[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12650-12653]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018]

BMW of North America, LLC--Receipt of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Adaptive Driving Beam; BMW of North
America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America--Request for Certain
Information To Support Petitions for Adaptive Driving Beams

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for a temporary exemption of
adaptive driving beam (ADB) headlighting systems from certain headlamp
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108;
Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment and request for
certain information for exemption petitions for ADB headlighting
systems.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, BMW of
North America, LLC has petitioned the Agency for a temporary exemption
from certain headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to allow the use of
its Glare-Free High Beam Assist, a type of ADB headlighting system. BMW
requests the exemption on the basis that it would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to that of the standard. NHTSA
has made no judgment on the merits of the application. This notice of
receipt of an application for a temporary exemption is published in
accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.
    We also request additional information from BMW, Volkswagen (for
which the Agency previously published a notice of receipt of an
exemption petition for an ADB headlighting system) and other
manufacturers who petition for similar exemptions for ADB systems.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than April 23, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Piazza, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC0200, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number in
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or
you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 2016, Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen) submitted a
petition for an exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment, to allow the use of ADB headlights. NHTSA
published a notice of receipt of this petition on September 11, 2017
(82 FR 42720) and provided a 30-day comment period. BMW of North
America, LLC (BMW) has submitted a similar petition, dated October 27,
2017, for an ADB system. Since the petitions are similar, we are
placing them in the same docket. However, they may or may not be
jointly decided.
    This notice accomplishes two things. First, it serves as a notice
of receipt of BMW's petition. Second, it requests additional
information from both Volkswagen and BMW. In addition, if other
manufacturers submit similar petitions for ADB systems, we ask that
they furnish the information detailed in this notice. As we note below,
the requested information is not required, but it will assist the
Agency in determining whether it can make the findings required in
order to grant exemptions for ADB systems.

II. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety
standard or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C.
30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this
section to NHTSA.
    The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary
exemption to a vehicle manufacturer under certain conditions. Under the
conditions relevant to this petition, the Secretary may grant a
petition on finding that the exemption is consistent with the public
interest and with the Safety Act, and that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety
level of the standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements specified
in 49 CFR 555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of
the application by providing the information required under Part 555.6,
and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
    A petition on the basis that the exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the
standard must include the information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(b). The
main requirements of that section include:
    (1) A description of the safety or impact protection features, and
research, development, and testing documentation establishing the
innovational nature of such features;
    (2) An analysis establishing that the level of safety or impact
protection of the feature is equivalent to or exceeds the level of
safety or impact protection established in the standard from which
exemption is sought, including the following: A detailed description of
how a vehicle equipped with the safety or impact protection feature
differs from one that complies with the standard; if applicant is
presently manufacturing a vehicle conforming to the standard, the
results of tests conducted to substantiate certification to the
standard; and the results of tests conducted on the safety or impact
protection features that demonstrates performance which meets or
exceeds the requirements of the standard;
    (3) Substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle;
    (4) A statement whether, at the end of the exemption period, the
manufacturer intends to conform to the standard, apply for a further
exemption, or petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to
incorporate the safety or impact protection features; and
    (5) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will be
sold in the United States in any 12-month period for which an exemption
may be granted pursuant to this paragraph.

III. Overview of BMW's Petition

    BMW has submitted a petition asking the Agency for a temporary
exemption from certain headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for
vehicles equipped with its Glare-Free High Beam Assist, a type of ADB
headlamp system. ADB is defined by SAE International (SAE) as a long-
range forward visibility light beam that adapts to the presence of
opposing (i.e., approaching from the opposite direction) and preceding
vehicles by modifying portions of the projected light in order to
reduce glare to the drivers and riders of those vehicles. BMW is
targeting deployment of its Glare-Free High Beam Assist for the 2019
model year.
    In order to do so, BMW requests an exemption from the requirements
of S9.4 and S10.14.6 of FMVSS No. 108. S9.4 requires that a vehicle
have a means of switching between lower and upper beams designed and
located so that it may be operated conveniently by a simple movement of
the driver's hand or foot; that the switch have no dead point; and,
except as provided by S<IP_ADDRESS>, that the lower and upper beams must not
be energized simultaneously except momentarily for temporary signaling
purposes or during switching between beams. S10.14.6 specifies the
photometry requirements for integral beam headlighting systems. BMW
seeks an exemption from the requirement of S9.4 that prohibits the
simultaneous energization of the lower and upper beams. BMW seeks an
exemption from the upper beam photometry requirements of S10.14.6 of
FMVSS 108. The photometry requirements specify minimum and maximum
photometric intensities of the upper beam light that may not be met by
the Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
    The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. BMW explains how the Glare-Free High Beam Assist operates and
the safety benefits it

