[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47481-47485]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95387; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 903

July 28, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on July 21, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 to [sic] amend Rule 903 (Series of Options
Open for Trading), Commentary .10 regarding the Short Term Option
Series Program. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903 (Series of Options Open for
Trading). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .10
to Rule 903 to account for conflicts between different provisions
within the Short Term Option Series (``STOS'') rule. The Exchange notes
that this proposal is substantively identical to the strike interval
proposal recently submitted by Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'') and
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95085 (June 10,
2022), 87 FR 36353 (June 16, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-10) (approval order)
(``ISE Strike Interval Clarification''). The Exchange notes that the
rule change set forth in the ISE Strike Interval Clarification will
be implemented on August 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2021, the Exchange amended Rule 903, Commentary .10
(``Commentary .10'') to limit the intervals between strikes in equity
options listed as part of the Short Term Option Series Program (the
``STOS Program''), excluding

Exchange-Traded Fund Shares \5\ and Section 107 Securities,\6\ that
have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date
(``Strike Interval Proposal'').\7\ The Strike Interval Proposal adopted
a new paragraph (e) to Commentary .10 that included a table intended to
specify the applicable strike intervals for STOS in equity options,
excluding Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and Section 107 Securities, which
have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing
date. The newly adopted Commentary .10(e) was intended to establish
strike intervals that would supersede those set forth in Commentary
.10(d).\8\ The Strike Interval Proposal was designed to reduce the
density of strike intervals that would be listed in later weeks, within
the STOS Program, by utilizing limitations for intervals between
strikes which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from
the listing date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term Exchange-Traded Fund Shares includes Exchange-
listed securities representing interests in open-end unit investment
trusts or open-end management investment companies that hold
securities (including fixed income securities) based on an index or
a portfolio of securities. See Rule 900.2NY(24).
    \6\ The term Section 107 Securities is the collective definition
for the following securities: ``Index-Linked Securities'',
``Commodity-Linked Securities'', ``Currency-Linked Securities'',
``Fixed Income-Linked Securities'', ``Futures-Linked Securities'',
and ``Combination-Linked Securities''. See Sections 107D, 107E,
107F, 107G, 107H and 107I of the Company Guide.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92336 (July 7, 2021)
86 FR 36827 (July 13, 2021) (SR-NYSEAMER-2021-32) (immediately
effective Strike Interval Proposal to limit STOS Intervals between
strikes).
    \8\ See Rule 903, Commentary .10(d) (providing in relevant part
that ``[t]he strike price interval for Short Term Option Series may
be $0.50 or greater for option classes that trade in $1 strike price
intervals and are in the Short Term Option Series Program. If the
class does not trade in $1 strike price intervals, the strike price
interval for Short Term Option Series may be (i) $0.50 or greater
where the strike price is less than $100; (ii) $1.00 or greater
where the strike price is between $100 and $150; or (iii) $2.50 or
greater for strike prices greater than $150.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .10(e), and
delete note 4 thereto, to alleviate any ambiguity regarding the
appropriate strike interval per Commentary .10 (i.e., whether to apply
paragraph (d) or (e) of Commentary .10).
    Currently, the table within Commentary .10(e) is as follows: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 903, Commentary .10(e), note 1 (describing the
Share Price); note 2 (describing the Average Daily Volume or
``ADV''); and note 3 (providing that newly-listed options will not
be subject to subparagraph (e) until after the end of the first full
calendar quarter following the date the option class was first
listed for trading on any options market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Share price
