[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49332-49336]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17674]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78388; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Establishing Fees
Relating to End Users and Amending the Definition of ``Affiliate,'' as
well as Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges
for Exchange Services and the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Reflect
the Changes

July 21, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On April 4, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the co-location section of the NYSE Arca
Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services and the
NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule to establish fees relating to end users
of certain co-location Users in the Exchange's data center and to amend
the definition of ``Affiliate.'' The Commission published the proposed
rule change for comment in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016.\3\
On April 29, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change.\5\ On June 8, 2016, the Commission extended the time
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to July 21, 2016.\6\ On
June 24, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77641 (April 18,
2016), 81 FR 23773 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 makes technical changes relating to the
General Notes numbering and references in the Co-location section of
the Fee Schedules. Because Amendment No. 1 is technical, the
Commission is not soliciting comment thereon.
    \5\ The Commission received two comment letters on a companion
filing, NYSE-2016-11 (the ``NYSE companion filing''), filed by the
Exchange's affiliate, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').
See Letter from Michael Friedman, General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer, Trillium, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated May 13, 2016 (``Friedman
Letter''), and Letter from Eero Pikat to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated, May 13, 2016 (``Pikat
Letter'') (together, the ``Comment Letters'').
     In response to the Comment Letters, the NYSE submitted a
response (``Response Letter'') and filed Amendment No. 2 to the NYSE
companion filing. As they are relevant to the instant filing, the
Comment Letters and Response Letter on the NYSE companion filing are
discussed below.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34- 77977 (June 2,
2016), 81 FR 36967.
    \7\ As more fully described below, in Amendment No. 2 the
Exchange proposes that Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users
would not be charged for their first two Multicast End Users and
Unicast End Users, respectively, and offers additional support for
the proposal. Amendment No. 2 is available on the Commission's Web
site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2016-19/nysearca201619-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this order to solicit comments on
Amendment No. 2 from interested persons and to institute proceedings
pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.\8\ Institution of proceedings does not indicate
that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to the
proposed rule change, nor does it mean that the Commission will
ultimately disapprove the proposed rule change. Rather, as discussed
below, the Commission seeks additional input on the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and on the issues
presented by the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    The Exchange proposes to establish certain fees relating to end
users. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the co-location
section of the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services and the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (collectively
``Fee Schedules'') to (i) add the newly defined terms ``Rebroadcasting
User'' and ``Multicast End User;'' as well as ``Transmittal User'' and
``Unicast End User;'' (ii) amend the definition of Affiliate; (iii)
establish new reporting requirements applicable to Rebroadcasting Users
and Transmittal Users; (iv) establish new fees applicable to
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users; and (v) make certain
related technical changes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23773; see also Amendment
No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey (``data
center'') from which it provides co-location services to Users.\10\ The
Exchange states that in the data center, information flows over
existing network connections in two formats: multicast and unicast.
Multicast is a format in which information is sent one-way from the
Exchange to multiple recipients at once, similar to a radio broadcast,
and is currently employed for the transmission of market data.\11\
Users receiving market data through the multicast format can retransmit
that data to their customers.\12\ Unicast format is a format that
allows one-to-one communication, similar to a phone line, in which
information is sent to and from the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23773.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebroadcasting Users/Multicast End Users

    The Exchange proposes to add several new definitions to the Fee
Schedules. The Exchange proposes to define a ``Rebroadcasting User'' as
``a User that rebroadcasts to its customers data received from the
Exchange in multicast format, unless such User normalizes the raw
market data before sending it to its customers.'' \14\ The Exchange
also proposes to define ``Multicast End User'' as ``a customer of a
Rebroadcasting User, or a customer of a Rebroadcasting User's Multicast
End User customer, to whom the Rebroadcasting User or its Multicast End
User sends data received from the Exchange in multicast format, other
than an Affiliate of the Rebroadcasting User.'' \15\ The Exchange notes
that a Multicast End User may be, but is not required to be, a User or
a Hosted Customer, and also that a customer of a Rebroadcasting User
would be considered a Multicast End User, irrespective of whether it
receives the data from a Rebroadcasting User or another Multicast End
User.\16\ Accordingly, as proposed, a Multicast End User is a recipient
of raw Exchange market data that (i) originated from (but may not have
been provided directly by) a User, provided such recipient is not an
Affiliate of the originating User.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 23774. Pursuant to the definition, the term
``Rebroadcasting User'' would exclude a User that ``normalizes''
(i.e., alters) raw market data before sending it a Multicast End
User. The definition of Rebroadcasting User also would not apply to
a User that rebroadcasts third party data, because that data is not
received from the Exchange. See id.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as originally proposed, the Exchange would assess a

Rebroadcasting User with one or two connections, either directly or
through another Multicast End User, to a Multicast End User, a $1,700
monthly charge for the first two connections, and $850 for each
additional connection to that Multicast End User.\18\ To assess the
proposed fees accurately, a Rebroadcasting User would be required to
report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the number of its Multicast
End Users, and the number of connections it has to each.\19\ As more
fully discussed below, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes that a
Rebroadcasting User would not be assessed a fee for its first two
Multicast End Users.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id. at 23775-76.
    \20\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transmittal Users/Unicast End Users

    According to the Exchange, customers use unicast format to send
messages related to orders or for clearing purposes.\21\ A User may
enable one or more of its customers to transmit messages in unicast
format to and from the Exchange.\22\ The Exchange proposes to define a
``Transmittal User'' as a User that enables its customers, or the
customers of its customers, to transmit messages to and from the
Exchange using the unicast format.\23\ A ``Unicast End User'' would be
a customer of a Transmittal User, or a customer of a Transmittal User's
Unicast End User customer, for whom the Transmittal User or its Unicast
End User customer enables the transmission of messages to and from the
Exchange in unicast format, other than a customer that (a) is an
Affiliate of the Transmittal User or (b) sends all unicast
transmissions through a floor participant, such as a floor broker.\24\
Customers of a Transmittal User that send all unicast transmissions
through a floor participant, such as a floor broker, would not be
considered a Unicast End User even if such customer is enabled to use
unicast format.\25\ A Unicast End User may also enable one or more of
their customers to transmit messages to and from the Unicast End User
and thus such customers would also be considered a Unicast End
User.\26\ To assess the proposed fees accurately, a Transmittal User
would be required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the
number of its Unicast End Users, and the number of connections it has
to each.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23774.
    \22\ See id. For example, a User that is a service bureau or
extranet may use such connections to facilitate order routing and
clearing by its customers. See id.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id. A Unicast End User may be a User or a Hosted
Customer. See id.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id. The Exchange notes that it is not aware of any
customer of a Unicast End User that enables its customers to
transmit messages, but if such a relationship did exist, the
customer would also be considered a Unicast End User. See id.
    \27\ See id. at 23775-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally proposed, the Exchange would assess a Transmittal
User with one or two connections, either directly or through another
Unicast End User, to a Unicast End User, a $1,500 monthly charge for
the first two connections,\28\ and $750 for each additional connection
to that Unicast End User.\29\ As noted, there would be no charge to a
Transmittal User for its connection to a customer submitting orders
through a unicast connection to a floor participant.\30\ As more fully
discussed below, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes that a
Transmittal User would not be charged the proposed fee for its first
two Unicast End Users.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 23774.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
    \31\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Affiliate

