[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20554]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0083]; [OMB No. 2105-0551]
RIN 2105-ADO4

Application to Renew Information Collection Request

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation
(Department).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended) this notice announces the Department's
intention to apply to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
renew approval of the information collection request (ICR) OMB No.
2105-0551, ``Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related
Complaints.''

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2015-0083] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 (between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maegan Johnson, Office of the General
Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (Voice),
202-366-7152 (Fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Email). Arrangements to
receive this document in an alternative format may be made by
contacting the above-named individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0551
    Type of Request: Renewal of Information Collection Request
    Background: On July 8, 2003, the Office of the Secretary published
a final rule that requires most certificated U.S. and foreign air
carriers operating to, from and within the U.S. that conduct passenger-
carrying service utilizing at least one large aircraft to record
complaints that they receive alleging inadequate accessibility or
discrimination on the basis of disability. The carriers must also
categorize these complaints according to the type of disability and
nature of complaint, prepare a summary report annually of the
complaints received during the preceding calendar year, submit the
report to the Department's Aviation Consumer Protection Division, and
retain copies of correspondence and records of action taken on the
reported complaints for three years. The rule requires carriers to
submit their annual report via the World Wide Web except if the carrier
can demonstrate an undue burden by doing so and receives permission
from the Department to submit it in an alternative manner. The first
required report covered disability-related complaints received by
carriers during calendar year 2004, which was due to the Department on
January 31, 2005. Carriers have been required to submit all subsequent
reports on the last Monday in January for the prior calendar year.
    Respondents: Certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers operating
to, from, and within the United States that conduct passenger-carrying
service with at least one large aircraft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of                                       Estimated annual burden  (per    Estimated total annual burden
            Requirements                respondents         Frequency  (per year)                 respondent)                   (all respondents)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record an Categorize Complaints                  175  0 to 5,000......................  0 to 1,250 hours...............  6,900 hours
 Received.
Prepare and Submit Annual Report....             175  1...............................  .5 hour........................  87.5 hours
Retain Correspondences and Record of             175  0 to 5,000......................  1 hour.........................  175 hours
 Action Taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized
and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also
become a matter of public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 9, 2015.
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2015-08738 Filed 4-15-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4547]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-43-000]

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

January 21, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 12, 2010, High Island Offshore System,
L.L.C. (HIOS), 1100 Louisiana St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP10-43-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to abandon by removal three compressor units
and related facilities consisting of 54,200 horsepower on a platform at
High Island Area Block 264, located offshore Texas, thereby reducing
system capacity to 350 MMcf per day, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Jeff
Molinaro, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C., 1100 Louisiana St.,
Houston, Texas 77002, or (telephone)<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (FAX)<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: February 11, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1672 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62871-62872]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0751]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the PHILLY SHIPYARD,
INC. HULL NO. 038, O.N. 1321554

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative
compliance.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of the Prevention
Division, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a certificate of
alternative compliance from the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the PHILLY
SHIPYARD, INC. HULL NO. 038, O.N. 1321554. We are issuing this notice
because its publication is required by statute. Due to the

construction and placement of the fore masthead light and aft masthead
light arrangements, PHILLY SHIPYARD, INC. HULL NO. 038, O.N. 1321554,
cannot fully comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions
of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and
construction. This notification of issuance of a certificate of
alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety
mission.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on October
7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information or questions about
this notice call or email Mr. Julio A. Martinez, Marine Safety
Specialist, Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard
District, U. S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States is signatory to the
International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The
special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to
comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72
COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions
are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if
the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with
those requirements without interfering with the special function of the
vessel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or
purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which
the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that
compliance with alternative requirements is justified,\2\ and the Chief
of the Prevention Division would then issue the applicant a certificate
of alternative compliance (COAC) if he or she determines that the
vessel cannot comply fully with 72 COLREGS light, shape, and sound
signal provisions without interference with the vessel's special
function.\3\ If the Coast Guard issues a COAC, it must publish notice
of this action in the Federal Register.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 33 CFR 81.5.
    \3\ 33 CFR 81.9.
    \4\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chief of the Prevention Division, Fifth Coast Guard District,
U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the PHILLY SHIPYARD, INC. HULL NO.
038, O.N. 1321554 is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and
that, with respect to the horizontal distance between the fore masthead
light and aft masthead light arrangements, it is not possible to comply
fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72
COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction,
or design of the vessel. The Chief of the Prevention Division, Fifth
Coast Guard District, further finds and certifies that the horizontal
distance of 19.68 meters between the fore masthead light and aft
masthead light arrangements, are in the closet possible compliance with
the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(a); 33 CFR 81.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: October 11, 2022.
Michael C. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Prevention Division, Fifth Coast
Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-22473 Filed 10-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53555-53560]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98045; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX International Securities
Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Rule 307,
Position Limits