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Tier                         Average daily volume                          $25 to less     $75 to less    $150 to less       $500 or
                                                                           Less than $25     than $75        than $150       than $500        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  Greater than 5,000...............           $0.50           $1.00           $1.00           $5.00           $5.00
2....................................  Greater than 1,000 to 5,000......            1.00            1.00            1.00            5.00           10.00
3....................................  0 to 1,000.......................            2.50            5.00            5.00            5.00           10.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first sentence of Commentary .10(e) provides that
``[n]otwithstanding subparagraph (d) above, when Short Term Option
Series in equity options (excluding options on Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares and Section 107 Securities) have an expiration more than 21 days
from the listing date, the strike interval for each option class will
be based on the table below.''
    To alleviate ambiguity, the Exchange proposes to delete the first
clause of Commentary .10(e) (i.e., to delete ``Notwithstanding
subparagraph (d)''), and to add language specifying that the strike
intervals in Commentary .10(e) would apply. Specifically, proposed
Commentary .10(e) would provide that ``[w]hen Short Term Option Series
in equity options (excluding options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and
Section 107 Securities) have an expiration more than 21 days from the
listing date, the table below, which specifies the applicable interval
for listing, will apply'' (emphasis supplied). The Exchange proposes to
add the phrase ``which specifies the applicable interval for listing''
to make clear that the table within Commentary .10(e), which provides
for the listing of intervals based on certain parameters (i.e., average
daily volume and share price) dictates the permitted intervals, unless
Commentary .10(d) specifically provides for a greater interval (as
described below).
    To add further clarity, the Exchange proposes to add a new sentence
within Commentary .10(e), which would state that ``[t]o the extent
there is a conflict between applying Commentary .10(d) and the below
table, the greater interval would apply.'' Today, there are instances
where a conflict is presented as between the application of the table
within Commentary .10(e) and the rule text within Commentary .10(d)
with respect to the correct interval. Adding the proposed sentence
would make clear to ATP Holders the applicable intervals where there is
a conflict between the rule text within subparagraph (e) and the rule
text within subparagraph (d), thereby providing certainty as to the
outcome. Specifically, subparagraph (d) would govern only in the event
that the strike interval would be greater. Should subparagraph (d)
provide for a lesser strike interval, it would not apply (and
subparagraph (e) would apply). The following examples are designed to
illustrate this point.
    Example 1: Assume a Tier 1 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price higher than $75 but less than $150.
Therefore, utilizing the table within Commentary .10(e), the interval
would be $1.00 for strikes added during Q2 even for strikes above $150.
Next, assume during Q2 the share price rises above $150. Utilizing only
the table within Commentary .10(e), the interval would be $1.00 even
though the stock is now trading above $150 because the Share Price for
purposes of Commentary .10(e) was calculated utilizing data from the
prior calendar quarter. However, a separate rule, Commentary .10(d),
provides that the Exchange may list a STOS at $2.50 intervals where the
strike price is above $150. In other words, there is a potential
conflict between the permitted strike intervals above $150. In this
example, Commentary .10(e) would specify a $1.00 interval whereas
Commentary .10(d) would specify a $2.50 interval. As proposed, the
Exchange proposes to apply the greater interval. The greater interval
would then be $2.50 as per Commentary .10(d) in this scenario.
Therefore, the following strikes would be eligible to list: $152.5 and
$157.5. For strikes less than $150, the following strikes would be
eligible to list: $149 and $148 because STOS with expiration dates more
than 21 days from the listing date as well as STOS with expiration
dates less than 21 days from the listing