    The Exchange also proposes that the terms Multicast End User and
Unicast End User would exclude an entity that is an Affiliate of its
Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User, respectively.\32\ The Exchange
proposes to amend its current definition of an Affiliate.\33\ Under the
new definition, an ``Affiliate'' of a User would be any other User or
Hosted Customer that is under common control with, controls, or is
controlled by, the first User, provided that: (1) An ``Affiliate'' of a
Rebroadcasting User is any Multicast End User that is under common
control with, controls, or is controlled by the Rebroadcasting User;
and (2) an ``Affiliate'' of a Transmittal User is any Unicast End User
that is under common control with, controls, or is controlled by the
Transmittal User.\34\ For purposes of this definition, ``control''
means ownership or control of 50% or greater.\35\ The purpose of the
amendment is to provide that an ``Affiliate'' relationship exists
whenever two entities are under common control, regardless of which
entity controls the other.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 23774. Users excluding Affiliates from their
list of Multicast End Users or Unicast End Users may be required to
certify to the Exchange the Affiliate status of such end user. See
Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23776. The Exchange may ask Users
that are neither Rebroadcasting Users or Transmittal Users to
certify their status as ordinary Users. See id.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23774-75.
    \34\ See id. at 23775.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Support for Rebroadcasting Users/Transmittal User Fees

    In its filing, the Exchange states that the proposed fees relate to
additional connectivity and co-location services the Exchange provides
to Rebroadcasting and Transmittal Users and would ``fairly and
equitably allocate the costs associated with maintaining the Data
Center facility, hardware and equipment and related to personnel
required for installation and ongoing monitoring, support and
maintenance of such service among all Users.'' \37\ According to the
Exchange, in the absence of the proposed end user fees, ``no charges
would be assessed related to the benefit that Multicast End Users and
Unicast End Users receive from the services through the Rebroadcasting
or Transmittal User from whom they receive data, and the Rebroadcasting
or Transmittal Users would thus receive disproportionate benefits.''
\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See id. at 23776.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it incurs more costs on the account of
Rebroadcasting and Transmittal Users; \39\ some of these costs being
indirect, including overhead and technology infrastructure,
administrative, maintenance and operational costs,\40\ and others being
in form of direct network support.\41\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that it has established automated retransmission facilities for Users
to receive multicast transmissions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id. at 23777. The Exchange notes, that it has made
network infrastructure improvements over the years and established
administrative controls. See id.
    \41\ See id. The Exchange states that when an issue arises, the
Exchange and Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User conduct a
review to determine the cause of an issue, with the participation of
the relevant Multicast or Unicast End User. The Exchange states that
when the User is a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User,
identifying the issue and providing the needed network support
becomes more complicated because each of the entities involved has
its own infrastructure and administration. By contrast, for
Affiliates, the Exchange states that they typically act as one
entity, with one infrastructure, one administration, and one network
support group, making the network support effectively similar to
supporting one entity. See id.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the Commission received two comment letters on the NYSE
companion filing, which are likewise applicable to this filing.\43\
These commenters expressed concern about the effect of the
Rebroadcasting User

fees that would be passed on to them as Multicast End Users consuming
Exchange market data. One of these commenters states that it should not
have to pay fees to help support the co-location infrastructure because
it is not co-located.\44\ This commenter states that for compliance
purposes, a registered broker-dealer has no choice but to ``consume
depth-of-book market data'' and that if the proposed fee is passed
through, the commenter will have no choice but to accept it.\45\ The
other commenter states that the proposal provides ``no evidence to
support [the Exchange's] claim that its costs are higher to support the
customers of subvendors.'' \46\ This commenter states that the fees are
``assigned only to vendors' customers who buy data from [the
Exchange's] competitors'' and is ``[b]y definition . . . anti-
competitive.'' \47\ According to this commenter, the fees are
introduced ``solely for the purpose of protecting market data
revenue.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 5.
    \44\ See Friedman Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2.
    \45\ See id. at 1-3.
    \46\ See Pikat Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Response Letter, the NYSE states that the Comment Letters
have ``not provided any credible argument why the [. . .] proposal is
not consistent with the requirements of the Act.'' \49\ The NYSE
emphasizes that the proposal ``compares the support the Exchange
provides to Rebroadcasting Users to the support required by Users that
are not Rebroadcasting Users,'' \50\ and states that the proposal will
not impact market data revenue.\51\ The NYSE states that ``a market
participant has additional options outside of co-location for
connecting to Exchange market data'' and that the commenters ``ignor[e]
the basic fact that the Exchange voluntarily allows Rebroadcasting
Users to provide services out of the Exchange's co-location facility.''
\52\ The NYSE further argues that it ``would be illogical to argue . .
. that just because Rebroadcasting Users provide services that overlap
with services offered by the Exchange, the Exchange cannot charge the
Rebroadcasting Users for the Exchange's services.'' \53\ The NYSE
states that it ``generally provides more direct support to
Rebroadcasting Users than other Users'' and highlights the fact that a
larger Rebroadcasting User made ``between 3.8 and 4.25 times as many
calls as Users with similar power usage, and 4.25 to 8.5 times as many
calls as Users with similar number of cabinets.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Response Letter, supra note 5, at 3.
    \50\ See id. at 7.
    \51\ See id. at 4.
    \52\ See id. at 6.
    \53\ See id. The Exchange also argues that ``Rebroadcasting
Users are not direct competitors of the Exchange's co-location
services . . . [since] for example, the Exchange does not provide
Users with hardware such as routers or switches, and does not offer
managed services.'' See id.
    \54\ See Response Letter, supra note 5, at 7-8. The NYSE also
states that its proposed fees follow a similar example set by the
Nasdaq Stock Market's Extranet Access Fee. See id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment No. 2