August 2, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On April 21, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 307,
Position Limits, to establish a process for adjusting option position
limits following a stock split or reverse stock split in the underlying
security. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 8, 2023.\3\ On June 14, 2023, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
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.\5\ The Commission has received one comment regarding the
proposal.\6\ This order institutes proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97421 (May 2, 2023),
88 FR 29725 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97727 (June 14,
2023), 88 FR 40366 (June 21, 2023). The Commission designated August
6, 2023, as the date by which the Commission shall approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equities &
Options Market Structure, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 5, 2023 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, Exchange Rule 307(d) establishes option position limits
of 25,000 contracts, 50,000 contracts, 75,000 contracts, 200,000
contracts, or 250,000 contracts on the same side of the market for the
same underlying security or such other number of option contracts as
may be fixed from time to time by the Exchange. The position limit
applicable to an option is based on the trading volume and outstanding
shares of the underlying security.\8\ Exchange Rule 307(e) states that
the Exchange will review the status of underlying securities every six
months to determine which position limit should apply. A higher limit
will be effective on the date set by the Exchange, and any change to a
lower limit will take effect after the last expiration then trading,
unless the requirement for the same or a higher limit is met at the
time of the intervening six month review.\9\ If, subsequent to a six
month review, an increase in volume and/or outstanding shares would
make a stock eligible for a higher position limit prior to the next
review, the Exchange in its discretion may immediately increase such
position limit.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exchange Rule 307(d) establishes the following position
limits: 25,000 contracts for an option on an underlying security
that does not meet the requirements for a higher option contract
limit; 50,000 contracts for an option on an underlying security that
has either a most recent six month trading volume of at least 20
million shares, or a most recent six month trading volume of at
least 15 million shares and at least 40 million shares outstanding;
75,000 contracts for an option on an underlying security that has
either a most recent six month trading volume of at least 40 million
shares, or a most recent six month trading volume of at least 30
million shares and at least 120 million shares outstanding; 200,000
contracts for an option on an underlying security that has either a
most recent six month trading volume of at least 80 million shares
or a most recent six month trading volume of at least 60 million
shares and at least 240 million shares outstanding; and 250,000
contracts for an option on an underlying security that has either a
most recent six month trading volume of at least 100 million shares,
or a most recent six month trading volume of at least 75 million
shares and at least 300 million shares outstanding. In addition,
Exchange Rule 307, Interpretation and Policy .01 establishes
position limits over 250,000 contracts for options on certain
underlying exchange-traded funds. See Notice, 88 FR at 29726.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 307(e).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307 to make permanent
the position limit changes that currently occur when an underlying
security undergoes a corporate stock split.\11\ The Exchange states
that following a stock split, the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') adjusts the position limit for options on the underlying
security by the factor of the split.\12\ The Exchange states, for
example, that when a stock underlying an option with a position limit
of 250,000 contracts undergoes a four-for-one stock split, the option
will have a new position limit of 1,000,000 contracts.\13\ The Exchange
further states that although the stock split is a permanent corporate
action in the underlying stock, the position limit adjustment is
temporary and lasts only until the time of expiration of the last
option listed at the time of the stock split.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29726-7.
    \12\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29727. The Exchange does not believe
that the OCC immediately adjusts position limits for reverse stock
splits. See id. at n.8.
    \13\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29727.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Exchange Rule 307(g) would apply the split adjustment
factor to the current position limit to establish a new option position
limit following a stock split in the underlying security.\15\
Specifically, proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(1) states that the position
limit that was in effect at the time of the stock split shall be
adjusted by multiplying the current position limit value in effect for
the underlying by the stock split ratio.\16\ (For example, if the
current position limit is 250,000 contracts and there is a four-for-one
(4:1) stock split in the underlying, the new position limit would be
1,000,000 contracts (4 x 250,000)). Proposed Exchange Rule 3071(g)(2)
further states that the position limit that was in effect at the time
of a reverse stock split shall be adjusted by dividing the current
position limit value in effect for the underlying by the reverse stock
split ratio. For example, if the current position limit is 250,000
contracts and there is a one-for-two (1:2) reverse stock split in the
underlying, the new position limit would be 125,000 contracts (250,000/
2). Further, for reverse stock splits, the new position limit would be
the greater of the adjusted position limit or the lowest position limit
defined in Exchange Rule 307(d).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(3) states that for purposes
of Exchange Rule 307(g), the term ``stock'' shall pertain solely to
equity securities and not be inclusive of exchange-traded funds.
    \17\ See proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that its proposal presents a logical approach
to addressing stock splits in underlying securities because it
maintains the integrity of the position limit to shares outstanding
ratio pre- and post-split, and promotes consistency and stability in
the marketplace.\18\ The Exchange states, by way of example, that a
position limit of 250,000 contracts on an underlying security that has
4,000,000,000 shares outstanding represents control of 25,000,000
shares or 0.625% of the total shares outstanding.\19\ If the underlying
security has a four-for-one stock split, the number of shares
outstanding would increase to 16,000,000,000.\20\ The Exchange states
that to maintain the same position limit to shares outstanding ratio,
the option position limit should increase fourfold to 1,000,000
contracts, where control of 100,000,000 shares would represent control
of 0.625% of the total shares outstanding.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29727.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that, today, when the last option listed at the
time of the stock split expires, the position limit is re-evaluated
according to the criteria in Exchange Rule 307(d)(1)-(5), (where the
maximum contract limit is 250,000 contracts), and the position limit is
permanently readjusted in accordance with that criteria.\22\ The
Exchange states that the reversion of the position limit, even to the
maximum limit of 250,000 contracts, unnecessarily restricts trading by
imposing a stricter position limit relative to the number of shares
outstanding post-stock split than existed pre-stock split.\23\ The
Exchange states that its proposal will maintain the position limit to
shares outstanding ratio so that the pre-split ratio and post-split
ratio are identical, and will eliminate any market disruptions that may
occur as a result of the current process for handling stock splits.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307(e) to apply
the split

