% or more of CV which adds liquidity in the same
month on The Nasdaq Stock Market, is a decrease from 0.18%.\22\
Although the first component of the part (b) qualification requiring
Market Makers to transact in all securities through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs is being increased and the second component
of the part (b) qualification requiring Market Makers to transact in
Tape B securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
is being decreased, the Exchange believes that these amendments may
incentivize additional Market Makers to qualify for the Tier 3 Market
Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols by transact greater
volume on The Nasdaq Stock Market. The Tier 3 qualification requires
Market Makers to qualify for either Part (a) or (b) of the
qualification. The Exchange believes that the Tier 3 Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols will continue to incentivize
Market Makers to direct additional order

flow to NOM and The Nasdaq Stock Market and, in turn, market
participants will benefit from the opportunity to interact with such
order flow. The Exchange notes that this proposal is designed as a
means to improve market quality by providing Participants with an
incentive to increase their provision of liquidity on the Exchange's
equity and options markets. Further, any NOM Market Maker may obtain
the Tier 3 rebate provided the qualifications are met. NOM Market Maker
Tier 3 provides two ways to achieve the NOM Tier 3 rebate of $0.30 per
contract.\23\ These incentives are intended to benefit all NOM market
participants who will be able to interact with additional liquidity
which this incentive attracts to the Exchange. Market Makers have
certain obligations \24\ on NOM, unlike other market participants.
Market Maker are a source of liquidity. The proposed amendments are
generally designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange by
incentivizing NOM Market Makers. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and attracting
greater participation by market makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Part (b)(3) of the qualification for the Tier 3 Market
Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols requires that Market
Makers execute greater than 0.01% of CV via Market-on-Close/Limit-
on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume within The Nasdaq Stock Market Closing
Cross in the same month is not being amended.
    \23\ NOM Participants may also add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols above 0.20% to 0.60% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month to achieve the Tier 3 rebate. See Options 7, Section 2(1).
Also, Participants who achieve the Tier 3 rebate will receive $0.40
per contract to add liquidity in the following symbols: AAPL, SPY,
QQQ, IWM, and VXX. See Options 7, Section 2(1).
    \24\ See Options 2, Section 5. Also, transactions of a Market
Maker in its market making capacity must constitute a course of
dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market, and Market Makers should not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such
course of dealings. See also Options 2, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for the Tier 3
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange will uniformly pay the Tier
3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols to any
qualifying Market Maker. NOM Market Makers add value through continuous
quoting and the commitment of capital.\25\ Because NOM Market Makers
have these obligations to the market and regulatory requirements that
normally do not apply to other market participants, the Exchange
believes that offering these rebates to only NOM Market Makers is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in light of their
obligations. Finally, encouraging NOM Market Makers to add greater
liquidity benefits all market participants, on both NOM and The Nasdaq
Stock Market, in the quality of order interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(1) to add
rule text after the title of Section 2(1), Fees and Rebates for
Execution of Contracts on The Nasdaq Options Market, which explains the
pricing applicable to the transaction fees within Section 2(1) is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes the addition of this rule text will bring clarity to the
Options 7, Section 2 pricing by making clear that the transaction fees
within Options 7, Section 2(1) apply intra-day. This new note ``*''
does not represent a substantive change. The proposed new note ``*'' is
intended to serve as a guidepost to Participants referring to the NOM
Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a citation to the title of Options
7, Section 2(2) to the Opening Cross rule is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. This amendment will add clarity to the
rule text.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the BX Customer Routing Fee within
Options 7, Section 2(3) to start charging the actual transaction fee
assessed by BX in addition to the current $0.13 per contract Fixed Fee
is reasonable. As a general matter, the Exchange notes that use of the
Exchange's routing services is completely voluntary. In the
alternative, member organizations may submit orders to the Exchange as
ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\26\
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily select between various providers
of routing services with different pricing. In this instance, proposing
to assess the actual transaction fee, in addition to the current Fixed
Fee of $0.13 per contract, is reasonable in light of the Recent Rule
Change described above where BX no longer provides rebates to Customer
orders that are routed to and executed on BX, and instead charges them
a taker fee.\27\ As proposed, the Exchange would recoup the actual
transaction cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to BX in lieu
of collecting any rebate paid by BX. Today, the Exchange similarly
assesses orders routed to Phlx a Fixed Fee of $0.13 per contract plus
the actual transaction fee. As such, the proposal would align the BX
Routing Fee with the Phlx Routing Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Options 5, Section 4(a)(iii)(A).
    \27\ See note 7 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the BX Customer Routing Fee within
Options 7, Section 2(3) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange would uniformly assess the same transaction fee
assessed by BX for the Customer order routed to BX plus a Fixed Fee of
$0.13 per contract.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(3) to
lowercase ``PHLX,'' add a space that was missing within the Routing
Fees to Phlx, amend the name ``BX Options'' to ``BX,'' and add the
words ``per contract'' within the Routing Fee to all other options
exchanges and the proposal to renumber Options 7, Section 2(6), Market
Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS''), to Options 7, Section 2(4) \28\
are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. These non-
substantive amendments will bring greater clarity to the Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange notes that the Pricing Schedule did not
contain a Section 2(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
options 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 believes that the proposed changes
will enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders
to away markets, particularly BX, while also passing along savings
realized by leveraging Nasdaq's infrastructure and scale to market
participants when those orders are routed to Nasdaq-affiliated options
markets, as further discussed above.
    The Exchange also does not believe its proposal will impose an
undue burden on intra-market competition.

Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to define the term ``Non-Customer'' within
Options 7, Section 1 does not impose an undue burden on competition as
the amendment will bring greater clarity to NOM's Options 7 Rules.
    The Exchange's proposal to relocate the rule text from Options 7,
Section 2(4), without change, to Options 7, Section 1, General
Provisions does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange
believes that this information is better suited to Section 1 along with
other general information because the rule applies to Options 7 pricing
and all Participants transacting on BX.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for the Tier 3
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols does not impose
an undue burden on competition as the Exchange will uniformly pay the
Tier 3 Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Symbols to any
qualifying Market Maker. NOM Market Makers add value through continuous
quoting and the commitment of capital.\29\ Because NOM Market Makers
have these obligations to the market and regulatory requirements that
normally do not apply to other market participants, the Exchange
believes that offering these rebates to only NOM Market Makers is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in light of their
obligations. Finally, encouraging NOM Market Makers to add greater
liquidity benefits all market participants, on both NOM and The Nasdaq
Stock Market, in the quality of order interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 2
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(1) to add
rule text after the title of Section 2(1), Fees and Rebates for
Execution of Contracts on The Nasdaq Options Market, which explains the
pricing applicable to the transaction fees within Section 2(1) does not
impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes the
addition of this rule text will bring clarity to the Section 2 pricing,
which is applicable to all Participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a citation to the title of Options
7, Section 2(2) to the Opening Cross rule does not impose an undue
burden on competition. This amendment will add clarity to the rule
text.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the BX Customer Routing Fee within
Options 7, Section 2(3) does not impose an undue burden on competition.
In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to charge Customer orders
that are routed to BX the actual transaction fee assessed by BX in
addition to the current Fixed Fee of $0.13 per contract in light of the
fee changes under the Recent Rule Change described above where BX no
longer provides rebates to Customer orders that are routed to and
executed on BX, and instead charges them a taker fee.\30\ The proposed
changes reflect the need to recover the Exchange's costs associated
with providing its routing services. Furthermore, as noted above, the
use of the Exchange's routing services is completely voluntary and
optional, and the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily select between various providers
of routing services with different pricing. As such, it is likely that
the Exchange will lose market share as a result of the changes proposed
herein if they are unattractive to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 7 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also does not believe its proposal will impose an
undue burden on intra-market competition. As discussed above, the
Exchange would uniformly assess the same transaction fee assessed by BX
for the Customer order routed to BX plus a Fixed Fee of $0.13 per
contract. Under this proposal, Non-Customer orders would continue to be
assessed the $0.99 per contract routing fee and not be assessed the
actual BX transaction fee. The Exchange does not believe its pricing
proposal will place any market participant at a relative disadvantage
compared to other market participants because the proposed routing fee
for Customer orders will actually narrow the difference between the
routing fees assessed to Customer and Non-Customer orders routed to BX.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(3) to
lowercase ``PHLX,'' add a space that was missing within the Routing
Fees to Phlx, amend the name ``BX Options'' to ``BX,'' and add the
words ``per contract'' within the Routing Fee to all other options
exchanges and the proposal to renumber Options 7, Section 2(6), Market
Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS''), to Options 7, Section 2(4) do
not impose an undue burden on competition. These non-substantive
amendments will bring greater clarity to the Rulebook.

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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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-NASDAQ-2021-021 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-NASDAQ-2021-021. 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 (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 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
10:00 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-021, and should
be submitted on or before May 21, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09026 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request 2. OMB control number b. X None EPA/ OAQPS a. B 2 0 6 0 3. Type of information collection ( check one) 4. Type of review requested ( check one)

a. X New collection a. X Regular b. Revision of a currently approved collection b. Emergency  Approval requested by: / /

c. Extension of a currently approved collection c. Delegated d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 5. Small entities approved collection for which approval has expired Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously substantial number of small entities? Yes X No approved collection for which approval has expired f. Existing collection in use without OMB control 6. Requested expiration date number a. X Three years from approval date For b B f, note Item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions b. Other Specify: /

7. Title Implementation of Pollution Prevention Alternatives in the 40 CFR 63 General Provisions ( Proposed Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable)

EPA ICR # 2099.01 9. Keywords Environmental protection, Air pollution control, General provisions, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, Compliance alternatives 10. Abstract Owners or operators of facilities subject to NESHAP can participate in a voluntary program to reduce the burden of compliance by implementing pollution prevention measures. Only facilities that can reduce the burden of monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping are expected to participate; consequently, the General Provision amendments will reduce the burden associated with NESHAP.

11. Affected public 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Individuals or households d. Farms a. P Voluntary b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal c. Mandatory Government 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Number of respondents 609 a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual responses 609 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 1. Percentage of these responses c. Total annualized cost requested 0 collected electronically 10 % d. Current OMB inventory 0 c. Total annual hours requested 1 e. Difference 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 f. Explanation of difference e. Difference 1 1. Program change 0 f. Explanation of difference 2. Adjustment 0 1. Program change 1 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply)

( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Recordkeeping b. Third party disclosure a. X Application for benefits e. Program planning or c. X Reporting b. Program evaluation management 1. X On occasion 2. Weekly c. General purpose statistics f. Research 3. Monthly 4. Quarterly d. Audit g. P Regulatory or compliance 5. Semi annually 6. Annually compliance 7. Biennially 8. Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the Does this information collection employ statistical methods? content of this submission)

Yes X No Name: Steve Fruh, EPA/ OAQPS/ PPSG Phone: ( 919) 541 2837 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers: ( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions; ( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication; ( c) It reduces burden on small entities; ( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents; ( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices; ( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements; ( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number; ( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions); ( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Date Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental OMB 83 I 10/ 95