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange offers additional justification
for the proposed rule change. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes
that a Rebroadcasting User not be charged a fee for its first two
Multicast End Users, and similarly that a Transmittal User not be
charged a fee for its first two Unicast End Users.\55\ The Exchange
states that it reviewed customer calls for assistance between June 1,
2015 and June 7, 2016, and compared the number of calls by Users it
believes to be Rebroadcasting Users to the number of calls by a
representative sample of other Users.\56\ Consistent with the NYSE
statements in the Response Letter, the Exchange states that ``a
comparison of calls by the larger Rebroadcasting User showed that the
larger Rebroadcasting User made between 3.8 and 4.25 times as many
calls as Users with similar power usage, and 4.25 to 8.5 times as many
calls as Users with similar numbers of cabinets. Indeed, such
Rebroadcasting User made 20 more calls than the five largest Users
combined.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
    \56\ See id.
    \57\ See Response Letter, supra note 5, at 8; see also Amendment
No. 2, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange adds that it believes that Rebroadcasting Users that
have only one or two Multicast End Users are an exception to the
general statement that the Exchange has a greater administrative burden
and incurs greater operational costs to support Rebroadcasting
Users.\58\ The Exchange further states that it does not have visibility
into the number of Unicast End Users that individual Transmittal Users
have, but believes that it is reasonable to extrapolate that a
Transmittal User that has only one or two Unicast End Users may not
need more network support than other Users.\59\ Accordingly, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to not charge a Transmittal User a
fee for its first two Unicast End Users.\60\ Finally, the Exchange
states that its proposal is analogous to the Nasdaq Stock Market's
Extranet Access Fee.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
    \59\ See id.
    \60\ See id.
    \61\ The Exchange cites Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 7025 and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74040 (January 13, 2015), 80 FR
2460 (January 16, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-003), and states: ``Extranet
providers that establish a connection with Nasdaq to offer direct
access connectivity to market data feeds are assessed a monthly
access fee of $1,000 per recipient Customer Premises Equipment
(``CPE'') Configuration. A CPE Configuration is any line, circuit,
router package, or other technical configuration used by an extranet
provider to provide a direct access connection to Nasdaq market data
feeds to a recipient's site. No extranet access fee is charged for
connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated
data.).'' See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove File No.
SR-NYSEArca-2016-19 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \62\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the following grounds for disapproval that are
under consideration:
     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national
market system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers,'' \64\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange states that the proposed end user
fees applicable to Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users would
``fairly and equitably allocate the costs associated with maintaining
the Data Center facility, hardware and equipment and related to
personnel required for installation and ongoing monitoring, support and
maintenance of such service among all Users.'' \66\ Although the
Exchange notes that it has expended a variety of resources in
connection with the support of Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal
Users, such as technology infrastructure, maintenance and operational
costs, it does not explain--with one exception--how those expenditures
do not equally benefit all Users.\67\ The Exchange does take the
position that it ``generally provides more direct support to
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users than other Users, typically
in the form of network support'' and that ``[b]ased on its experience .
. . when the User is a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User,
pinpointing the issue and providing the needed network support becomes
more difficult because each entity involved has its own infrastructure
and administration.'' \68\ The only evidence the Exchange provides in
support of its assertion, however, is call log data showing that a
single large Rebroadcasting User made substantially more customer
assistance calls to the Exchange than other Users over a certain
period.\69\ The Commission is concerned that such data may not be
sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed new end user fees are
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, as
required by the Act. In addition, to the extent the Exchange is focused
on more directly recovering the costs of network support, it has not
explained why it has not proposed to do so more precisely, such as by
imposing a fee per customer service call, rather than by targeting a
subset of customers of co-located Users regardless of their network
support needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See note 37 supra and accompanying text.
    \67\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23777.
    \68\ See id.
    \69\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed fees would not apply to all end users of
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users. For example, they would not
apply to end users that are Affiliates of a Rebroadcasting User or a
Transmittal User. While the Exchange asserts that ``[i]n its
experience, entities that are Affiliates typically act as one entity,
with one infrastructure, one administration, and one network support
group,'' so that ``the Exchange is effectively supporting one entity,
irrespective of how many Affiliate end users are involved,'' \70\ the
Exchange provides no evidence to support its implication that
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users with Affiliate end users
require less Exchange resources than those with non-Affiliate end
users. In addition, the proposed fees would not apply with respect to
the first two end users of a Rebroadcasting User or a Transmittal
User.\71\ While the Exchange expresses its belief that, ``based on the
information available to it, Rebroadcasting Users [or Transmittal
Users] that have only one or two [end users] are an exception to the
general statement that the Exchange has a greater administrative burden
and incurs greater operational costs to support Rebroadcasting Users
[or Transmittal Users],'' \72\ it offers no evidence in support of this
belief. Finally, the proposed fees would not apply to Unicast End Users
that send all unicast transmissions through a floor participant, such
as a floor broker. In this case, the Exchange does not justify the
exception on the basis of the Exchange resources required to support
this type of end user, but rather because it ``would encourage sending
orders to Floor brokers for execution, thereby encouraging displayed
liquidity'' and ``promoting public price discovery . . . which benefits
all market participants.'' \73\ The Exchange, however, provides no
evidence to support the proposition that Unicast End Users submitting
all of their orders through floor brokers provide more displayed
liquidity or otherwise improve the market quality of the Exchange more
than other types of Unicast End Users. Accordingly, the Commission is
concerned that the Exchange has not demonstrated that the exceptions to
its proposed new end user fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory, as required by the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23777.
    \71\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 7.
    \72\ See id.
    \73\ See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 23778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission is concerned that the Exchange has not
demonstrated that its proposal does not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition. The Exchange asserts that it meets
this statutory standard because ``it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or if they determine that another venue's products and
services are more competitive than on the Exchange.'' \74\ In response
to a commenter's concern that the proposal could have an anti-
competitive impact on vendors and their customers, the Exchange takes
the position that Rebroadcasting Users like vendors ``are not direct
competitors of the Exchange's co-location services,'' because ``[w]hile
both offer connectivity to Exchange market data, Rebroadcasting Users
provide their customers services that the Exchange's co-location
service does not,'' such as hardware (e.g., routers and switches) and
fully-managed services.\75\ The Exchange, however, does not clearly
explain why the imposition of additional per-customer fees on co-
located vendors and other redistributors of market data and
connectivity services is not an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition with the Exchange's direct offering of such products, even
if those redistributors offer other ancillary services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See id. at 23779. The Exchange cites several additional
justifications that closely mirror those, noted above, that support
its assertion that its proposed fees are reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
    \75\ See Response Letter, supra note 5, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that
questions are raised as to whether the proposed fees are consistent
with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that exchange
fees be reasonable and equitably allocated; be designed to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and the national market system,
protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly
discriminatory; and not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden
on competition.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested
persons concerning whether the proposal, as modified by

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4), (5), or
(8) \77\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. Although there does not appear to be any issue
relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an
oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\78\ any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(8).
    \78\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \79\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos.
1 and 2, should be approved or disapproved by August 17, 2016. Any
person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission
must file that rebuttal by August 31, 2016. In light of the concerns
raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed above, the Commission
invites additional comment on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, as the Commission continues its analysis of the
proposed rule change's consistency with Sections 6(b)(4), (5) and
(8),\80\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-19, and should be
submitted by August 17, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
August 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\81\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17674 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1089]
[FR Doc No: X10-690108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-11; SEC File No. 270-261; OMB Control No. 3235-0274.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the existing
collection of information provided for Rule 17Ad-11 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-
11) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17Ad-11 requires all registered transfer agents to report to
issuers and the appropriate regulatory agency in the event that aged
record differences exceed certain dollar value thresholds. An aged
record difference occurs when an issuer's records do not agree with
those of securityowners as indicated, for instance, on certificates
presented to the transfer agent for purchase, redemption or transfer.
In addition, the rule requires transfer agents to report to the
appropriate regulatory agency in the event of a failure to post
certificate detail to the master securityholder file within 5 business
days of the time required by Rule 17Ad-10 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-10). Also,
transfer agents must maintain a copy of each report prepared under Rule
17Ad-11 for a period of three years following the date of the report.
This recordkeeping requirement assists the Commission and other
regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule.
    Because the information required by Rule 17Ad-11 is already
available to transfer agents, any collection burden for small transfer
agents is minimal. Based on a review of the number of Rule 17Ad-11
reports the Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation received since 2006, the Commission estimates
that 25 respondents will file a total of approximately 30 reports
annually. The Commission estimates that each report can be completed in
30 minutes. Therefore, the total annual hourly burden to the entire
transfer agent industry is approximately 15 hours (30 minutes
multiplied by 30 reports). Assuming an average hourly rate of a
transfer agent staff employee of $25, the average total cost of the
report is $12.50. The total cost for the approximate 25 respondents is
approximately $750.
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17Ad-11 is three years following the date of a report prepared pursuant
to the rule. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17Ad-11 is
mandatory to assist the Commission and other regulatory agencies with
monitoring transfer agents and ensuring compliance with the rule. This
rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
    Please note that 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 control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: (i)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