factor to the reevaluation process provided in that rule. The Exchange
proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307(e) to provide that for underlying
securities whose position limit has been adjusted pursuant to paragraph
(g), the split factor shall be used for analysis under paragraph (d).
For example, paragraph (d)(5) establishes the position limit based on
either the most recent six-month trading volume of the underlying
security totaling at least 100 million shares, or the most recent six-
month trading volume of the underlying security totaling at least 75
million shares and the underlying security having at least 300 million
share outstanding. Therefore, to be eligible for the 250,000-contract
limit, an underlying stock that underwent a four-for-one stock split
would be required to have either most-recent six-month trading volume
of at least 400 million shares (100,000,000 x 4), or most-recent six-
month trading volume of at least 300 million shares (75,000,000 x 4)
with at least 1,200,000,000 shares outstanding (300,000,000 x 4). For
reverse stock splits, the split factor would be similarly applied and
used as a divisor in the calculations rather than as a multiplier.
    The Exchange states that the proposal provides a uniform and
consistent approach for reevaluating position limits for underlying
securities that were subject to a stock split because the split factor
is properly applied (multiplied for share splits and divided for
reverse share splits) to each threshold value under Exchange Rule
307(d) to establish the proper position limit.\25\ The Exchange states
that the current reversion process, in which position limits are
adjusted at the time of the stock split but revert back to the original
position limit when the last listed option at the time of the split
expires, does not benefit investors or the public interest because the
original position limit is no longer meaningfully related to the
current shares outstanding.\26\ The Exchange states that the proposal
maintains the established position limit relative to shares outstanding
pre- and post-stock split and provides a defined calculation in the
Exchange's rule to account for stock splits in underlying
securities.\27\ In addition, the Exchange states that the proposal
provides a corollary method for handling reverse stock splits that
employs similar logic.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that in August 2020 the industry experienced an
issue with a four-for-one stock split in Apple Inc. (``AAPL'') that the
proposal is tangentially designed to address.\29\ The Exchange states
that prior to the stock split, there were approximately 4,000,000,000
shares of AAPL outstanding and the position limit for AAPL was 250,000
contracts (25,000,000 shares).\30\ The Exchange states that on August
28, 2020, the OCC indicated that that effective August 31, 2020, a
contract multiplier of four and a strike divisor of four would be
applied to AAPL contracts and strikes.\31\ The Exchange states that the
OCC also adjusted the position limit for AAPL by the same factor,
setting the position limit to 100,000,000 shares (1,000,000
contracts).\32\ The Exchange states that when the last AAPL option
listed at the time of the stock split in 2020 expired in 2022, the OCC
reverted back to the original position limit for AAPL of 25,000,000
shares (250,000 contracts).\33\ The Exchange states that although this
position limit technically adheres to the Exchange's rules, it is more
restrictive than the original position limit.\34\ The Exchange states
that prior to the stock split, AAPL had approximately 4,000,000,000
shares outstanding and the position limit of 250,000 contracts
represented control of 25,000,000 shares or 0.625% of the outstanding
shares.\35\ The Exchange further states that, after the stock split,
AAPL had approximately 16,000,000,000 shares outstanding.\36\ The
Exchange states that the immediate adjustment of the position limit
from 250,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts reflects control of
100,000,000 shares or 0.625% of the shares outstanding, which retains
the pre-stock split ratio.\37\ The Exchange states that readjusting the
position limit back to 25,000,000 shares (250,000 contracts) when there
are 16,000,000,000 shares outstanding reduces the position limit to
0.156% of the shares outstanding, making the post-stock split position
limit more restrictive than the pre-stock split position limit.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728, citing OCC Memo #47509, Apple
Inc.--4 for 1 Stock Split (August 28, 2020) available on its public
website at https://infomemo.theocc.com/infomemos?number=47509.
    \32\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728. The Exchange states that the
OCC publishes position limits each day on its website.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the reversion to the pre-stock split
position limit disrupts the market in a number of ways.\39\ The
Exchange states that the reversion to the pre-split position limit
prevents market participants from effectively pursuing their trading
and investment strategies because the position limit relative to shares
outstanding has become more restrictive.\40\ In addition, the Exchange
states that the reversion to the pre-stock split position limit
introduces an element of risk because market participants must unwind
their post-split positions to remain compliant with position limit
rules.\41\ The Exchange also states that the reversion to the pre-split
position limit may negatively impact trading volumes because market
participants that use option contracts to hedge their risks will not be
able to maintain the same levels of market exposure.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using AAPL as an example, the Exchange states that pre-split, a
market participant could have had an options position of 250,000
contracts that represented 0.0625% [sic] of the total shares
outstanding and that, post-split, the market participant could have had
an options position of 1,000,000 contracts, which would still represent
0.0625% [sic] of the total shares outstanding.\43\ The Exchange states
that after the reversion to the pre-split position limit (250,000
contracts), the market participant would be forced to reduce its
trading activity because the maximum position limit would then
represent 0.1563% of the total shares outstanding.\44\ The Exchange
states that this reduction in trading volume also represents a
reduction in available liquidity.\45\ The Exchange further states that
robust liquidity facilitates price discovery and benefits competition
by improving bid/ask spreads, and that tighter bid/ask spreads lead to
better execution prices.\46\ The Exchange states that the reversion to
the pre-split position limit negatively impacts liquidity, trading
volume, and possibly execution prices.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. The Commission understands the percentage figure
referenced by the Exchange in this example should be 0.625%, not
0.0625%.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that other options exchanges could adopt
similar rules to harmonize position limit adjustments as a result of
stock splits in

