[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22919-22923]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10350]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85852; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule

May 14, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members and non-
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
text of the proposed rule change is attached [sic] as Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities''), effective May 1, 2019.
Transaction Fee Changes
Orders That Remove Liquidity
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share for Displayed and Non-Displayed
orders that remove liquidity (i.e., yields fee codes N, W, 6, BB, PR
and ZR). All Displayed and Non-Displayed orders in securities priced
below $1.00 that remove liquidity (i.e., yield fee codes N, W, 6, BB,
PR and ZR) result in a fee of 0.30% of dollar value. The Exchange first
proposes to reduce the current standard rate of $0.0030 per share to
$0.00265 per share for Displayed and Non-Displayed orders that remove
liquidity for securities priced at or above $1.00. All Displayed and
Non-Displayed orders that remove liquidity in securities priced below
$1.00 would continue to result in a fee of 0.30% of dollar value.
Orders That Add Liquidity
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
provides a standard rebate of $0.0020 per share for Displayed orders
that add liquidity (i.e., yield fee code B, V, Y, 3 and 4) and a rebate
of $0.0015 for Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity (i.e., yield fee
code DM, HA, MM, and RP).\4\ All Displayed and Non-Displayed orders in
securities priced below $1.00 that add liquidity receive a rebate of
$0.00003 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Does not include fee code HI, which is appended to Non-
Displayed orders that receive price improvement and add liquidity.
Such executions are free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to reduce rebates for Displayed and Non-
Displayed orders that add liquidity to balance the revenue received for
orders that remove liquidity (and as described above, the Exchange is
reducing the rates assessed for orders that remove liquidity). With
respect to Displayed orders priced at or above $1.00 that add liquidity
(i.e., yields fee codes B, V, Y, 3 and 4), the Exchange proposes to
reduce the per share rebate from $0.0020 to $0.0017. With respect to
Non-Displayed orders priced at or above $1.00 that add liquidity (i.e.,
yields fee codes DM, HA, MM, and RP), the Exchange proposes to reduce
the standard rebate from $0.0015 per share to $0.0010 per share.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the current rebate pf
$0.00003 per share for Non-Displayed orders in securities priced below
$1.00 that add liquidity and provide that such executions shall be
free. All Displayed orders that add liquidity in securities priced
below $1.00 would continue to receive a rebate of $0.00003 per share.
Add Volume Tiers--Amendments
    The Exchange next proposes to amend and restructure its Add Volume
Tiers under footnote 1 of the fees schedule. Currently, the Exchange
offers eight Add Volume Tiers under footnote 1, which provide an
enhanced rebate of $0.0025 to $0.0033 per share for qualifying
Displayed orders which yield fee codes B, V, Y, 3 and 4. The Exchange
proposes to (i) eliminate the Super Tier, Ultra Tier and Mega Tiers 1
and 2, and adopt in their place new Tiers 1-4, (ii) amend the current
Growth Tier and adopt an additional Growth Tier, (iii) amend the Cross-
Asset Volume Tier, (iv) adopt a Market Quality Tier, and (v) eliminate
the Investor Tier and Step-Up Tier. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes result in an easier to follow tier structure and continues to
provide Members a variety of opportunities to receive enhanced rebates
for adding certain levels of