     January 4, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-68 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                    OFFICE OF

				PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

September 26, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  	RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.  The Special Review and Reregistration
Division’s (SRRDs) Response to Comments on EPA’s Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Permethrin (OPP Docket
#OPP-2004-0385).

FROM:	Jacqueline B. Guerry

		Chemical Review Manager

		Reregistration Branch III

		Special Review and Reregistration Division

TO:		Michael Goodis

		Branch Chief

		Reregistration Branch III

		Special Review and Reregistration Division

	The attached document titled “Special Review and Reregistration
Division’s (SRRDs) Response to Comments on EPA’s Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Permethrin” was developed in
coordination with the Registration Division (RD) and the Biological and
Economic Affects Division (BEAD) to respond to comments submitted by the
CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region,
Delaware Mosquito Control Section, Lee County Mosquito Control District,
Maryland Mosquito Control Section, the National Pest Management
Association, Permethrin Issues Reregistration Task Force, SC Johnson &
Sons as well as public citizens during the post-Phase 4 period of the
public participation process of the Permethrin RED.  SRRD is responding
to comments that were directed towards product labeling, risk
mitigation, or the upcoming registration review process for the
pyrethroids, pyrethins, and synergist chemicals.  The Health Effects
Division (HED) and the Ecological and Environmental Effects Division
(EFED) responded to public comments specific to the human health and
ecological risk assessments, respectively.

SRRD’s Response to Public Comments to the Permethrin Reregistration
Eligibility Decision and Label Table

Public Health Uses

The Delaware Mosquito Control Section (DMCS) of the Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control commented that the environmental hazard statement, which appears
on wide area public health use permethrin products, is not applicable to
public health uses of permethrin.  Further, the DMCS proposed adding the
following statement to the label:  if used in accordance with the label,
permethrin poses no unreasonable risk to human health, aquatic
organisms, wildlife, or the environment.  The Maryland Mosquito Control
Section submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  The Environmental Hazard Statement (EHS) for adult
mosquito control programs was taken out of the PR Notice 2005-1,
Labeling Statements on Products Used for Adult Mosquito Control.  The
Agency is adopting this language on all products used for wide area
adult mosquito control, not just the permethrin labels.  Therefore, the
EHS will not be revised or removed from permethrin products used for
wide area adult mosquito control.  Further, although the Agency was able
to mitigated potential risks to aquatic organisms through a reduction in
the maximum daily application rate and maximum year application rate, as
well as specifying a minimum boom height for aerial applications, the
Agency acknowledges in the Permethrin RED that there is still a
potential for acute risks to freshwater and estuarine invertebrates.
Therefore, we do not believe the label statement suggested by the DMCS
would be appropriate to include on permethrin public health labels.

The DMCS commented the following part of the EHS, “(w)hen applying as
a wide area mosquito adulticide, do not apply over bodies of water
(lakes, rivers, permanent streams, natural ponds, commercial fish ponds,
swamps, marshes or estuaries), except when…weather conditions will
facilitated movement of applied material away from the water in order to
minimize incidental deposition into the body of water,” should be
advisory, not mandatory, since permethrin will cause very little to no
adverse effects to non-target organisms.  The Maryland Mosquito Control
Section submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  See response above.

The DMCS also stated that the bodies of water identified in the EHS need
to be better defined.  The Maryland Mosquito Control Section submitted
similar comments.

SRRD Response:  See response above.

The Lee County Mosquito Control District (LCMCD) recommends dropping the
maximum boom height requirement of 300 feet on existing and proposed
labels used in permethrin labels used in aerial applications for
mosquito control programs in the interest of safety.

SRRD Response: The maximum boom height that appears on current
permethrin labels for aerial applications for mosquito control programs
is not a requirement of the Agency.  Instead, the maximum boom height is
established by the registrant of the permethrin end use product.

The following comments applies to the following label statement,
“Ground-based application: Spray equipment must be adjusted so that
the volume median diameter is less than…” The LCMCD believes a more
appropriate description to frame this reference would be to substitute
the word “capable” in lieu of “adjusted.”

SRRD Response:  The label statements pertaining to droplet size for both
ground and aerial applications are taken directly out of the Pesticide
Registration Notice 2005-1.  Further, the Agency believes it is implied
in the statement that the spray equipment must be capable of delivering
the required droplet sizes.  Therefore, the label statement will not be
changed at this time.

On some permethrin labels, the following label statement appears, “For
best results treat when mosquitoes or insects are most active and
weather conditions are conducive to keeping the fog near the ground e.g.
cool temperatures, and consistent wind speeds are not greater than
10mph.”  The LCMCD recommends removing “e.g. cool temperatures, and
consistent wind speeds are not greater than 10mph” from the statement.
 According to the LCMCD adult mosquitoes are more active when ambient
temperatures are high as opposed to cool.  Further, along the coastal
areas of the U.S. and in particular Southwest Florida consistent winds
at sunrise will range between 10 mph and 15 mph on a typical day.

SRRD Response:  This is not a label statement required by the Agency.
In addition, the statement is advisory, not mandatory.  This statement
has been established by the registrant of the end use product to advise
the applicator on how to best use its product.  Unlike label statements
required by the Agency, this statement does not appear on all permethrin
labels.

The LCMCD recommends reformatting the current EHS for wide are public
health uses by replacing the language “except when necessary to target
areas where adult mosquitoes are present, and weather conditions will
facilitate movement of applied material away from the water in order to
minimize incidental deposition into the water,” with the “Directions
for Use” portion of the label.  Because this statement is a direct
reference to spray drift, this caveat would be more prominent and,
thereby, effective in the “Directions for Use Section.”

SRRD Response:  The EHS for adult mosquito control programs was taken
out of the PR Notice 2005-1.  Although the Agency appreciates the
LCMCD’s point regarding the reference to spray drift, we believe the
statement is appropriate in the EHS section of the label.  Further, the
PR notice 2005-1 was developed to create consistency and an even playing
field for all adult mosquito control products.  Therefore, we do not
believe changing the statement for permethrin is warranted at this time.