the underlying securities.\48\ The Exchange states that all market
participants are able to determine position limits on a daily basis
because the OCC publishes a Position Limit file and a Position Limit
Change file, which reflects position limit adjustments and provides the
Start Date and Starting Position Limit coupled with the End Date and
Ending Position Limit.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
    \49\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-MIAX-
2023-19 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \50\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposal, 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 below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comment
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\51\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency
of the proposed rule change with the Act and, in particular, Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\52\ which requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-
regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.'' \53\ The
description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its
effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable
requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support
an affirmative Commission finding,\54\ and any failure of a self-
regulatory organization to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \54\ See id.
    \55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to adopt new rule
provisions that would automatically adjust an option's position limit
proportional to and following a stock split or reverse stock split in
the underlying security. Specifically, proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(1)
would provide that, following a stock split, the new position limit for
options on the stock would be a value equal to the option position
limit in effect at the time of the split multiplied by the stock split
ratio. For a reverse stock split, the position limit in effect at the
time of the reverse stock split would be adjusted by dividing the
position limit value by the reverse stock split ratio. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307(e) to provide that, for an
option with a position limit that has been adjusted pursuant to
proposed Exchange Rule 307(g), the split factor would be used for the
position limit analysis in Exchange Rule 307(d).
    The Exchange states that the current reversion to the pre-stock
split position limit following the expiration of the last option listed
at the time of the split prevents market participants from effectively
pursuing their trading and investment strategies because the option
position limit relative to shares outstanding becomes more
restrictive.\56\ The Exchange also states that the reversion to the
pre-stock split position limit introduces an element of risk because
market participants must unwind their post-split positions prior to the
reversion to the pre-split position limit level to remain compliant
with position limit rules.\57\ Further, the Exchange states that the
reversion to the pre-split position limit may negatively impact trading
volumes because market participants that use option contracts to hedge
their risks would not be able to maintain the same levels of market
exposure.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received one comment regarding the proposal.\59\
The commenter expressed broad support for the proposal, reiterating
many of the statements made by the Exchange. According to the
commenter, the reversion to the original position limit when the last
listed option at the time of a split expires renders the limit no
longer meaningfully related to the current shares outstanding, and
unnecessarily restricts trading by imposing a stricter position limit
relative to the number of shares outstanding post-stock split.\60\ The
commenter stated that the proposal would eliminate this disparate
treatment between the underlying stock split and the options position
limit because both adjustments would be permanent.\61\ The commenter
also stated that the proposal maintains the integrity of the position
limit to shares outstanding ratio both pre- and post-split, provides a
consistent and uniform approach for reevaluating position limits on
underlying securities that were subject to a stock split, and creates
stability in the marketplace by preserving the expectations of market
participants who are trading and hedging in the options contracts
subject to the position limit changes.\62\ In addition, the commenter
stated that, besides AAPL, several other companies with significant
market capitalization have undergone recent stock splits, including
Tesla Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Nvidia Corporation (``NVDA'').\63\ The
commenter stated that NVDA shares underwent a four-for-one stock split,
increasing the option position limit from 250,000 contracts to
1,000,000 contracts until the last contract expired in June 2023, at
which point the limit reverted to 250,000 contracts.\64\ The commenter
stated that allowing the position limit to remain at 1,000,000
contracts would allow investors who are trading and hedging in the
options contracts to manage their positions consistent with the new
amount of shares outstanding.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \60\ Id. at 1-2.
    \61\ Id. at 2.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position and exercise limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to
address manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the
use of options.\66\ Currently, the maximum stock option position limits
permitted