Displayed liquidity on the Exchange, as discussed below.
    Add Volume Tiers: Under footnote 1, the Exchange currently offers a
Super Tier, Ultra Tier, Mega Tier 1 and Mega Tier 2, which provide
enhanced rebates of $0.0028 to $0.0032 where a member adds an ADV \5\
greater than or equal to a specified percentage of TCV. \6\
Particularly, the Super Tier provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0028 per
share where a Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.15% of the
TCV; the Ultra Tier provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0030 per share
where a Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.30% of the TCV;
Mega Tier 1 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share where a
Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.45% of the TCV; and Mega
Tier 2 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0032 per share where a Member
adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.75% of the TCV. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate these tiers and in their place adopt similar
tiers, named ``Tier 1'', ``Tier 2'', ``Tier 3'', and Tier 4''. Tiers 1-
4 will similarly provide enhanced rebates between $0.0023 to $0.0029
(reduced from the current rebates of $0.0028 to $0.0032) where a Member
adds an ADV greater than or equal to specified percentages of TCV
(slightly modified from the current percentages), as further described
below. The Exchange notes that, similar to the current Add Volume
Tiers, the proposed tiers provide an incremental incentive for Members
to strive for the highest tier level, which provides increasingly
higher enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes eliminating the current
``names'' of the Tiers and renaming the new tiers numerically (i.e.,
``Tiers 1-4'') and placing them in ascending order makes the Add Volume
Tiers easier to read and follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
    \6\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to adopt Tier 1, which will provide
Members an enhanced rebate of $0.0023 per share where the Member adds
as ADV greater than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV. The Exchange next
proposes to adopt Tier 2, which will provide Members an enhanced rebate
of $0.0025 per share where the Member adds as ADV greater than or equal
to 0.30% of the TCV. The Exchange also proposes to adopt Tier 3, which
will provide Members an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share where the
Member adds as ADV greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV. Lastly,
the Exchange proposes to adopt Tier 4, which will provide Members an
enhanced rebate of $0.0029 per share where the Member adds as ADV
greater than or equal to 0.70% of the TCV. The Exchange believes the
proposed Add Volume Tier changes will encourage members to increase
their liquidity on the Exchange.
    Growth Tiers: The Exchange currently offers a Growth Tier under
footnote 1, which provides Members an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 per
share where the Member adds as ADV greater than or equal to 0.08% of
the TCV. The Exchange proposes to rename the tier ``Growth Tier 1'' and
reduce the enhanced rebate from $0.0025 per share to $0.0020 per share.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the threshold criteria to require
an ADV greater than or equal to 0.10% of the TCV (instead of 0.08%).
The Exchange also proposes to adopt an alternative criteria to satisfy
Growth Tier 1 which would provide that a Member would also receive the
enhanced rebate of $0.0020 per share where the Member has a Step-Up Add
TCV from March 2019 greater than or equal to 0.05%. The Exchange
proposes to adopt an additional Growth Tier (``Growth Tier 2''), which
would provide Members an enhanced rebate of $0.0026 per share where the
Member (i) has an ADV of greater than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV and
(ii) has a Step-Up Add TCV from March 2019 greater or equal to 0.10%.
The Exchange notes that the proposed Growth Tiers provide Members
additional ways to qualify for an enhanced rebate where they increase
their relative liquidity each month over a predetermined baseline.
    Cross-Asset Volume Tier: The Exchange currently offers a Cross-
Asset Volume Tier under footnote 1, which provides Members an enhanced
rebate of $0.030 per share where the Member (i) adds as ADV greater
than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV and (ii) has an ADV in Customer
orders on EDGX Options greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV.
The Exchange proposes to reduce the enhanced rebate available under the
Cross-Asset Volume Tier from $0.0030 per share to $0.0027 per share.
The Exchange also proposes reducing the ADV requirement in the second
prong to 0.08% of average OCV (instead of 0.10%). The Exchange believes
that decreasing the tier's criteria, although modestly, will encourage
those Members who could not achieve the tier previously to increase
their order flow as a means to receive the tier's enhanced rebate.
    Market Quality Tier: The Exchange proposes to adopt a new tier
under Footnote 1 that will also apply to Displayed orders that add
liquidity (i.e., orders that yield fee codes B, V, Y, 3 and 4) called
the Market Quality Tier. The Market Quality Tier would provide Members
an enhanced rebate of $0.0028 per share where a Member (i) adds an ADV
greater than or equal to 0.25% of the TCV and (ii) adds an ADV greater
than or equal to 0.10% of the TCV as Non-Displayed orders that yield
fee codes DM, HA, HI, MM or RP. The Exchange believes the proposed new
tier will encourage Members to increase both their Displayed and Non-
Displayed liquidity on the exchange. The Exchange further notes that
other Exchanges have similar add volume tiers that are comprised of
both Displayed and Non-Displayed threshold requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC Pricing Schedule, Section
118(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step Up Tier and Investor Tier: The Exchange next proposes to
eliminate the (1) Step-Up Tier, which provides a $0.0033 per share
rebate where a Member has a Step-Up Add TCV from October 2018 greater
than or equal to 0.35% and the (2) Investor Tier, which provides a
$0.0032 rebate where a Member (i) adds an ADV greater than or equal to
0.20% of the TCV and (ii) has an ``added liquidity'' as a percentage of
``added plus removed liquidity'' greater than or equal to 85%. The
Exchange notes that in light of its amendment to Growth Tier 1 and
adoption of Growth Tier 2, both of which include criteria that require
Members to increase their relative liquidity each month over a
predetermined baseline, the current Step-Up Tier is no longer needed
and the Exchange no longer desires to maintain it. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the Step-Up Tier from the Fees Schedule.
The Exchange also no longer wishes to maintain the Investor Tier and
therefore proposes to delete it.
Non-Displayed Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers a Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier under
footnote 1, which provides Members an enhanced rebate of $0.0026 per
share where the Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.08% of
the TCV as Non-Displayed orders that yield fee codes DM, HA, HI, MM or
RP. The Exchange proposes to amend the Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier
and adopt two additional Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers. First, the
Exchange proposes to amend its current Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier by
(i)