date would both be eligible to list $1 intervals pursuant to paragraphs
(d) and (e) to Commentary .10.
    Example 2: Assume a Tier 2 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price less than $25. Therefore, utilizing the
table within Commentary .10(e), the interval would be $1.00 for strikes
added during Q2 even for strikes above $25. Next, assume during Q2 the
share price rises above $100. Utilizing only the table within
Commentary .10(e), the interval would be $1.00 even though the stock is
now trading above $100 because the Share Price for purposes of
Commentary .10(e), was calculated utilizing data from the prior
calendar quarter. However, Commentary .10(d), provides that the
Exchange may list a STOS at $1.00 intervals where the strike price is
above $100. As proposed, the Exchange would apply the greater interval,
however, the $1.00 interval is the same in both cases in this scenario
and therefore there is no conflict. Now assume during the quarter the
price rose above $150. Utilizing only the table within Commentary
.10(e), the interval would continue to be $1.00 because the Share Price
relied on data from the prior calendar quarter, however, pursuant to
Commentary .10(d), the interval would be $2.50 for strike prices above
$150. The greater interval would then be $2.50 as per Commentary .10(d)
in this scenario.
    Example 3: Assume a Tier 3 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price less than $25. Therefore, utilizing the
table within Commentary .10(e), the interval would be $2.50 for strikes
added during Q2 even for strikes above $25. Next, assume during Q2 the
share price rises above $100. Utilizing only the table within
Commentary .10(e), the interval would be $2.50 even though the stock
was trading above $100 because the Share Price for purposes of
Commentary .10(e), was calculated utilizing data from the prior
calendar quarter. However, Commentary .10(d) provides that the Exchange
may list a STOS at $1.00 intervals where the strike price is above
$100. The greater interval would then be $2.50 as per the table in
Commentary .10(e) in this scenario.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence of
the first paragraph of Commentary .10(e), which states that ``[t]he
below table indicates the applicable strike intervals and supersedes
subparagraph (d) above, which permits additional series to be opened
for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying security moves substantially from the exercise
price or prices of the series already opened.'' The Exchange believes
the reference to Commentary .10(d) is an error as Commentary .10(c)
(not subparagraph (d)) describes adding series of options in the STOS
Program.\10\ The table within Commentary .10(e) impacts permissible
strike intervals. Because there should be no conflict between strike
intervals set forth in Commentary .10(e) and details about adding
option series set forth in Commentary .10(c) (albeit erroneously
referred to as Commentary .10(d)), the Exchange believes that deleting
this reference will avoid potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As discussed herein, Commentary .10(d) relates to Strike
Intervals, whereas Commentary .10(c), regarding ``Additional
Series,'' provides that ``[i]f the Exchange opens less than thirty
(30) Short Term Option Series for a Short Term Option Expiration
Date, additional series may be opened for trading on the Exchange
when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market,
to meet customer demand or when the market price of the underlying
security moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of
the series already opened.'' The language of the filing indicates
the intent to (correctly) refer to Commentary .10(c). See Strike
Interval Proposal, 86 FR at 36829 (providing that the table in
Commentary .10(e), ``indicates the applicable strike intervals and
supersedes Rule 903, Commentary .10(c), which currently permits 10
additional series to be opened for trading on the Exchange when the
Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet
customer demand or when the market price of the underlying security
moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened.'') (emphasis supplied).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, consistent with the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to
delete note 4 to the table in Commentary .10(e), which provides that
``[n]otwithstanding the limitations imposed by this subparagraph (e),
this subparagraph (e) does not amend the range of strikes for Short
Term Option Series that may be listed pursuant to subparagraph (d)
above,'' which deletion would add clarity and consistency to Commentary
.10 and limit the potential for confusion or ambiguity. In addition,
the Exchange believes this sentence is unnecessary given the foregoing
changes that propose to clarify the circumstances when either
subparagraph (e) or subparagraph (d) applies to strike intervals.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on August 1,
2022, consistent with the date of ISE's rule change per the ISE Strike
Interval Clarification.\11\ The Exchange will issue a Trader Update to
notify ATP Holders of the implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Strike Interval Clarification, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule maintains the goal of the Strike Interval Proposal
and continues to limit the intervals between strikes listed in the STOS
Program that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add clarifying language to the first
sentence of Commentary .10(e), is consistent with the Act because it
will make clear that the only permitted intervals are as specified in
the table within Commentary .10(e), except in the case where Commentary
.10(d) provides for a greater interval. This amendment will bring
greater transparency to the rule.
    Adopting a new sentence within Commentary .10(e) to address a
potential conflict between provisions in the STOS rule, specifically as
between the application of the table within Commentary .10(e) and the
rule text within Commentary .10(d), with respect to the correct
interval is consistent with the Act. Proposed Commentary .10(e) will
make clear to ATP Holders the applicable intervals when there is a
conflict between the rule text within Commentary .10(e) and the rule
text within Commentary .10(d), thereby providing certainty as to the
outcome. Further, the proposed new rule text promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by adding transparency to the manner in
which the Exchange implements its listing rules, and protects investors
and the general public by removing uncertainty.
    The Exchange believes that deleting the last sentence of the first
paragraph of Commentary .10(e) is consistent with the Act. The table
within Commentary