under exchange rules are 250,000 contracts. Although OCC provides a
temporary adjustment to option position limits following a stock split,
exchange rules currently do not provide for the automatic adjustment of
an option's position limit proportional to splits in the underlying
stock. The proposal is novel because it would amend the Exchange's
rules to permit such automatic position limit adjustments, including
adjustments that could result in increases in stock option position
limits to levels that exceed 250,000 contracts. For example, in 2022,
Amazon.com, Inc. (``Amazon'') underwent a 20:1 stock split.\67\ Under
the proposal, the position limit for options on a stock that undergoes
a 20:1 split would increase by a factor of 20--for example, from
250,000 contracts to 5,000,000 contracts--regardless of the most recent
six-month trading volume or number of shares outstanding of the
underlying stock. Even a more modest position limit increase, such as a
fourfold increase for an option on a stock that undergoes a 4:1 stock
split, would be a substantial increase from current levels. The
proposed automatic increase in position limits for options on stocks
that undergo a stock split raises the potential for adverse impacts in
the market for the underlying stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68086
(October 23, 2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-
066).
    \67\ See Amazon.com, Inc. Current Report (Form 8-K) (March 9,
2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872422000009/amzn-20220309.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange and the commenter state that
increasing the option position limit by the stock split factor will
allow a market participant to continue to maintain an options position
representing the same percentage of outstanding shares of the
underlying stock following a stock split. However, the trading volume
in the underlying stock--not the ability to establish an options
position representing a consistent percentage of the outstanding shares
pre- and post-split--is one of the relevant metrics for determining the
position limit for options on stocks.\68\ Neither the Exchange nor the
commenter have provided data indicating that trading volume in a stock
generally increases following a stock split, or that any such
increases, to the extent that they exist, generally are sufficient to
support an increase in the option position limit by an amount equal to
the stock split factor. For example, neither the Exchange nor the
commenter present data demonstrating that, in general, the trading
volume in a stock that undergoes a 4:1 stock split increases to such an
extent that the position limit for options on that stock should
increase fourfold over the pre-split option position limit. On the
contrary, the Commission understands that some data suggest that
trading volume in a stock may be unchanged or decrease following a
stock split.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 307(d).
    \69\ A Cboe study on the impact of stock splits on trading
activities finds that split-adjusted median executed share volume in
mega-capitalization stocks increased slightly one-week post-split
but, in the two-week to six-month period post-split, the median
executed share volume decreased about 48%, compared to volume a week
pre-split. See Cboe study on the impact of stock split on trading
activities at: https://www.cboe.com/insights/posts/stock-splits-lead-to-split-results-in-trading/. This study also finds that the
median number of options contracts traded in mega-capitalization
stocks decreased approximately 49% one week post-split and remained
down through the six-month period post-split. Further, this study
finds that split-adjusted median executed share volume in large-
capitalization stocks increased slightly two weeks post-split but
then decreased in the one to six-month period post-split, and that
split-adjusted median executed share volume in mid- and small-cap
stocks decreased in the one-week to six-month period post-split. In
addition, the Commission understands that some evidence suggests
that, as a general matter, share trading volume may be unchanged or
decrease after a stock split. See, e.g., Patrick Dennis, Stock