reducing the offered rebate from $0.0026 per share to $0.0025 per share
and (ii) modifying the required criteria to provide that Members will
receive the enhanced rebate where they add an ADV greater than or equal
to 7,000,000 shares (instead of .0.08% of the TCV) as Non-Displayed
orders that yield fee codes DM, HA, HI, MM or RP. The Exchange also
proposes to rename the current tier to ``Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier
3.'' Next, the Exchange next proposes to adopt two new Non-Displayed
Add Volume Tiers. As proposed, under Non-Displayed Volume Tier 1, a
Member would receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share if that Member adds
an ADV greater than or equal to 1,000,000 shares as Non-Displayed
orders that yield DM, HA, MM and RP. The Exchange also proposes to
adopt Non-Displayed Volume Tier 2, which would provide a Member a
rebate of $0.0022 per share where the Member adds an ADV greater than
or equal to 2,500,000 shares as Non-Displayed orders that yield fee
codes DM, HA, HI, MM or PR [sic]. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes to the current Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier, along with the
proposed new tiers will encourage Members to increase their Non-
Displayed liquidity on the exchange. The Exchange further notes that
other Exchanges have similar non-displayed add volume tiers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See e.g., Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tape B Volume Tier
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the Tape B Volume Tier, which
provides a $0.0027 per share rebate where a Member adds an ADV greater
than or equal to 0.03% of the TCV in Tape B securities. Particularly,
the Exchange proposes to increase the ADV requirement to 0.10% of the
TCV in Tape B securities (instead of 0.03%). The proposed increase is
designed to encourage entry of additional orders to the Exchange.
Retail Volume Tier Deletion
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Retail Volume Tier, which
provides a $0.0037 rebate where a Member adds a Retail Order ADV (i.e.,
yielding fee code ZA) greater than or equal to 0.35% of the TCV. The
Exchange no longer wishes to maintain this tier and therefore proposes
to delete it.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to reduce rates for Non-
Displayed and Displayed orders that remove liquidity is reasonable
because Members will pay lower transaction fees for such orders.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed fee is lower than
transaction fees assessed on other Exchanges.\9\ The Exchange notes the
proposed fee reduction applies uniformly to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities, Fees and Charges, NYSE Arca
Marketplace: Trade Related Fees and Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed reduced rebates for Displayed
and Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because Members will still receive
rebates for such orders, albeit at a lower amount. The Exchange also
believes the proposed reduction of rebates for Displayed and Non-
Displayed orders that add liquidity is reasonable because the Exchange
must balance the revenue received for orders that remove liquidity (and
as described above, the Exchange is reducing the rates assessed for
orders that remove liquidity). Rebates for orders that add liquidity
incentivize members to bring additional liquidity to the Exchange,
thereby promoting price discovery and enhancing order execution
opportunities for members. Similarly, the Exchange believes eliminating
a rebate and providing free executions for Non-Displayed orders that
add liquidity in securities below $1.00 is reasonable because Members
still are not paying any fees for such executions. The Exchange
believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they apply equally to all Members.
    Furthermore, the Exchange's make-take fee structure would continue
to incentivize liquidity providers to continue to provide liquidity
since such orders remain eligible for better pricing than orders that
remove liquidity and are charged a fee (notwithstanding the proposed
reduced rebate and fee, respectively).
    The Exchange next notes generally that volume-based rebates such as
those currently maintained on the Exchange and those being proposed
have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they
are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional
benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the value of
an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated with higher levels of
market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders
into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes
the proposed changes relating to its Add Volume Tiers provide Members a
variety of opportunities to receive enhanced rebates for adding certain
levels of liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the Mega Tier 1,
Mega Tier 2, Ultra Tier, and Super Tier and replace those tiers with
Tiers 1-4 is reasonable because the proposed new tiers continue to
provide Members a variety of opportunities to receive enhanced rebates,
albeit at lower amounts, for adding certain levels of liquidity on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes reducing the enhanced rebate amounts is
reasonable in light of the Exchange's proposal to also reduce the
standard rebate for orders that add liquidity and reduce the standard
rate for orders that remove liquidity. The Exchange notes that, similar
to the current Add Volume Tiers that are being eliminated, the proposed
tiers continue to provide an incremental incentive for Members to
strive for the highest tier level, which provides increasingly higher
enhanced rebates. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
changes result in an easier to follow tier structure. Moreover, the
Exchange believes the proposed thresholds are commensurate with the
proposed corresponding enhanced rebates and that it will encourage
Members to add increased liquidity to EDGX each month. Increased
liquidity benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity
pool, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost
savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. The Exchange believes
the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they apply equally to all Members.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed changes to Growth Tier 1
and the adoption of Growth Tier 2 are reasonable. Particularly, the
Exchange believes proposed Growth Tier 2 and the proposed amendment to
Growth Tier 1 provide a reasonable means to encourage Members to
increase their liquidity on the Exchange based on increasing their
relative volume above a predetermined baseline. The proposed tiers
create an additional opportunity for Members to receive an enhanced
rebate for contributing increased liquidity as compared to the end of
the

previous month (March 2019). Increased liquidity benefits all investors
by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the
quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection. The Exchange also believes that proposed rebates
under the Growth Tiers are reasonably based on the difficulty of
satisfying the tier's criteria, including using March 2019 as the
predetermined baseline. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the
Growth Tiers are not unfairly discriminatory as it applies to all
Members that meet the required criteria.
    The Exchange believes reducing the rebate under the Cross-Asset
Volume Tier is reasonable because Members will still receive a rebate
if they satisfy the threshold, just at a lesser amount. Additionally as
noted above, the Exchange is also reducing the standard rebates for
orders that add liquidity and reducing the rate for orders that remove
liquidity and the Exchange must balance the revenue received. The
Exchange believes lowering the ADV requirement for Customer orders on
EDGX Options is reasonable because the Exchange believes it will ease
the tier's requirements and encourage those Members who could not
achieve the tier previously to increase their order flow as a means to
receive the tier's enhanced rebate. The proposed changes are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they apply uniformly
to all Members.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to introduce a new Market
Quality Tier is reasonable as it provides Members an additional
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate for providing liquidity. The
Exchange believes the proposed rebate is reasonable based on the
difficulty of satisfying the proposed criteria. The Exchange believes
including a requirement for Non-Displayed liquidity in addition to the
Displayed liquidity requirement, will encourage Members to increase
both their Displayed and Non-Displayed liquidity on the exchange. Non-
Displayed liquidity is important as it can improve market quality by,
among other things, increasing market depth and providing price
improvement opportunities. The Exchange further notes that other
Exchanges have similar add volume tiers that are comprised of both
Displayed and Non-Displayed threshold requirements.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC Pricing Schedule,
Section 118(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating the Investor Tier and Step-Up
Tier is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain
such tiers and Members still have a number of opportunities and a
variety of ways to receive enhanced rebates, as discussed throughout
this filing. Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate
the Retail Volume Tier is reasonable because the Exchange no longer
wishes to maintain such tier and Members will merely not receive an
enhanced rebate for orders yielding fee code ZA. The Exchange believes
the proposal to eliminate these tiers is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to reduce the rebate under the
current Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier is reasonable for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to other rebate reductions.
Particularly, Members will still receive a rebate if they satisfy the
threshold and the Exchange must balance the revenue it receives. The
Exchange believes the proposed modification to the current Non-
Displayed Add Tier, which modestly increases the ADV requirement and
converts the requirements to shares instead of percentage of TCV, will
encourage the additional entry of Non-Displayed orders. The Exchange
also believes the amended rebate is still commensurate with the
modified threshold. The Exchange believes the proposal to introduce two
new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers under footnote 1 is reasonable
because it provides Members additional opportunities to receive
enhanced rebates for Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity and are a
reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on
the Exchange. As noted above, Non-Displayed liquidity can improve
market quality by increasing market depth and providing price
improvement opportunities. Deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool
benefits investors by encouraging more price competition and providing
additional opportunities to trade. The Exchange further believes the
proposed thresholds are commensurate with the proposed enhanced rebates
and that it will encourage members to add increased liquidity to EDGX
each month. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
not unfairly discriminatory as they apply uniformly to all Members.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposal to increase the
threshold requirement under Tape B Volume Tier is reasonable as the
Exchange believes the proposed change will encourage the additional
entry of orders in Tape B Securities. The Exchange also notes that
although the rebate is not changing, it believes the proposed
modification to the required criteria is commensurate with the rebate
offered. The proposed change also is not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Particularly, the proposed rates and rebates would apply uniformly to
all members, and members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve
to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members
rather than burdening competition. Moreover, the proposed fee changes
are designed to incentivize liquidity, which the Exchange believes will
benefit all market participants by encouraging a transparent and
competitive market. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow
to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule

change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-030 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-CboeEDGX-2019-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-030 and should be
submitted on or before June 10, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10350 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68345]
[DOCID:fr18no08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-1104]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Elizabeth River--Eastern
Branch, at Norfolk, VA, Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS V2.8) Bridge, at mile 2.7,
across the Elizabeth River--Eastern Branch at Norfolk, VA. Under this
temporary deviation, the drawbridge may remain in the closed position
on specific dates and times to facilitate mechanical repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on December 8, 2008, to
11 p.m. on December 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-1104 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Norfolk Southern Corporation, who owns
and operates this single-leaf bascule drawbridge, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in
33 CFR 117.1007(a) to facilitate mechanical repairs.
    The NS V2.8 Bridge, a swing-type drawbridge, has a
vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of six feet, above
mean high water
    To facilitate repairs to the center wedge machinery of the swing
span, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation
position from 7 a.m. on December 8, 2008, until and including 11 p.m.
on December 19, 2008.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the opening restrictions of
the draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 5, 2008.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-27266 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6007-6009]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88064; File No. SR-ICC-2019-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Partial Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the ICC Clearing Rules To Address Non-Default Losses

January 28, 2020.
    On August 8, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 ICC's Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'') to address treatment of
losses not related to a Clearing Participant default. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 28,
2019.\3\ On October 4, 2019, the Commission designated a longer period
of time for Commission action on the proposed rule change until
November 26, 2019.\4\ On October 7, 2019, ICC filed a partial amendment
(``Partial Amendment No. 1'') to modify the proposed rule change.\5\ On
November 25, 2019, the Commission published notice of Partial Amendment
No. 1, solicited comments from interested persons on the proposed rule
change as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, and instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change as modified
by Partial Amendment No. 1.\7\ On January 24, 2020, ICC filed Partial
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC;
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance
Notice Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules; Exchange Act Release No.
86729 (Aug. 22, 2019); 84 FR 45191 (Aug. 28, 2019) (SR-ICC-2019-
010).
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICC Clearing Rules To
Address Non-Default Losses; Exchange Act Release No. 87225 (Oct. 4,
2019); 84 FR 54712 (Oct. 10, 2019) (SR-ICC-2019-010).
    \5\ In Partial Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, ICC
provided additional details and analyses surrounding the proposed
rule change in the form of a confidential Exhibit 3.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, Relating to
Amendments to the ICC Clearing Rules To Address Non-Default Losses;
Exchange Act Release No. 87622 (Nov. 25, 2019); 84 FR 66041 (Dec. 2,
2019) (SR-ICC-2019-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ the Commission is publishing notice of Partial Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below,
which Items have been prepared by ICC. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
modified by Partial Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of Partial
Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC is filing this Partial Amendment No. 2 to SR-ICC-2019-010 (the
``Filing'') to make certain clarifications related to the allocation of
Investment Losses.\10\ With this Partial Amendment No. 2, ICC is
including Exhibit 4, which reflects changes to the text of the proposed
rule change pursuant to this Partial Amendment No. 2, and Exhibit 5,
which reflects all proposed changes to the current rule text, as
amended by this Partial Amendment No. 2. This Partial Amendment No. 2
makes the following changes to the Filing: (1) It specifies that the
allocation of Investment Losses is limited to Investing Participants in
the case of Investment Losses in the client origin account and (2) it
clarifies that Investment Losses would be determined separately for the
house account and client origin account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules and the Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this Partial Amendment No. 2, ICC proposes new term ``Investing
Participant'' in Rule 102. An Investing Participant would be defined in
Rule 402(k) as a Participant that has instructed ICC to invest cash
Initial Margin provided by it in respect of its client origin account.
The incorporation of this term clarifies that, in the case of an
Investment Loss in the client origin account, the obligation to pay an
Investment Loss Contribution is in respect of Investing Participants
under the proposed approach.
    Additionally, ICC proposes in this Partial Amendment No. 2 that
Investment Losses would be determined separately for the house account
and client origin account. In the event the Investment Loss Resources
were insufficient to cover the Investment Loss (an ``Investment Loss
Shortfall''), ICC would have the right, under Rule 811(d), to allocate
the Investment Loss Shortfall to Participants (including any Defaulting
Participants). In the case of an Investment Loss in the house account,
each Participant would be obligated to make a contribution (an
``Investment Loss Contribution''), based on its pro rata share of the
Investment Loss Shortfall, determined based on the proportion of its
aggregate Initial Margin (both house and customer) and General Guaranty
Fund contributions (its ``Participant IM/GF Contribution'') as compared
to the aggregate Participant IM/GF Contributions for all Participants.
For example, in the case of an Investment Loss Shortfall of 3,000 units
in the house account, each Participants is obligated make an Investment
Loss Contribution. Assuming the aggregate Participant IM/GF
Contributions for all Participants is 525,000 units and Participant
``ABC'' has a Participant IM/GF Contribution of 26,250 (5%), Investing
Participant ``ABC'' has an Investment Loss Contribution of 150 units
(5% of the Investment Loss Shortfall).
    In the case of an Investment Loss in the client origin account,
each Investing Participant would be obligated to pay an Investment Loss
Contribution equal to its pro rata share of the Investment Loss
Shortfall, determined based on the proportion of its Participant IM/GF
Contribution to the aggregate Participant IM/GF Contributions of all
Investing Participants. For example, in the case of an Investment Loss
Shortfall of 3,000 units in the client origin account where only 27 of
29 Participants are Investing Participants, only 27 Investing
Participants are obligated make an Investment Loss Contribution.
Assuming the aggregate Participant IM/GF Contributions of all Investing
Participants is 500,000 units and Investing Participant ``XYZ'' has a
Participant IM/GF Contribution of 20,000 (4%), Investing Participant
``XYZ'' has an Investment Loss Contribution of 120 units (4% of the
Investment Loss Shortfall). Whether a Participant is an Investing
Participant would be determined as of the time immediately prior to the
Investment Loss. In the case of simultaneous Investment Losses for the
house account and client origin account, available Investment Loss
Resources would be applied pro rata based on the amount of such
Investment Losses.
    The proposed approach in the Filing mutualizes Investment Losses
across Participants, in these remote loss scenarios where such losses
exceed applicable ICC resources allocated to such losses. This
Amendment No. 2 further clarifies that, with respect to the