Outdoor Residential Misting Systems (ORMS)

The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) commented that the
Agency should adopt the term “urban” when describing ORMS in order
to differentiate between similar systems used in agricultural settings.

SRRD Response:  The Agency believes the term outdoor residential misting
system is appropriate for these systems, since the term residential is
defined in the US Code of Regulations (CFR) Part 152.3.  According to 40
CFR Part 152.3, the term Residential use includes use of a pesticide
directly “in, on, or around any structure, vehicle, article, surface,
or area associated with the household, including but not limited to
areas such as non-agricultural outbuildings, non-commercial greenhouses,
pleasure boats and recreational vehicles.”

The NPMA also commented that there should be standardized label language
for all products use in ORMS, not just products currently in
reregistration, such as permethrin, pyrethrins, and PBO.

SRRD Response:  The Agency is aware of permethrin, pyrethrins, and PBO
currently being used in these systems.  Therefore, the same label
language required on permethrin products used in ORMS is also required
for pyrethrins and PBO products.  To date, the Agency has little or no
evidence that 25(b) chemicals or others are used instead of permethrin,
pyrethrins, and PBO.

Since the permethrin RED was signed, the Agency has developed an
informational website for consumers interested in purchasing or that
have purchased an ORMS
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/misting_systems.htm).  The
website, as well as industry guidelines developed by NPMA, promotes the
use of pesticide products specifically labeled for use in misters.

NPMA commented that the use direction for ORMS should appear on a
separate part of the product label, distinct from other uses.

SRRD Response:  The permethrin label table requires the use directions
for ORMS to be captured under the heading “Directions for use in
outdoor residential misting systems.”

NPMA, as well as an individual pest control operator, suggested the
systems should be installed and maintained by a certified applicator or
person working under their supervision.  Additionally, the following
label language was suggested:  (Product Name) may only be applied
through systems serviced and maintained by certified applicators or
persons working under their direct supervision.

SRRD Response:  Permethrin products for use in outdoor residential
misting systems are not restricted use products, and therefore, the
Agency cannot place a certified applicator restriction on an
unrestricted product.   However, the Agency recommends having an ORMS
professionally installed and maintained.  In the ORMS website developed
for consumers, the Agency recommends the following when having a system
installed, “always use installers and service technicians that comply
with the state’s license, certification, and registration
requirements.”

The NPMA also suggested the following label statements be added to
products for use in ORMS:

Operators of Urban Misting Systems must consider the following when
calculating application rates: landscaping/topography, environmental
issues, and system requirements.

SRRD Response:  The Agency acknowledges many factors should be
considered when the system are installed, and in the calculation of the
application rates.  Therefore, to ensure these systems are properly
installed and the application rate is accurately calculated, the Agency
has added the following to the amended label table.

“Contact the system manufacture for guidance or assistance to ensure
compliance with the following requirement:

This product may only be used in systems that have been calibrated to
apply no more than the maximum application rate of 0.25 grams per 1000
cubic feet per day.”

Do not apply this pesticide when people, pets, and food are present.

SRRD Response:  A similar statement is currently in the permethrin RED
label table; however, the statement has been modified to read “Do not
apply this pesticide when people, pets, and/or food are present” (see
the amended permthrin label table).

Mists should be directed away from swimming pools, or ponds containing
fish and other organisms sensitive to (active ingredient name).

SRRD Response:  A similar statement is currently in the permethrin RED
label table; however, the statement addresses all water bodies, not just
those which contain fish or aquatic organisms.  The current label
statement reads, “Direct nozzles to spray towards the target area and
away from swimming pools, water bodies, or eating and cooking areas.”

This product may not be used in an evaporative cooling system.

SRRD Response:  This statement has been added to the amended permethrin
label table.

To ensure compliance with the label, the end uses shall not allow the
system to operate when off-site drift will occur or when target insects
are not likely to be present.

SRRD Response:  The Agency believes this statement it is too vague to be
enforceable.

If used in a system with a reservoir for end use dilution, the reservoir
shall be locked and accessible only be opened by a certified applicator
or person working under his/her direct supervision.

SRRD Response:  The first part of the label statement already appears in
the Permethrin RED label table; however, since the Agency is not
restricting the use of permethrin products used in ORMS, the second part
of the sentence will not be adopted.

Do not set nozzles to direct mist near outside air conditioners or other
home air intakes.

SRRD Response:  This statement has been added to the amended permethrin
label table.

The Permethrin Issues Reregistration Task Force (PIRTF) support the
maximum use rates for outdoor mosquito misting systems and the required
re-entry restrictions for the various application methods employed, and
believe these measures will greatly limit exposure to permethrin
residues and protect the public from possible adverse affects.

SRRD Response:  The Agency agrees that the risk mitigation measures
implemented for permethrin products used in ORMS will greatly limit
exposure both human and ecological to permethrin residues.

The PIRTF and SC Johnson & Sons submitted comments expressing concern
that the requirement that certain permethrin products which do not
contain directions for use in outdoor mister systems must additionally
contain the label statement, “Not for use in outdoor residential
misting systems.”  We would suggest that the fact that the product is
not labeled for use in outdoor misting systems, and already contains the
EPA-required statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this
product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” should be
sufficient to direct the consumer that the product may not be used in
such systems.  We think this additional labeling requirement is
unnecessarily redundant of labeling statements already required, and
reverses what we thought was a long-standing Agency policy of not
labeling pesticide products for misuse.

SRRD Response:  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) authorizes limited variations from the use directions specified
on pesticide labels under Section 2(ee).  Specifically, 2(ee) allows for
alternate methods of applications other than those specified on the
label, as long as the method is not prohibited on the pesticide
labeling.  Therefore, when appropriate, it is the Agency practice to
prohibit application methods to ensure the product is not used in a
manner inconsistent with proper use directions and application rates
specified for that application method.

Impregnated Materials

The CA Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Health and
Hazard Assessment suggested including the following statement on
permethrin products intended to fabric, “Do not exceed an application
rate equivalent to 1.25 grams of a.i.  per square meter of fabric.”

SRRD Response:  The Agency agrees with CA EPA’s suggested label
language and the following statement has been added to all Manufacturer
Use Products (see amended permethrin label table):

Formulations into products intended for impregnated fabric applications:

“Do not exceed an application rate equivalent to 1.25 grams of a.i.
per square meter of fabric.

The CA Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region commented
that the permethrin RED found significant risks to aquatic organisms
form sewer discharges of permethrin.  Uses and subsequent washing of
treated clothing, mattress pads, and similar items contributes to this
risk.  Users of such products should be made aware of this risk.  These
products (and all indoor use products) should be labeled with aquatic
environmental hazard statements required for outdoor products.  It is
particularly important that the aquatic EHA be included on clothing and
mattress pads.

SRRD Response:  The Agency recognizes the potential for risks to aquatic
organisms through waste water discharge.  However, the Agency also
believes its down-the-drain risk assessment for permethrin products was
highly conservative.  The Agency included permethrin pesticide products
(pre-treated clothing and pets products), as well as permethrin
pediculicide pharmaceutical products, both over the counter (OTC) and
prescription, in the down-the-drain assessment.  The Agency assumed the
total yearly production volume, approximately 252,000 kg a.i. of
permethrin, is being wasted down-the-drain per year.