Splits and Liquidity: the Case of the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock, the Financial Review, 38, 2003, 415-433; Thomas E. Copeland,
Liquidity Changes Following Stock Splits, the Journal of Finance,
34, 1, 1979, 115-141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposal does not explain why it would be appropriate
for a stock option potentially to have a split-factor-adjusted position
limit that is higher than what is allowed by Exchange Rule 307(d) for
corresponding underlying stock-volume-traded measures. For example,
under Exchange Rule 307(d), a most recent six-month trading volume in
the underlying security of at least 20 million shares qualifies the
option for a 50,000-contract position limit, and a most recent six-
month trading volume in the underlying security of at least 40 million
shares qualifies the option for a 75,000-contract position limit. Under
the proposal, if an option at the 50,000-contract limit had a most
recent six-month trading volume in its underlying stock of 20 million
shares and the stock split two-for-one, the option's position limit
would increase to 100,000 contracts and could remain there so long as
the underlying stock's most recent six-month trading volume was at
least 40 million shares. Under Exchange Rule 307(d), however, a most
recent six-month trading volume of 40 million shares in the underlying
security qualifies an option for a 75,000-contract limit, not a
100,000-contract limit. The proposal does not explain why this and
other potential discrepancies with position limits currently allowed by
Exchange Rule 307(d) are appropriate for options with stock-split
adjusted position limits.
    In addition, although the Exchange states that the reversion to
pre-split option position limits prevents market participants from
effectively pursuing their trading, hedging, and investment strategies
following a stock split, the proposal provides no details to support
these assertions, such as the number of customers affected or the
trading, hedging, or investment strategies that these customers are
unable to execute because of lower post-split position limits.
Similarly, although the Exchange states that the reversion to pre-split
position limits negatively impacts liquidity, trading volume, and
possibly execution prices,\70\ the proposal provides no data to support
these assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Notice, 88 FR at 29728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also does not describe how the Exchange would
implement the proposed split-factor adjusted position limit increases
or the proposed review of their appropriateness. The proposal does not
specify, for example, whether the Exchange intends to follow the OCC's
policy of increasing the option position limit immediately after a
stock split and allowing the new limit to remain in effect until the
last option listed at the time of the stock split expires, regardless
of the trading volume or shares outstanding of the underlying stock.
Similarly, the proposal does not specify the timing for the proposed
split-factor adjusted reviews in Exchange Rule 307(e). Exchange Rule
307(e) currently provides for a six-month review of option position
limits. However, the proposal does not specify, for example, whether
the review for purposes of determining the appropriateness of a split-
factor adjusted position limit would occur six months after the stock
split, six months following the expiration of the last option listed at
the time of the stock split, or at some other point in time following
the stock split.
    Finally, the Exchange does not propose a corresponding change to
the option exercise limits in Exchange Rule 309. Apart from the
exemptions in Exchange Rule 308, Exchange Rule 309(a)(1) generally
prohibits members from exercising within any five consecutive business
days aggregate long positions in any class of options traded on the
Exchange in excess of 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or 200,000 or 250,000
option contracts or such other number of option contracts as may be
fixed from time to time by the Exchange as the exercise limit for that
class of options. It is not clear whether the