client origin account, the obligation to pay an Investment Loss
Contribution is in respect of Investing Participants. Even though such
investment elections by Participants may shift the balances between
investment assets (subject to Investment Losses) and custodial assets
(subject to Custodial Losses), ICC believes that it is appropriate to
limit the allocation of Investment Losses in the client origin account
to Investing Participants. Moreover, ICC does not anticipate a
significant amount of non-Investing Participants. In ICC's view, the
amendments provide an appropriate and equitable method to allocate the
loss from an extreme non-default loss scenario and will facilitate
ICC's ability to allocate such loss so that it can continue clearing
operations.
    Additionally, ICC proposes the following clarifying revisions to
the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections of the Filing in the Form 19b-
4 and Exhibit 1A.
     ICC proposes to add the following text at the end of the
second paragraph under ``Definition of Loss Categories'' on page 5 of
the Form 19b-4 and on page 25 of Exhibit 1A: Investment Losses would be
determined separately for the house account and client origin account.
     ICC proposes to add the following text at the end of the
third paragraph under ``Treatment of Losses'' on page 6 of the Form
19b-4 and on page 27 of Exhibit 1A: In the case of simultaneous
Investment Losses for the house account and client origin account,
available Investment Loss Resources would be applied pro rata based on
the amount of such Investment Losses.
     ICC proposes to amend the fourth paragraph under
``Treatment of Losses'' on page 7 of the Form 19b-4 and on page 27 of
Exhibit 1A accordingly (new text is bolded and deleted text is
bracketed): In the event the Investment Loss Resources were
insufficient to cover the Investment Loss (an ``Investment Loss
Shortfall''), ICC would have the right, under Rule 811(d), to allocate
the Investment Loss Shortfall to [all] Participants (including any
Defaulting Participants). In th[at]e case of an Investment Loss in the
house account, each Participant would be obligated to make a
contribution (an ``Investment Loss Contribution''), based on its pro
rata share of the Investment Loss Shortfall, determined based on the
proportion of its aggregate Initial Margin (both house and customer)
and General Guaranty Fund contributions (its ``Participant IM/GF
Contribution'') as compared to the aggregate Participant IM/GF
Contributions for all Participants. In the case of an Investment Loss
in the client origin account, each Investing Participant (i.e., a
Participant that has instructed ICC to invest cash Initial Margin
provided by it in respect of its client origin account) would be
obligated to pay an Investment Loss Contribution equal to its pro rata
share of the Investment Loss Shortfall, determined based on the
proportion of its Participant IM/GF Contribution to the aggregate
Participant IM/GF Contributions of all Investing Participants. Under
Rule 811(e), the maximum contribution of a Participant for an
Investment Loss Contribution in respect of any event giving rise to an
Investment Loss may not exceed its Participant IM/GF Contribution.
Investment Loss Contributions could only be applied to Investment Loss
Shortfalls (and not Custodial Loss Shortfalls).
     ICC proposes to amend the second paragraph on page 17 of
the Form 19b-4 and the third paragraph on page 37 of Exhibit 1A
accordingly (new text is bolded and deleted text is bracketed): Under
the amendments, losses in excess of the amount of Investment Loss
Resources or Custodial Loss Resources would be shared among
Participants as set forth in Rule 811[, proportionally based on their
respective aggregate initial margin and guaranty fund contributions].
ICC has determined that the allocation of Investment Losses or
Custodial Losses, as the case may be, to Participants (which are
limited to Investing Participants in the case of Investment Losses in
the client origin account) should be made proportionately based on the
relative Participant IM/GF Contributions. The approach mutualizes both
Investment Losses and Custodial Losses across [all] Participants, in
these remote loss scenarios where such losses exceed applicable ICC
resources allocated to such losses. The approach also ensures that,
with respect to the client origin account, the obligation to pay an
Investment Loss Contribution is in respect of Investing Participants.
Participants may be required to make Loss Contributions that are
independent of the particular mix of cash and securities provided by
the Participant as margin or guaranty fund assets[, or any investment
elections made by the Participant with respect to its customer origin
account]. Nonetheless, ICC believes that the approach is appropriate in
light of the remote nature of the potential losses, the fact that
Participant margin and guaranty fund assets are invested and custodied
collectively, and the practical and operational considerations that
would be required for an approach that attempted to allocate losses
based on a Participant's particular assets [and elections]. [In this
regard, in ICC's view, individual elections by a Participant with
respect to its customer origin account are unlikely to affect the
overall risk of Investment Loss and Custodial Loss (and indeed,
investment elections by Participants will generally only shift the
balances between investment assets (subject to Investment Losses) and
custodial assets (subject to Custodial Losses)). Regardless of any
elections, t]The balance of investments, and the particular investments
made, may change on a daily (or more frequent) basis, as may the
balance of assets (and types of assets) held with any individual
Custodian, meaning that any attempt to allocate based on specific
Participant positions would have to be done on a real-time basis.
Furthermore, [all] Participant assets are held and invested on an
aggregate basis (excluding Participants that have instructed ICC not to
invest cash Initial Margin provided by it in respect of its client
origin account) [(]such that investments cannot be allocated to
particular Participants[)], and all such Participants receive a blended
rate of return from aggregate clearing house investment activity. [As a
result,] ICC does not believe it would be operationally feasible, or
beneficial to Participants, to attempt to allocate Investment or
Custodial Losses based on [particular investment elections made or]
assets maintained by individual Participants with the clearing house on
a real time basis. Instead, ICC believes it is more appropriate, in
light of these operational and other considerations, to allocate
Investment Losses and Custodial Losses, if any, to Participants (which
are limited to Investing Participants in the case of Investment Losses
in the client origin account) based on their respective aggregate
amount of Margin and General Guaranty Fund assets at the clearing
house.