believes the system would offer. BMW explains that the safety benefit
is that it incorporates the advantages of upper beams, thereby
enhancing visibility, while avoiding the disadvantages of upper beams
by adjusting the light distribution and intensity to eliminate
unnecessary glare for other road users. BMW intends to bring the Glare-
Free High Beam Assist into the U.S. market utilizing its BMW Laserlight
system. The BMW Laserlight is currently produced on the BMW i8 and
features an FDA-approved laser that provides the upper beam function.
    In order to establish the innovative and safety-improving nature of
the Glare-Free High Beam Assist, BMW references research and testing
documentation, including the following: an analysis conducted by BMW of
real-world upper beam use in vehicles with and without Glare-Free High
Beam Assist; a study comparing the glare of low beam, upper beam, and
glare-free upper beams illumination under different road conditions;
and the research referenced in the pending Toyota and Volkswagen
petitions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2013, Toyota submitted a petition for rulemaking to
amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit manufacturers the option of equipping
vehicles with ADB technology (Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BMW explains that it first offered its Glare-Free High Beam Assist
in the European market in March 2012 and has since produced
approximately 612,131 vehicles so equipped. In that time, BMW received
417 customer complaints related to the headlamps and/or camera system,
equating to a rate of less than 0.07%. (BMW states that because these
complaints encompass all claims related to the subsystems shared by the
traditional High Beam Assist function, the Glare-Free High Beam Assist
system may only represent a subset of those total claims.) BMW also
states that since the introduction of the Glare-Free High Beam Assist
in 2012 it has made numerous improvements to the system. BMW states
that all vehicles sold under the exemption will meet the SAE standard
for ADB systems, SAE J3069 JUN2016. BMW also provides a compliance test
report to demonstrate that vehicles it currently manufacturers comply
with the headlamp-related requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
    BMW states that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development and field evaluation of the Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
BMW states that testing of the system with consumers in a diverse set
of conditions would provide invaluable information about the system
that could not be obtained through testing using professional
evaluators in laboratory conditions. BMW states that it would obtain
data through field testing concerning the amount of time that the
headlights are on, the time that the system is activated, the time that
full upper beams from the system are on, and the time that the Glare-
Free High Beam Assist is activated.
    BMW requests a two-year exemption and states that it will not sell
more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period covered by the
exemption. If the law concerning the maximum number of exempted
vehicles should change before the present exemption is approved, BMW
requests that NHTSA extend BMW's maximum allowable production limit to
reflect those changes, if warranted.

IV. Completeness of BMW's Petition

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition to determine whether it is complete and whether the petitioner
appears to be eligible to apply for the requested exemption. The Agency
has tentatively concluded that the petition from BMW is complete and
that BMW is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption. The Agency has
not made any judgment on the merits of the application, and is placing
a copy of the petition and other related materials in the docket.
However, as explained below, we are requesting additional information
from BMW (as well as from Volkswagen and other manufacturers who submit
exemption petitions for ADB headlamps).

V. Request for Additional Information From BMW and Volkswagen as Well
as Any Subsequent Petitioners for ADB Systems

    Although we have concluded that the petitions submitted by
Volkswagen and BMW are technically complete (i.e., contain the
information required by Sec.  555.5), NHTSA is seeking additional
information from both petitioners. While the information we are
requesting is not required, its submission will improve the
persuasiveness of the petitions and may influence the timing and nature
of the Agency's ultimate decisions on the petitions. If either
Volkswagen or BMW does not intend to send in the additional information
identified below, we ask that it notify the Agency in writing.
    In addition, the Agency requests than any future exemption
petitions for ADB systems include this information.