proposed change to option position limits would accomplish the goals of
the proposal without a corresponding change to Exchange Rule
309(a)(1).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Although Exchange Rule 309(c) states that ``limits shall be
determined in the manner described in Rule 307,'' Exchange Rule
309(a)(1) establishes a maximum exercise limit of 250,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the proposal does not provide an adequate basis for
the Commission to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5), or any other provision of the Act,
or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear
to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\72\ any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \73\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts 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 Acts Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm.
on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on
its concerns expressed above regarding the proposal's consistency with
the Act, and seeks commenters' views as to whether the proposal could
have an adverse market impact.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by August 29, 2023. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
September 12, 2023. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MIAX-2023-19. 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 website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MIAX-2023-19 and should be
submitted on or before August 29, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted September 12, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood.
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16881 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  Instructions  To qualify for ENERGY STAR, a home must meet the National Program Requirements and the measures listed in these checklists:

    ::	Design Requirements Checklist (either Prescriptive Path or Performance Path)     ::	Thermal Enclosure System Checklist     ::	HVAC System Quality Installation Checklist     ::	HVAC System Quality Verification Checklist     ::	Water Management System Checklist (or Indoor airPLUS Verification Checklist)1  Checklist items flagged for field verification are verified by a Rater.2 Raters are expected to use their experience and discretion to verify that the overall intent of each inspection checklist item has been met (i.e., identifying major defects that undermine the intent of the checklist item versus identifying minor defects that the Rater may deem acceptable). The column titled "N/A," which denotes items that are "not applicable," should be used when the checklist item is not present in the home or conflicts with local requirements.

 In the event that a Rater finds an item that is inconsistent with the intent of the inspection checklists, the home cannot earn the ENERGY STAR until the item is corrected. If correction of the item is not possible, the home cannot earn the ENERGY STAR.

 The Rater is required to keep electronic or hard copies of the completed and signed checklists. The signature of the HVAC technician is required if any of the HVAC equipment specified on the HVAC System Quality Installation Checklist is installed in the home.

 To receive the home label(s) and certificate, the Rater must send this Modular Home Completion Report,  a copy of all completed and signed Inspection Checklists and a check for $50 per home* (builder's report processing fee for home certificate and site label) to:

       Systems Building Research Alliance        1776 Broadway, Suite 2205        New York, NY 10019

 Please allow up to 5 days for delivery. For 2-Day delivery, enclose an additional $20 S&H fee.

 * If this is a plant certification home, the following processing fees apply (select one):

     $150 plant certification home ($100 for plant QA label + $50 builder's fee)                                                          - OR -      $100 "temporarily installed" plant certification home3 (for plant QA label only)

 Send labels to (check one):

     Certifier / Rater Primary Contact	Contact:

     Field Inspector / Tester	Company:

     Modular Plant	Address:

     Modular Builder	City:

     Homeowner	State:  	 Zip:

     Other (specify in space at right)	Phone or Email:

 1   A completed and signed Indoor airPLUS Verification Checklist may be completed by the Rater and submitted in lieu of the    Water Management System checklist. For more information, see the EPA website: www.epa.gov/indoorairplus.    2   The term "Rater" refers to the person completing the third-party inspections required for qualification. This party may be a certified Home Energy Rater, Rating Field Inspector or BOP Inspector.  3   Temporarily installed homes must be re-inspected by a Rater when installed on the final home site and a new Completion    Report must be submitted along with the $50 report processing fee for the home certificate and site label.