.10(e) supersedes other rules pertaining to strike intervals, but the
table does [sic] is not intended to supersede (or conflict with) rules
governing the addition of options series, per Commentary .10(c).
Therefore, deleting the (erroneous) reference to Commentary .10(d) in
proposed Commentary .10(e) will avoid confusion regarding the
application of each paragraph, which clarity would protect investors
and the general public.
    Removing note 4 to the table in Commentary .10(e) is consistent
with the Act because while the range limitations continue to be
applicable, the strike ranges do not conflict with strike intervals,
rendering the sentence unnecessary and potentially confusing. Also, the
proposed rule text within Commentary .10(e) otherwise indicates when
Commentary .10(d) would apply.
    As noted here, the Strike Interval Proposal was designed to reduce
the density of strike intervals that would be listed in later weeks,
within the STOS Program, by utilizing limitations for intervals between
strikes which have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from
the listing date. The Exchange's proposal furthers this goal as it
intends to continue to remove certain strike intervals where there
exist clusters of strikes whose characteristics closely resemble one
another and, therefore, do not serve different trading needs, rendering
these strikes less useful.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, two strikes that are densely clustered may
have the same risk properties and may also be the same percentage
out-of-the money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Strike Interval Proposal will continue to reduce the
number of strikes listed on the Exchange, allowing Lead Market Makers
and Market Makers to expend their capital in the options market in a
more efficient manner, thereby improving overall market quality on the
Exchange.
    Additionally, by making clear that the greater interval would
control as between the Commentary .10(e) and Commentary .10(d), the
Exchange is reducing the number of strikes listed in a manner
consistent with the intent of the Strike Interval Proposal (i.e., to
reduce strikes which were farther out in time). The result of this
clarification is to select wider strike intervals for STOS in equity
options that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the
listing date. This proposed rule change would harmonize strike
intervals as between inner weeklies (those having less than 21 days
from the listing date) and outer weeklies (those having more than 21
days from the listing date) so that strike intervals are not widening
as the listing date approaches.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to impact competition but rather is designed to clarify a
potential ambiguity regarding strike intervals that exists in the
current STOS rule.
    The Exchange anticipates that this proposal, which is consistent
with a Commission-approved rule of another options exchange, will be
adopted by other option exchanges and therefore would have no impact on
competition.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ISE Strike Interval Clarification, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to alleviating potential ambiguity, the proposed rule
will further the goal of limiting the number of STOS Program strike
intervals available for quoting and trading on the Exchange for all ATP
Holders. The Exchange continues to balance the needs of market
participants by continuing to offer a number of strikes to meet a
market participant's investment objective. The Exchange's Strike
Interval Proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition as this Strike Interval Proposal does not impact the
listings available at another self-regulatory organization.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the Exchange may implement the proposed rule change on August 1, 2022--
the same time other exchanges are implementing an identical change.\21\
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel
issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95085 (June 10,
2022), 87 FR 36353 (June 16, 2022) (SR-ISE-2022-10) (Order Approving
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Amend ISE
Options 4, Section 5, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-