Through various labeling initiatives (some discussed in the Section IV
below), OPP hopes to reduce the overall amount of permethrin discharge
into both storm water and sewage drainage systems.  However, at this
time, the Agency does not believe adding aquatic environmental hazard
statements, similar to the EHS on outdoor products, is appropriate on
indoor use products, especially impregnated clothing and mattress pads.
Permethrin binds very well with fabric fibers and the goal of permethrin
impregnated clothing is to keep the permethrin in the clothing.  If the
permethrin is not retained in the clothing the product will not be
efficacious.  Wash-off data for permethrin impregnated clothing shows
that much of the permethrin that is removed during washing does not end
up in the wash water, but rather it actually comes off bound to the
clothing particles that end up in the dryer’s lint trap.

The following EHS, however, is being required for all indoor use
products (except RTU impregnated materials, see reason above).

“This pesticide is toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and
invertebrates.  Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment
wash waters.”

For commercial, industrial, and institutional use products packaged in
containers equal or greater than 5 gallons or 50 labs, add the following
statement:

“This pesticide is toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and
invertebrates.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product into
lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in
accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been
notified in writing prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent
containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying
the local sewage treatment plant authority.  For guidance contact your
State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA.”

Outdoor Residential, Industrial, and/or Institutional Use

The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) recommended the
Agency clarify the additional application restrictions for outdoor
residential products on the label table intended to prevent to release
of permethrin into urban run-off.  CASQA stated the language would more
fully meet this intent if modified as shown below (additions in italics,
deletions in strikeout):

Requirements for Granular Formulations labeled or intended for outdoor
uses:

“Do not apply directly to or near water, storm drains, gutters,
sewers, or drainage ditches. Do not apply within 25 feet of rivers, fish
ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes, estuaries, bays, and oceans.
 Do not apply when windy. Apply this product directly to your lawn or
garden, and sweep any product landing on the driveway, sidewalk, gutter,
or street, back onto the treated area. To prevent product run-off, do
not over water the treated area to the point of runoff or apply when
raining or when heavy rain is expected that day.”

Requirements for Liquid and Dust products labeled or intended for
outdoor uses (excludes Ready to Use Products):

“Do not apply directly to or near water, storm drains, gutters,
sewers, or drainage ditches. Do not apply within 25 feet of rivers, fish
ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes, estuaries, bays, and oceans.
 Do not apply when windy. To prevent product run-off, do not over water
the treated area(s) to the point of runoff or apply when raining or when
heavy rain is expected that day. Rinse applicator over lawn or garden
area only.”

Requirements for Ready to Use Formulations labeled or intended for
outdoor use:

“Do not apply directly to or near water, storm drains, gutters,
sewers, or drainage ditches. Do not apply within 25 feet of rivers, fish
ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes, estuaries, bays, and oceans.
 Do not apply when windy.  To prevent product run-off, do not over water
to the point of runoff, or apply when raining or when rain is expected
that day.”

CASQA proposed the above modifications to clarify that gutters are
connected to storm drains (application in a gutter is essentially the
same as application directly to a storm drain), to recognize that sewers
and storm drains are often confused, and to clarify that applications
should not be made in the rain or when rain is forecast. We strongly
recommend that the word “heavy” be deleted, as it is a qualitative
term that will be unclear to the consumer—and there is no scientific
basis for this limitation. Runoff depends on surface (e.g., water does
not “soak in” to impervious surfaces) and on ground saturation. Even
light rain can generate runoff.   The CA Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  EPA agrees with the comments above, and the suggested
revisions will be made to the referenced label statements in the amended
permethrin label table.

CASQA also stated that professional products for urban use (i.e.,
products for above ground structural pest control, landscaping, rights
of way, etc.) should have stewardship language on their labels. We
understand that this language would not be applicable to mosquito
abatement applications. We believe that the language proposed for
consumer products would also work for professional products with urban
applications. The first sentence of the label language (the sentence
about not applying to drains) is not as clear and specific as the
language that U.S. EPA plans to require on cypermethrin labels. We
recommend that the cypermethrin language be substituted for this first
sentence as modified below. This would be clearer and more appropriate
to the goal of reducing permethrin levels in urban runoff.  CASQA
suggested the following language:

“Do not apply directly into sewers or drains, or to any area like a
gutter where drainage to storm sewers, water bodies, or aquatic habitat
can occur. When making an application around or near a floor drain,
limit the application to a spot treatment and do not allow the product
to enter the drain during or after the application.”

“For outdoor uses, do not apply within 10 feet of storm drains. Do not
apply within 25 feet of rivers, fish ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs,
marshes, estuaries, bays, and oceans.”

Professional products that direct users to “water in” the product
should have language directing professional users not to allow water to
run off of treated sites.

The CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  Permethrin is registered for application directly into
sewers or drains.  In addition, the permethrin RED risk mitigation does
not limit outdoor residential applications to spot treatments, where as
cypermethrin does limit all outdoor applications to spot or
crack-and-crevice treatment.  Therefore, the first label statement
suggested by CASQA above is not appropriate for all outdoor permethrin
labels.  However, we do agree that permethrin products for professional
use should have stewardship language on the labels to prevent the
run-off of permethrin residues.  Therefore, in addition to the revisions
made to the stewardship language above, the following statements have
been added to the amended permethrin label table for permethrin end use
products primarily intended for WPS and occupational use (including
commercial pest control operators).

Products labeled for use around or near floor drains.  Products labeled
for use in drains or sewers are excluded from this label requirement:

 “Do not apply directly into sewers or drains, or to any area like a
gutter where drainage to storm sewers, water bodies, or aquatic habitat
can occur.  Do not allow the product to enter any drain during or after
application.”

CASQA also commented that permethrin products labeled for control of
nuisance insects around structures (e.g., ants) often call for a
barrier, perimeter, or band application around a structure and up the
walls of the structure. Label instructions vary, but commonly call for a
band up to 6 to 10 feet away from the building and up to 3 feet up the
walls of the building. The exact width of the band does not appear to be
based on scientific studies showing that such large applications are
necessary for the application to be effective. To afford flexibility to
professional pest control operators who do not believe such wide bands
are necessary, we request that product labels be required to clarify
that widths narrower than those specified on the label are allowable.
The CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  The Agency believes that the use directions referenced
above, which call for a band up to 6 to 10 feet away from the building
and up to 3 feet up the walls of the building allow for applications
less than the maximum height and width specified on the label.  However,
in order to ensure this flexibility is clear to all applicators, the
following statement has been added to the amended label table.

Products labeled for use on and around buildings and other structures:

“For Band applications to and around buildings foundations, band up to
a maximum of 10 feet away from the building and up to a maximum of 3
feet up the walls of the building.”