II. Date of Effectives of Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,\11\ the Commission
shall by order approve, disapprove, or designate

a longer period for Commission action on proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapproved the proposed rule change, as modified
by Partial Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, by February 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, Relating to
Amendments to the ICC Clearing Rules To Address Non-Default Losses;
Exchange Act Release No. 87622 (Nov. 25, 2019); 84 FR 66041 (Dec. 2,
2019) (SR-ICC-2019-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Partial Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2019-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation. All comments received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-010 and should be
submitted on or before February 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01910 Filed 1-31-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16160-16161]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

[Docket DOT-OST-2021-0093]
RIN 2105-AE94

Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs: Addition of Oral Fluid Specimen Testing for Drugs; Extension
of Comment Period

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation is extending the comment
period for its oral fluid notice of proposed rulemaking. The original
comment period would close on March 30, 2022. The extension is granted
in response to requests received from stakeholders, who have stated the
March 30 closing date does not provide sufficient time for them to
prepare and submit of comments to the docket. The Department agrees to
extend the comment period by 30 days. Therefore, the closing date for
submission of comments is extended to April 29, 2022, which will
provide those entities submitting requests for an extension and others
interested in commenting on the proposed rulemaking additional time to
submit comments to the docket.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published February 28,
2022, at 87 FR 11156, is extended. Comments must be received on or
before April 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2021-0093/document and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: To ensure proper docketing of your comment, please
include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2021-0093 or the
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN), 2105-AE94 for the rulemaking at
the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice M. Kelly, JD, Office of Drug
and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 28, 2022, at 87 FR 11156, DOT published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend its
transportation industry drug testing program procedures regulations, 49
CFR part 40, to include oral fluid testing. The proposal includes other
provisions to update the Department's regulation, and to harmonize, as
needed, with the new Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug
Testing Programs using Oral Fluid established by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. In addition to adding oral fluid as a drug
testing method and harmonizing with pertinent OFMG sections, we also
propose to clarify certain part 40 provisions that cover urine drug
testing procedures; to remove provisions that no longer are necessary;
to add clarifying language to other provisions such as updated
definitions and web links, as appropriate; and to update provisions to
reflect issues that have arisen in recent practice.
    All members of the public, including DOT-regulated employers and
employees, urine collectors, HHS-NLCP certified laboratories, Medical
Review Officers, Substance Abuse Professionals, and Consortium/Third
Party Administrations, Transportation trade organizations, and labor
organizations are invited to submit comments.
    The original comment period for the proposal would have closed
March 30,

2022. However, DOT stakeholders have expressed concern that this
closing date does not provide sufficient time to coordinate with their
respective members to develop comments to the NPRM and/or to submit
comments to the docket. To allow time for interested parties to submit
comments, the closing date is changed from March 30, 2022 to April 29,
2022.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2022.
Patrice M. Kelly,
Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-05972 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10529-10530]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

``Checking in with the SEC's Enforcement Division''; SEC File No.
270-598; OMB Control No. 3235-NEW.