Additional Information Requested

    We request that Volkswagen and BMW (unless they have already
provided the identified information to the Agency), as well as any
future petitioners for ADB systems, provide the Agency with information
(such as test reports, evaluations, and narrative explanations)
demonstrating the following:
    1. Their system meets the requirements of Section 6.5 in SAE J3069
JUN2016. This requirement specifies a variety of test drives of a
vehicle equipped with ADB and requires that the measured illuminance
must remain below the maximum values specified in the standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These values are based on NHTSA-sponsored research. See
Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. Feasibility of New
Approaches for the Regulation of Motor Vehicle Lighting Performance.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Within the ADB Non-Glare Zone,\4\ their system meets the
photometric intensity requirements specified in Table XIX-a, XIX-b, or
XIX-c (i.e., the lower beam photometric test points) in FMVSS No. 108,
as specified in Table II of that standard for the applicable headlamp
unit and aiming method, when tested according to the procedure of
S14.2.5 of that standard, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting
systems, when using any replaceable light source designated for use in
the system under test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in SAE J3069 this is ``[t]he area of reduced
light intensity in the ADB directed towards opposing or preceding
vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Outside the ADB Non-Glare Zone, their system meets the
photometric intensity requirements specified in Table XVIII in FMVSS
No. 108 (i.e., the upper beam photometric test points) as specified in
Table II of that standard for the applicable headlamp unit and aiming
method, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5 of that
standard, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using
any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under
test.
    4. Their vehicle is equipped with a lower beam that complies with
all photometric and other requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the lower
beam.
    5. Their vehicle is equipped with an upper beam that complies with
all photometric and other requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the upper
beam.
    6. Their headlighting system will never provide a beam pattern
other than one that meets the criteria of either (i) Item 2 and Item 3
above; or (ii) Item 4 above; or (iii) Item 5 above;
    7. Their system contains a manual driver override which is simple
to operate and easy to understand.
    8. Their system reverts to lower beam if the camera and/or other
equipment is

obstructed or the system experiences any other malfunction.
    9. Unless manually over-ridden by the driver, their lighting
systems produces a lower beam compliant with all FMVSS No. 108 lower
beam photometric test points at speeds under 25 mph.
    For any of the photometric requirements referenced above, NHTSA
requests that petitioners provide the measured illuminance values for
the specified test points, and not simply state whether the measured
illuminance value is a ``Pass'' or a ``Fail.'' If the measured
illuminance values exceed the specified maximum or fall short of the
specified minimum, it would be advantageous to the petitioner to
explain these results.

VI. Comment Period

    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of BMW's
application for a temporary exemption from S9.4 and S10.14.6 of FMVSS
No. 108. We are providing a 30-day comment period.
    In addition, when the Agency receives from Volkswagen and BMW
either notice that they intend not to submit the requested information
or all or part of the requested information, the Agency will publish a
notice of availability in the Federal Register and place the submission
in the docket. After considering public comments and other available
information, we will publish (either jointly or a separately) a notice
of final action on the applications in the Federal Register.

Raymond R. Posten
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-05772 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72973-72975]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4033]

Sunscreen Innovation Act: Nonprescription Sunscreen Drug
Products--Content and Format of Data Submissions; Draft Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft

guidance for industry entitled ``Nonprescription Sunscreen Drug
Products--Content and Format of Data Submissions to Support a GRASE
Determination Under the Sunscreen Innovation Act''. This draft guidance
addresses FDA's current thinking on how we will determine whether a
sponsor's submission of safety and efficacy data is sufficiently
complete to support a substantive review and determination under the
Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) that an active ingredient is or is not
generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) for use in
nonprescription sunscreen products. This guidance is being issued in
accordance with the SIA.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by January 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions''.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-4033 for ``Nonprescription Sunscreen Drug Products--Content
and Format of Data Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry;
Availability''. Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Hardin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5443, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-
4246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Nonprescription Sunscreen Drug Products--Content and Format
of Data Submissions to Support a GRASE Determination Under the
Sunscreen Innovation Act''.
    This draft guidance is being issued in accordance with the SIA (21
U.S.C. Ch. 9 Sub. 5 Part I), enacted November 26, 2014, which amended
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). Section
586D(a)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff-4(a)(1)(A)(i)), as
added by the SIA, directs FDA to issue guidance on the format and
content of information submitted to FDA in support of a request for a
determination whether a sunscreen active ingredient or combination of
active ingredients is GRASE and not misbranded for use in
nonprescription sunscreen products. The information in this guidance is
intended to help sponsors and manufacturers prepare a GRASE data
submission that is sufficiently complete (including being formatted in
a manner that enables FDA to determine its completeness) to enable FDA
to conduct a substantive GRASE review, as required by section
586B(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff-2(b)(2)).
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the format and
content of GRASE data submissions under the SIA. It does not establish
any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative approach if

it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains collections of information that are exempt
from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Section 586D(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff-4(a)(1)(C))
states that the PRA shall not apply to information collected under this
guidance.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 16, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-29637 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59038-59039]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0069]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments;
Clearance of a New Information Collection(s): U.S. Department of
Transportation Accessibility Concern Form