CASQA stated, for cypermethrin, U.S. EPA has proposed label statements
designed to prevent runoff of the active ingredient from
pre-construction termiticide applications. These simple, straightforward
measures should be applied to pre-construction termiticide applications
of permethrin—and to all pesticides labeled for pre-construction
termiticide uses.

SRRD Response:  The following label statements are required for
permethrin products with pre-construction termiticide use (see Amended
Label Table).

Products labeled for preconstruction termiticide applications:

The applicator must insure the treatment site is covered.  The
applicator can cover the soil him/herself or notify the contractor on
the site that: 1) if the concrete slab cannot be poured over the treated
soil within 24 hours of application the treated soil should be covered
with a waterproof covering (such as polyethylene sheeting), and 2) that
the contractor should cover the treated soil if precipitation occurs
before the concrete slab is poured.

Do not treat soil that is water-saturated or frozen.

Do not treat when raining.

Do not allow treatment to runoff from the target area.

Do not apply within 25 feet of aquatic habitats (such as, but not
limited to, lakes; reservoirs; rivers; permanent streams; marshes or
natural ponds; estuaries; and commercial fish farm ponds).

Do not make on-grade applications when sustained wind speeds are above
10 mph (at application site) at nozzle end height.

Agricultural Use

The CA Water Quality Control Board comments the Agency should modify the
description of run-off mechanism on agricultural product labels.  The
Water Board quotes the environmental hazard statement for agricultural
products, which states permethrin run-off can occur “primarily in
runoff events accompanied by erosion.”  The Water Board states there
is no scientific basis for this phrase, which should not be included on
the labels.  The Water Board concludes visible erosion is not needed for
fine particles to run-off.

SRRD Response:  The Agency agrees that visible erosion is not necessary
for permethrin run-off potential, and this is not the intent of the
statement referenced above.  Additionally, the label statement does not
specify the erosion has to be visible.  Recent studies show pyrethoids
have been transported to surface water in run-off that is caused by the
movement of soil, whether fine particle transfer or visible erosion.
Because permethrin, specifically, binds so tightly to organic matter,
the Agency believes there is scientific basis for this phrase to be
included in the environmental hazard statement of agricultural products.

The American Mushroom Institute (AMI) commented that the RED identifies
the maximum application rate for fogging and aerosol applications of the
EC and D formulations as 1 oz/qt (1 oz per 35000 ft3 or 8000 ft2).  The
current rate used by growers is 2.0 to 2.5 oz/30 oz of H2O (1 quart of
solution per standard double house, 8000 sq ft of crop area or 35,000 cu
ft of enclosed area is used per application).   The AMI contends it is
critical to maintain this use rate on permethrin labels.

SRRD Response:  The maximum use rate for mushrooms listed in the
Permethrin RED, Appendix A was a typo.  The correct use rate should be
2.0 to 2.5oz/30 oz of water as identified by the AMI above.  The
correction has been made to the RED Appendix A.

General Comments Regarding Labeling

The PIRTF included a general comment with respect to the label table is
that it is somewhat confusing distinguishing which language needs to go
on labels for which uses.  Granted, the number of uses permethrin
products can have is extensive and varied, and we hope that we can work
further with the Agency to clarify how some of these labels should read.
 While it is important to have the right information on particularly
consumer labels, it is also important that it be readable and not
daunting for the consumer to read and to understand how to use the
product correctly.

SRRD Response:  The Agency agrees that due to the large and varied use
pattern of products containing permethrin, the label table is quite
lengthy and possibly difficult to interpret.  Therefore, in response to
the PIRTF comments and in an effort to ensure clear and interpretable
label language, the Agency has revised the label table by eliminating
repetitive sections and clarifying certain language.   The Agency also
made an effort to create consistent label statements, when appropriate,
on the various pyrethroid, pyrethrins, and synergist label tables

Risk/Benefit Balancing Analysis

The PIRTF strongly disagrees with the assertion that permethrin can be
replaced in the consumer market by other pyrethroids.  The PIRTF asserts
that of those pyrethroids listed in the RED, only a few are residual
pyrethroids, and none are as economical as permethrin.  Further, the low
price of permethrin allows availability for lower income groups to
control public health pests in their homes and yards.

SRRD Response:  The PIRTF did not include any data on consumer pesticide
product prices to support their contention.  The Agency does not have
access to consumer pesticide price data.  The Biological and Economical
Affects Division’s (BEAD) informal survey of local Home Depot and
Giant Food pesticide displays revealed that several alternative
pyrethroid active ingredients are available and are comparably priced.
These alternative pyrethroid products included: lambda cyhalothrin,
cypermethrin, imiprothrin, esfenvalerate, tetramethrin, allethrin, and
prallethrin as active ingredients.

The PIRTF also states that Permethrin’s combination of qualities such
as persistency and repellency along with its efficacy
characteristics permit it to be used in a manner that reduces overall
pesticide use over time.

SRRD Response:  The PIRTF did not include any data documenting
Permethrin's repellency characteristics.  The Agency does acknowledge
that permethrin is one of the few registered repellents for ticks and
mosquitoes on human clothing.

The PIRTF contends that compared to other residual pyrethroids,
permethrin has less chance of causing paresthesia if someone
accidentally comes in contact with permethrin.  Permethrin is one of the
very few residual pyrethroids without a cyano group, thought to be one
of the contributing factors to paresthesia reactions.

SRRD Response:  A paresthesia reaction is a sensation of tingling,
pricking, or numbness of a person's skin with no apparent long-term
physical effect, more generally known as the feeling of pins and needles
or of a limb being "asleep".   The Agency is aware that the use of some
pyrethroids (e.g. tefluthrin) are commonly known to cause paresthesia
reactions.   Although the pemethrin incident report, available in the
public docket OPP-2004-0385, does report the large majority of cases
resulted in minor effects to the skin (primarily rash, irritation,
itching), eyes (redness, pain, burning), headache, dizziness, nausea,
vomiting, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing.  However,
acknowledges that compared to other pesticides, permethrin is much less
likely to result in serious or persistent medical outcome/conditions.

Registration Review of Pyrethroid Chemicals

The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) and the CA
Regional Water Control Board, San Francisco Bay stated concern that the
pyrethroids are not scheduled for Registration Review until 2010, and
mitigation would not occur until 2011.  This pits municipalities in an
untenable position because they must comply with the Clean Water Act
immediately.  CASQA requested Registration Review be initiated
immediately for the pyrethroids, or a special review be initiated.
Additionally, according to the Water Board, pyrethroids are anticipated
to be the cause of impaired water bodies, listed on the 2008 303(d)
list.

SRRD Response:  The Permethrin, Resmethrin, Cypermethrin, Pyrethrins,
PBO, and MGK-264 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions were signed in
Spring/Summer 2006, and decisions for non-food pyrethroids are due in
2007 and 2008 (allethrin stereoisomers, tetramethrin, and sumethrin).
Therefore, the 2010 date for registration review to begin for the
pyrethoid, pyrethrins, and synergists (PPS) group of chemicals allows
additional time for the risk mitigation and label changes identified in
these REDs to be incorporated.