    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'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit a
questionnaire to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.
    The Commission intends to send the questionnaire to Securities Law
Practitioners, Securities Law Professors and Securities Industry
Participants. The questionnaire consists of three (3) questions. It
asks participants to identify activities that they believe to be
significant, to explain why and to rank the significance of the
activities.
    The Commission needs the information to develop a balanced,
informed, and insightful perspective on the impact of the Division's
activities. Ultimately, this will be used in developing a new metrics
beyond Enforcement statistics, which will assist the Division in
evaluating and prioritizing its activities. A secondary purpose is to
create an effective medium of communication to encourage and

facilitate dialogue from industry participants.
    The respondents to the questionnaire are Securities Law
Practitioners, Securities Law Professors and Securities Industry
Participants.
    The total estimated reporting burden of the questionnaire is
approximately twenty-two and a half (22.5) hours semi-annually. It is
estimated that it will take each respondent approximately thirty (30)
minutes to complete the questionnaire. Assuming that all forty-five
(45) individuals respond, the total estimated burden will be twenty-two
and a half (22.5) hours semi-annually. This was calculated by
multiplying the total number of respondents times how long it is
estimated to take to complete the questionnaire (45 respondents x 30
minutes = 22 hours and 30 minutes). Since the information collection is
intended to be sent out semi-annually, the total yearly burden will be
forty-five hours (45), totaling one (1) hour per respondent annually.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to 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>
    March 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4741 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 4032-4034]
[DOCID:fr22ja09-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0323; FRL-8763-8]

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted
San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and
Attainment Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy and inadequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency
has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2011,
2014 and 2017 from the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA is also
notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the years 2008, 2020 and 2023 from the San
Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan are inadequate for transportation
conformity purposes. The San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan was
submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007 by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP), and includes reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard. On February 1, 2008, CARB
submitted supplemental technical information related to reasonable
further progress for the 8-hour ozone standard in San Joaquin Valley.
As a result of our adequacy findings, the San Joaquin Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organizations

and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the adequate
budgets, and cannot use the inadequate budgets, for future conformity
determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective February 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, U.S. EPA, Region IX,
Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(775) 833-1276 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on January 8, 2009
stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted San
Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan, as supplemented by CARB on February 1,
2008, for the reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone years of
2011, 2014, 2017 are adequate. The finding is available at EPA's
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
adequacy.htm. The adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided
in the following table:

                                         Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
                                         [Summer planning tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                           2011                      2014                      2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              County                   VOC\1\        NOX         VOC\1\        NOX         VOC\1\        NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................         15.5         47.9         12.9         37.2         11.1         29.1
Kern (SJV)........................         15.7         79.4         13.5         64.1         11.6         49.5
Kings.............................          3.4         15.9          2.8         12.3          2.3          9.4
Madera............................          3.7         12.2          3.1          9.7          2.6          7.7
Merced............................          6.2         28.8          5.1         22.3          4.2         17.1
San Joaquin.......................         12.1         34.7         10.1         27.8          8.6         21.3
Stanislaus........................          9.0         22.3          7.5         17.2          6.5         13.4
Tulare............................          9.2         20.9          7.7         16.6          6.7         13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The plan uses a comparable State term, reactive organic gases (ROG).

    Our letter dated January 8, 2009 also states that budgets for 2008,
2020, and 2023 are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes.
The San Joaquin Valley 8-hour ozone plan does not show reasonable
further progress for the year 2008. As a result, one of the
transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria is not met (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)), and thus, the 2008 budget is inadequate. The State
has included additional on-road mobile source emissions reductions in
the budgets for 2020 and 2023 from the 2007 State Strategy for the
California SIP. The adequate budgets include no such reductions but
rather reflect emissions reductions from CARB rules that have already
been adopted. EPA has determined that the 2020 and 2023 budgets are
inadequate because they include new emission reductions that do not
result from specific or enforceable control measures. As a result,
three of the transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria are not
met (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these budgets. The
inadequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the
following table:

                                    Inadequate Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
                                         [Summer planning tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                           2008                      2020                      2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              County                   VOC\1\        NOX         VOC\1\        NOX         VOC\1\        NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................         18.6         58.5          8.0         16.9          7.8         15.7
Kern (SJV)........................         18.1         93.9          8.5         28.4          8.1         24.8
Kings.............................          3.9         18.3          1.7          5.3          1.6          4.7
Madera............................          4.4         14.6          1.9          4.8          1.9          4.5
Merced............................          7.4         35.5          2.9          9.9          2.8          9.0
San Joaquin.......................         13.9         40.0          6.3         12.7          6.3         11.9
Stanislaus........................         10.5         26.7          4.9          8.0          4.6          7.1
Tulare............................         10.5         23.4          5.2          8.4          4.8          7.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The plan uses a comparable State term, reactive organic gases (ROG).

    Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the San Joaquin
Valley 2007 Ozone Plan was announced on EPA's transportation conformity
Web site on April 18, 2008. We received comments in response to the
adequacy review posting. The finding and the response to comments are
available at EPA's transportation conformity Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section
176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission

budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule
(62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process for
determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004
final rule (69 FR 40004, 40038), and we used the information in these
resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that an
adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and should
not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP.
Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

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

    Dated: January 9, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-1110 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67417-67418]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28200]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33334; 812-14947]

TigerShares Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

December 20, 2018.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers.
    Applicants: TigerShares Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware statutory
trust that is registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company, and Wealthn LLC (the ``Initial Adviser''), a
Pennsylvania limited liability company that will be registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(collectively with the Trust, the ``Applicants'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 5, 2018.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on January 14, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 3532 Muirwood Drive,
Newtown Square, PA 19073.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin C. Loomis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6721, or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Summary of the Application:
    1. An Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to each
Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the
Trust (the ``Investment Management Agreement'').\1\ An Adviser will
provide each Subadvised Series with continuous investment management
services, subject to the supervision of, and policies established by,
the board of trustees of the Trust (the ``Board''). Each Investment
Management Agreement permits the Adviser, subject to the approval of
the Board, to delegate to one or more sub-advisers (each, a ``Sub-
Adviser'' and collectively, the ``Sub-Advisers'') the responsibility to
provide the day-to-day portfolio investment management of each
Subadvised Series, subject to the supervision and direction of the
Adviser.\2\ The primary responsibility for managing each Subadvised
Series will remain vested in the Adviser. The Adviser will hire,
evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the Sub-Advisers, including
determining whether a Sub-Adviser should be terminated, at all times
subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to the named
Applicants, as well as to any future series of the Trust and any
other registered open-end management investment company or series
thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Initial Adviser, its successors,
or any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control
with the Initial Adviser or its successors (each, an ``Adviser'');
(b) uses the multi-manager structure described in the application;
and (c) complies with the terms and conditions set forth in the
application (each, a ``Subadvised Series''). For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ A ``Sub-Adviser'' for a Subadvised Series is (1) an indirect
or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in
the Act) of the Adviser for that Subadvised Series, or (2) a sister
company of the Adviser for that Subadvised Series that is an
indirect or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' of the same company
that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each of (1)
and (2) a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers''), or (3) not an ``affiliated person''
(as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the
Subadvised Series or the Adviser, except to the extent that an
affiliation arises solely because the Sub-Adviser serves as a sub-
adviser to a Subadvised Series (``Non-Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject
to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-
Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory
Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.\3\ Applicants
also seek an exemption from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a
Subadvised Series to disclose (as both a dollar amount and a percentage
of the Subadvised Series' net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to
the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser; (b) the aggregate fees
paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each
Affiliated Sub-Adviser (collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, who is an affiliated person,
as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Series,
the Trust or of the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a
sub-adviser to one or more of the Subadvised Series (``Affiliated
Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series shareholders and
notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to
protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Investment
Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder

approval while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to
that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder
approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and
expenses on the Subadvised Series.
    Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure
Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's
ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more
advantageous for the Subadvised Series.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28200 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51437-51439]
[DOCID:fr07se07-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, FRL-8465-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal); EPA ICR
No. 0820.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0035

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2007-0417, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2007-0417. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim O'Leary, Office of Solid Waste,
(5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
308-0514; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft

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

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;

    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

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

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

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
private sector; State, Local, or Tribal Governments; and the Federal
Government.
    Title: Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0820.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0035.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2008. 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: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of
hazardous waste. The core of the national waste management program is
the regulation of hazardous waste from generation to transport to
treatment and eventual disposal, or from ``cradle to grave.'' Section
3001(d) of RCRA requires EPA to develop standards for small quantity
generators. Section 3002 of RCRA, among other things, states that EPA
shall establish requirements for hazardous waste generators regarding
recordkeeping practices. Section 3002 also requires EPA to establish
standards on appropriate use of containers by generators.
    Finally, section 3017 of RCRA specifies requirements for
individuals exporting hazardous waste from the United States, including
a notification of the intent to export, and an annual report
summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination
of all exported hazardous waste.
    This ICR addresses the following categories of informational
requirements in part 262: pre-transport requirements for both large
(LQG) and small (SQG) quantity generators; air emission standards
requirements for LQGs (referenced in 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts I and
J); recordkeeping and reporting requirements for LQGs and SQGs; and
export requirements for LQGs and SQGs (i.e., notification of intent to
export and annual reporting).
    This collection of information is necessary to help generators and
EPA: (1) Identify and understand the waste streams being generated and
the hazards associated with them; (2) determine whether employees have
acquired the necessary expertise to perform their jobs; and (3)
determine whether LQGs have developed adequate procedures to respond to
unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents to air, soil, or surface water. This information is also
needed to help EPA determine whether tank systems are operated in a
manner that is fully protective of human health and the environment and
to ensure that releases to the environment are managed quickly and
efficiently.
    Additionally, this information contributes to EPA's goal of
preventing contamination of the environment from hazardous waste
accumulation practices, including contamination from equipment leaks
and process vents. Export information is needed to ensure that: (1)
foreign governments consent to U.S. exported wastes; (2) exported waste
is actually managed at facilities listed in the original notifications;
and (3) documents are available for compliance audits and enforcement
actions. In general, these requirements contribute to EPA's goal of
preventing contamination of the environment.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for LQGs under this collection of information is estimated to be
13.18 hours (averaged across all LQG respondents). The average public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for SQGs under this collection of
information is estimated to be 1.22 hours (averaged across all SQG
respondents). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 124,382.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 453,083.
    Estimated total annual costs: $28,532,136. This includes an
estimated $28,475,842 in labor costs and an estimated $56,294 for
capital investments and operation and maintenance costs.

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

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue

another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 27, 2007.
Matthew Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. E7-17688 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P