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994, (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) intention to request the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) approval for the utilization of the U.S. Department
of Transportation Accessibility Concern Form when reporting
accessibility challenges faced during travel on our Nation's streets,
sidewalks, crosswalks, buses, trains, airports, and planes. The system
will provide an accessible, coordinated, and seamless web-based portal
for the traveling public to submit accessibility problems or challenges
they face during travel on the Nation's streets, sidewalks, crosswalks,
buses, trains, airports, and planes. The establishment of the system is
in response the President's National Council on Disability (NCD)
Report, ``Transition Update: Where We've Been and What We've Learned,''
released in 2015, as well as a letter to the Secretary of
Transportation from the NCD dated May 12, 2015. The information
received through the system will strengthen DOT's ability to understand
the challenges and impacts that passengers with disabilities face every
day when they use our nation' transportation systems. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on
this information collection was published on June 13, 2016 (81 FR
38264). No comments were received.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by September 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments may
also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Rivera, Departmental Office of
Civil Rights, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202-
366-4648<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: XXXX-NEW.
    Title: Transportation Accessibility Concern Form.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: OMB Approval.
    Background: The current process for submitting concerns about
American with Disabilities Act, as amended, (ADA) and other related
civil rights violations is fragmented across the Department--sometimes
being time consuming and cumbersome for the traveling public.
Establishing a streamlined and consistent process would respond
directly to the President's National Council on Disability, and more
importantly, the

information received through this new system would strengthen our
ability to understand the challenges and impacts that persons with
disabilities face every day as they travel using our nation's
transportation systems. This would also offer significant improvements
to ensuring that access to all modes of transportation is available to
persons with disabilities and members of the public.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: the U.S. Department of
Transportation currently collects data on ADA and other civil rights-
related concerns based on information provided by the public via
written submission, or through a toll-free telephone number. Based on
our analysis of data collected through present formats, DOT receives
approximately 850 separate responses from the general public on
accessibility-related concerns, including:
     150 pieces of correspondence on one-time accessibility-
related incidents
     120 email messages
     400 telephone calls
     172 formal accessibility-related complaints.
    Currently, the estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 15 to 30
minutes per submission.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including, (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper processing of
transportation-related accessibility issues; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for the DOT to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information. All responses to the notice will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become
a matter of public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2016.
Habib Azarsina,
OST Privacy and PRA Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-20491 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR
PESTICIDE PETITIONS

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049

EPA Registration Division contact:  Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

lnterregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition Number: 5E8437

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 5E8437) from lnterregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposing pursuant to section 408 (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a (d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish tolerances for the residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone in or on Basil, fresh leaves, at 10.0 parts per million (ppm); basil, dried leaves, at 80 ppm; Caneberry subgroup13-07A, at 0.5 ppm; additionally, as designated in proposed "Tolerance Crop Grouping Program IV" (79 FR 68153, 11/14/2014), tolerances are proposed for: i) all individual crops in the proposed leafy greens subgroup, 4-14A at 15 ppm including amaranth, Chinese; amaranth, leafy; aster, Indian; blackjack; cat's whiskers; chervil, fresh leaves; cham-chwi; cham-na-mul; chipilin; chrysanthemum, garland; cilantro, fresh leaves; corn salad; cosmos; dandelion; dang-gwi; dillweed; dock; dol-nam-mul; ebolo; endive; escarole; fameflower; feather cockscomb; good king henry; huauzontle; jute, leaves; lettuce, bitter; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; orach; parsley, fresh leaves; plantain, buckhorn; primrose, English; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio; spinach; spinach, malabar; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, tanier; swiss chard; and violet, Chinese; ii) all individual crops in the proposed brassica leafy greens, subgroup 4-14B at 10 ppm including, arugula; broccoli raab; broccoli, Chinese; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; Chinese cabbage, bok choy; collards; cress, garden; cress, upland; hanover salad; kale; maca; mizuna; mustard greens; radish, leaves; rape greens; rocket, wild; shepherd's purse; turnip greens; and watercress; iii) all individual crops in the proposed brassica head and stem vegetable, group 5-14 at 1.5 ppm including broccoli; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese, napa; and cauliflower; and iv) all individual crops in the proposed stalk and stem vegetable, subgroup 22A at 2 ppm including agave; aloe vera; asparagus; bamboo, shoots; celtuce; fennel, florence, fresh leaves and stalk; fern, edible; kale, sea; kohlrabi; palm hearts; prickly pear, pads; and prickly pear, Texas, pads. Upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances, it is proposed that 40 CFR 180.685 be amended to remove the established tolerances for the residues of oxathiapiprolin in or on the raw agricultural commodities leafy greens subgroup 4A at 15 ppm and brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d) (2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism.  The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin is adequately understood to support the proposed tolerances. Studies in grape, lettuce and potato when treated at proposed label rates showed no significant metabolites.  The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in plants was similar regardless of the crop or the treatment regime.  Oxathiapiprolin was the principal residue in most crop fractions at various sampling points up to crop maturity.  The overall metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in rotated crops (cereals, root vegetables, leafy vegetables) was consistent with metabolism seen in the primary crops.