Further, in the recent PPS REDs, the Agency identified a number of
limitations in the reregistration of these chemicals, such as no
urban/residential model available to assess potential ecological risks
from residential uses; and an inability to assess (or compare)
ecological impacts from PPS chemicals as a group because a large
majority were registered after 1984.

In order to address these limitations and allow the registration review
risk assessments to be more refined, there is an on-going effort several
years in advance to prepare for registration review of the PPS
chemicals, such as determine whether the pyrethroids share a common mode
of action; revise spray drift language for pyrethroid agricultural
labels; identify a model and appropriate scenarios for use in urban
run-off modeling; compile detailed use and usage information about the
PPS chemicals, both agricultural and residential uses; and
identification of data needs and possible group data call in.
Additionally, the Agency is coordinating with the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), which is currently conducting its
reevaluation of pyrethroids.  The reevaluation includes calling in new
and additional data, which will be useful to the Agency’s registration
review process of the PPS chemicals.  These studies have not yet been
conducted or submitted to CDPR.  Therefore, the Agency does not believe
it would not be prudent to initiate the Registration Review of the PPS
chemicals any earlier.

CASQA and the CA Regional Water Control Board, San Francisco Bay stated
that OPP needs initiate development of an urban run-off model as soon as
possible.  An empirical model should be used opposed to the mechanistic
model OPP typically uses.

SRRD Response:  The Agency recognizes the need to identify a
screening-level model for urban pesticide uses and has begun to discuss
the state of urban modeling and the potential avenues for future
advances internally and with stakeholders.  Improvements in the
resolution of GIS databases may allow better representation of the
impervious and pervious portions of a typical urban landscape.  For
example, as it becomes more clean which uses are most likely to lead to
transport of pyrethroids to surface water, the conceptual model of how
urban transport should be simulated will be more focused.

CASQA commented that U.S. EPA may be generating a “Data Call-In”
(DCI) for pyrethroids to provide data for future pyrethroids reviews. We
appreciate that U.S. EPA recognizes that data critical to managing risks
from pyrethroids is currently not available and that it intends to
require that pyrethroid manufacturers provide the needed data. Among
data needed for pyrethroids water quality management, we believe the
following information is high priority: data to support urban runoff
modeling, application instructions, and aquatic sediment data.  In
addition, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has
initiated a data call in process for pyrethroids called
“re-evaluation”. We anticipate that this process will generate a
substantial amount of information that would be useful to U.S. EPA. We
recommend that U.S. EPA coordinate with DPR in developing the DCI. We
ask U.S. EPA to request, obtain, and review all data submitted to
DPR.CASQA stands ready to provide formal support for U.S. EPA’s
request to review data submitted to DPR.

SRRD Response:  The Agency appreciates the recommendation provided by
the CASQA, and is in the process of planning for the pyrethroid
registration review process, which may include a special group DCI for
the pyrethroids.  The Agency also recognizes that it needs to gain a
better understanding of the residential and urban application of
pyrethroids, to identify an urban run-off model, and more aquatic
sediment data.  The Agency is coordinating with the CDPR, and the two
organizations have agreed to share data.

CASQA stated U.S. EPA has taken important steps toward protecting water
quality throughout its various reregistration processes. However, U.S.
EPA needs continued significant efforts to better integrate surface
water quality protection into its pesticide registration and regulatory
review programs. Coordination between U.S. EPA offices in reviewing
pesticide ingredients is essential to Clean Water Act implementation; it
also provides an appropriate method of meeting the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s goal of preventing unreasonable
adverse impacts from pesticide use. The CA Regional Water Control Board,
San Francisco Bay submitted similar comments.

SRRD Response:  The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) agrees that
coordination is essential between OPP and the Office of Water.  In its
effort to plan for the upcoming registration review of the pyrethroid
case of chemicals, OPP has initiated discussions with OW to address
issues that affect both Offices.

The CA Regional Water Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region included
steps to be taken in the near tern in their comments to the Agency.  The
steps include OPP completing a cumulative environmental risk assessment
for pyrethroids; completing an alternatives assessment that considers
both low risk and non-pesticide alternatives; completing a cluster
assessment for problematic outdoor urban insecticide application; and
assessing whether urban uses of pyrethroids pose unreasonable risks,
taking into account the above information and the cost of non-compliance
with the Clean Water Act.

SRRD Response:  The Agency appreciates the suggestions provided by the
CA Regional Water Board, San Francisco Bay Region.  As stated above, OPP
is in the process of planning for the registration review of
pyrethroids, pyrethrins, and synergists chemicals.  As part of its
planning effort, OPP is working closely with CA DPR as its conducts its
reevaluation or pyrethroids, as well as coordinating with EPA Office of
Water.  As the planning progresses, OPP will discuss the feasibility of
conducting the assessments suggested by the Water Board above.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71276-71277]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0736]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0029

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0029,
Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels; without change. Our ICR describes
the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments
by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
January 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2021-0736]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management,

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on these
documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2021-0736], and must be received by January 14,
2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (86 FR 51169, September 14,
2021) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no
comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with our
rules for the design and operation of liquefied gas carriers.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code sections 3703 and 9101 authorizes the
Coast Guard to establish regulations to protect life, property, and the
environment from the hazards associated with the carriage of dangerous
liquid cargo in bulk. Title 46 CFR part 154 prescribes the rules for
the carriage of liquefied gases in bulk on self-propelled vessels by
governing the design, construction, equipment, and operation of these
vessels and the safety of personnel aboard them.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of self-propelled vessels
carrying liquefied gas.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 8,169
hours to 14,781 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated
number of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 7, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-27098 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22233-22234]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08372]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88642; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a Small Retail
Broker Distribution Program

April 15, 2020.
    On October 1, 2019, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the EDGA fee schedule to introduce a
Small Retail Broker Distribution Program. The proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 17, 2019.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change. On December 10, 2019, the Commission issued an order
temporarily suspending the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(C) of the Act \5\ and simultaneously instituting proceedings

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (``OIP'').\7\ The
Commission received no comment letters in response to the OIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87294 (October 11,
2019), 84 FR 55638 (October 17, 2019).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87709 (December 10,
2019), 84 FR 68523 (December 16, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2020, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08372 Filed 4-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49721-49722]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14992-000]

Pumped Hydro Storage, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 8, 2019, Pumped Hydro Storage, LLC, filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a pumped storage project
in Coconino County, Arizona. On August 1, 2019, the applicant filed a
revised application for the project to address Commission staff's June
19, 2019 comments. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed Navajo Nation Salt Trail Canyon Pumped Storage Project
would consist of the following: (1) A new 240-foot-high, 500-foot-long
upper dam and reservoir; (2) a new 140-foot-high, 1,000-foot-long lower
dam and reservoir; (3) six 250- megawatt, turbine-generator units, for
a total installed capacity of 1,500 megawatts; (4) a new 20-mile-long,
500-kilovolt transmission line from the powerhouse to the existing
Moenkopi switchyard; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 3,300 gigawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Steve Irwin, Pumped Hydro Storage, LLC, 6514 S

41st Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tim Konnert; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14992-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14992) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20503 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P