NYSEAMER-2022-33 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-NYSEAMER-2022-33. 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-NYSEAMER-2022-33 and
should be submitted on or before August 24, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16553 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


10-05-06

33rd EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

DRAFT AGENDA

October 19-20, 2006

Grand Hyatt Hotel

1000 H Street, NW

Washington, DC

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Thursday, October 19, 2006

8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.		Registration

8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.		Welcome and Introductions		Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

- Review of June Mtg Minutes		Chair, Executive Committee

- Review of September Mtg Minutes

- Reports Transmitted to ORD

- Overview of Agenda

9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.	BOSC DFO Remarks			Ms. Lori Kowalski, Office of

- Administrative Issues			Research and Development

9:15 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.		AA/ORD Remarks			Dr. Kevin Teichman,

	Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Research and Development

9:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.		Program Review Tool Workgroup 	Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

- Draft Proposal				Chair, Executive Committee

11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.		Break

11:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon		ORD Responses to Recent BOSC 	ORD Technical Lead

		Reports (Global)

12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m.		Lunch

1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.		ORD Responses to Recent BOSC 	ORD Technical Leads

		Reports (Continued) (WQ, Land)

2:30 p.m.- 3:15 p.m.		Subcommittee Reports

-  Computational Toxicology		Dr. George Daston,

	(draft letter report)			Subcommittee Chair

				Program Review Subcommittees:

- Human Health Risk Assessment	Dr. George Daston,

Program Review			Subcommittee Chair

- Safe Pesticides/Safe Products		Dr. Anna Harding,

Program Review			Subcommittee Chair

- Technology for Sustainability		Dr. John Giesy,

Program Review			Subcommittee Chair

- Homeland Security			Dr. Gary Sayler,

					Subcommittee Chair

	3:15 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.		Break

3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.		Subcommittee Reports (Continued)

Standing Subcommittees:

- Common Process Outline		Ms. Susan Peterson, Office of

					Research and Development

- National Center for Environmental	Dr. Martin Philbert,

Research (NCER) 			Subcommittee Chair

- National Exposure Research Lab	TBD,

(NERL)				Subcommittee Chair

- Human Health Mid-Cycle Review	Dr. James Clark,

					Subcommittee VChair

	4:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.		Public Comment

	4:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. 		ORD Briefing on Methamphetamine	Dr. Kevin Teichman,

	Lab Remediation			Acting Deputy Assistant

			Administrator for Office of

			Research and Development

5:00 p.m. 			Adjourn

Friday, October 20, 2006

	9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.		BOSC Issues				Dr. Kevin Teichman,

					- ORD Update				Acting Deputy Assistant

							Administrator for Research and

							Development

	9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.		ORD Briefing on Nanotechnology	Dr. Nora Savage, Office of

Research and Development

	10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.		SAB Activities				Dr. George Lambert, SAB

					Liaison to the BOSC

	11:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon		Future Discussion/Future Business	Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.

	- Meetings in May, September 2007	Chair, Executive Committee

- Additional Mid-Cycle Reviews

	12:00 noon			Adjourn

Draft Agenda for October 19-20, 2006 Executive Committee Meeting

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6070-6071]
[DOCID:fr06fe06-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074; FRL-8028-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys; EPA ICR
Number 1711.05, OMB Control Number 2090-0019

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2006. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2006-0074 by one of the following methods:
     Http://http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2006-
0074. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bonner, Office of
Environmental Policy Innovation, (MC 1807T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft

collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply To?

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074.

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
primarily individuals or households.
    Title: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1711.05, OMB Control No. 2090-0019.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on June 30,
2006. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA uses voluntary surveys to learn how satisfied EPA
customers are with our services, and how we can improve services,
products and processes. EPA surveys individuals who use services or
could have. During the next three years, EPA plans up to 50 surveys,
and will use results to target/measure service delivery improvements.
By seeking renewal of the generic clearance for customer surveys, EPA
will have the flexibility to gather the views of our customers to
better determine the extent to which our services, products and
processes satisfy their needs or need to be improved. The generic
clearance will speed the review and approval of customer surveys that
solicit opinions from EPA customers on a voluntary basis, and do not
involve ``fact-finding'' for the purposes of regulatory development or
enforcement.
    An Agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it has a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average five
minutes to two hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 8,640.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 550 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $9,075. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $9,075 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: January 31, 2006.
Elizabeth A. Shaw,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation, Office of the Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-1581 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2701-2702]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0080; FRL-9920-07-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Cellulose Products
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1974.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0488) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2015. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR
30117) on May 27, 2014, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond, to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 19,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0080, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance,

and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Respondents are either owners or operators of cellulose
products manufacturing facilities. Respondents would submit
notifications and reports and maintain records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). Recordkeeping of parameters
related to air pollution control technologies is required.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Cellulose products manufacturing
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).
    Frequency of response: Occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 12,088 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,184,426 (per year), which includes $1,014
in either annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in labor hours in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. However, there is a small adjustment
decrease in the respondent and Agency labor costs to correct
mathematical and rounding errors.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-00777 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P