  Home Address:  	  HOME ID:

  City:  	  State:  	  Zip:

  Homeowner Name:  	  Phone:

  1.  CONTACT INFORMATION     Certifier / Rater Primary Contact	Field Inspector / Tester (if different from Primary Contact)

    Company	Contact Name	Company	Contact Name

    Address	Address

City        State Zip

City                                                                           State  Zip Phone    Fax

Phone                                           Fax

Plant and QC Staff

Builder

Corporate Parent (if applicable)

Company         Contact Name

Plant Name    QC Contact Name

Address

Plant City        State Zip

City                                                                           State  Zip Phone    Fax

Phone                                           Fax

    HVAC Contractor / Technician	HVAC System Designer (if different from Cont. / Tech.)

    Company	Contact Name	Company	Contact Name

    Address	Address

    City	State	Zip	City	State	Zip

    Phone	Fax	Phone	Fax

  2.  WAS THIS HOME TESTED?	 Yes	 No  If No, skip to question 5.

  3.  HOUSE TIGHTNESS     a) Infiltration rate ( <= 6.0 in CZs 1, 2 | <= 5.0 in CZs 3, 4 | <= 4.0 in CZs 5, 6, 7 | <= 3.0 in CZ 8).	Measured:  	ACH50 ....................

  4.  DUCT TIGHTNESS (fill in and check ONE)     a) Duct leakage to outdoors ( <= 6 CFM25 Performance Path; <= 4 CFM25 Prescriptive Path).	Measured:  	CFM25 / 100 sq ft ...       *Homes with < 1,200 sq ft CFA: <= 5 CFM25 / 100 sq ft                                                         - OR -     b) All ducts and air handling equipment are located within the home's air and thermal barriers and envelope leakage has been tested to be       <= 3.0 ACH50 in CZs 1, 2 | <= 2.5 ACH50 in CZs 3, 4 | <= 2.0 ACH50 in CZs 5, 6, 7 | <= 1.5 ACH50 in CZ 8. .....................................................

  5.  QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) LABEL (must check ONE to pass)     a) An SBRA quality assurance (QA) modular home label is affixed to home interior and signed and dated by a factory representative ...........                                                         - OR -    b) This is one of the factory's initial three certification homes. The plant QA label will be signed and affixed with the blue ENERGY STAR(R)       Qualified New Home site label (see instructions) ................................................................................................................................................

  6.  CERTIFIER / RATER EVALUATION (check ONE)     a) PASSES: No discrepancies were identified......................................................................................................................................................... b) PASSES: Minor discrepancies were identified and repaired, and the home was re-inspected ........................................................................ c) FAILS: Discrepancies are described below .........................................................................................................................................................

 Signature of Certifier / Rater:  		Date:

 Modular Home Completion Report  PROBLEMS / DISCREPANCIES & REMEDIATION ACTIONS	HOME ID:

 Item No.	Discrepancy

           Remediation

 Item No.	Discrepancy

           Remediation

 Item No.	Discrepancy

           Remediation

 Item No.	Discrepancy

           Remediation

 Item No.	Discrepancy

           EPA Form 5900-189 The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 0.25 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Remediation


[Federal Register: May 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 27240-27242]
[DOCID:fr10my06-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0311; FRL-7775-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered
Pesticide Product; EPA ICR No. 0278.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0044

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered
Pesticide Product'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 0278.09 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0044, is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2007.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0311, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0311. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation for this Docket Facility are from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathanael R. Martin, Field and
External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

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

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
pesticide registrants.
    Title: Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered
Pesticide Product.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0278.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0044.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This collection activity provides the Agency with
notification of supplemental registration of distributors of pesticide
products. EPA is responsible for the regulation of pesticides as
mandated by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Section 3(e) of FIFRA allows pesticide registrants to
distribute or sell a registered pesticide product under a different
name instead of or in addition to their own. Such distribution and sale
is termed ``supplemental distribution'' and the product is termed a
``distributor product.'' EPA requires the pesticide registrant to
submit a supplemental statement (EPA Form 8570-5, Notice of
Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product) when the
registrant has entered into an agreement with a second company that
will distribute the registrant's product under the second company's
name and product name.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25
hours per response, or 15 minutes. Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 2,479.
    Frequency of response: As needed.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 620 hours.

    Estimated total annual costs: $ 63,066.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is a decrease of 380 hours in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's revised estimates based on changes in
tracking methodology. This change is an adjustment.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

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

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 21, 2006.
Susan B. Hazen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. E6-6920 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S