2. Livestock Metabolism. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in ruminants and poultry is adequately understood to support the proposed tolerances.  Lactating goat and monogastric hen metabolism studies were conducted. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in the rat was, in general, consistent with that of the lactating goat (ruminant) and monogastric hen.

3. Analytical method.  Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available for enforcement purposes.

4. Magnitude of residues. IR-4 and Canada have submitted field trial data for oxathiapiprolin on basil, asparagus, caneberry, and mustard greens.  The number and locations of the field trials are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500.  Field trials were carried out using the maximum number of applications and minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) for all the crops.
The results of these field trials substantiate oxathiapiprolin as the major residue at harvest in all crop commodities.  Livestock feeding studies were not conducted.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. Based on EPA criteria, technical oxathiapiprolin is classified as acute toxicology category IV based on overall results from several studies. This compound is considered acute toxicology category IV for acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity and eye and skin irritation. Technical oxathiapiprolin is not a dermal sensitizer.

No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in an acute study conducted with oxathiapiprolin in rats. The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) and no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) in an acute neurotoxicity study were 2000 mg oxathiapiprolin/kg bw, which was the highest dose administered in the study.

2. Genotoxicty. Oxathiapiprolin was evaluated in a battery of in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology studies.  Negative results were obtained in all studies indicating that oxathiapiprolin does not cause genetic damage and, therefore, does not pose a mutagenic hazard.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No effects on fertility were observed in one- and two-generation reproduction studies in rats.  No effects on development were observed in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Slight delays in maturation were observed in male rats in the reproduction studies, with a NOAEL of 104 mg/kg bw/day.  At much higher doses, decreases in offspring body weight were also observed.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Short-term oral feeding studies with oxathiapiprolin were conducted in rats, mice and dogs with durations of up to 90 days.  In addition, two other studies were performed in rats: a 14-day oral gavage study (conducted as a part of early discovery) and a 28-day dermal study. No adverse effects were observed in any of these studies. In all cases, the NOAELs were greater than or equal to 1000 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) body weight (bw)/day. Non-adverse findings observed in these studies were limited to changes in organ weights, clinical chemistry parameters and liver cytochrome P450 isozymes.

Oxathiapiprolin showed no evidence of immunotoxicity in a 28-day feeding study in mice.  Additionally, no indications of a potential for oxathiapiprolin to affect the immune system were noted in the repeated dose toxicity studies with rats, mice or dogs. Based on this, oxathiapiprolin does not appear to pose an immunotoxic hazard.

Neurotoxicity endpoints were included in the subchronic (90-day feeding) study that tested up to intake levels of >1000 mg/kg bw/day in male and female rats. No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed.  No treatment-related clinical signs indicative of potential neurotoxicity were observed in repeated dose studies in mice or dogs.

5. Chronic toxicity. Based on the results of chronic feeding studies in rats and mice, oxathiapiprolin was not carcinogenic in either species.  No indications of chronic toxicity were observed in either study.  A one-year toxicity study was also conducted in dogs, with no toxicologically relevant findings.  Possible test substance-related changes in organ weights and clinical chemistry parameters were observed.

6. Rat metabolism. [[14]C]Oxathiapiprolin was investigated in rats after single low and high dose administration, and after multiple treatments at low doses.  At the low dose (10 mg/kg bw) absorption was 31-49%, and declined to 5.4-7.7% at the high dose (200 mg/kg bw).  Peak plasma concentrations occurred at 0.25-9.5 hours.  Plasma [14]C residue concentrations showed steady-state kinetics in male and female rats after multiple low dose administrations (10 mg/kg bw for 14 days).
Maximum tissue concentrations at Tmax occurred in the liver.  Clearance was rapid for liver and other tissues by 168 hours after dosing.  All tissues at 168 hours, including the carcass, collectively retained <0.05% of the dose.  The pattern of distribution was similar between sexes and single and multiple dose administration.  The low percentage and concentration values in tissues indicate very low potential for accumulation.
Plasma terminal elimination half-lives ranged from 40-51 hours following single or multiple low-dose administration.  Excretion in urine and faeces was >95% complete by 48 hours after single dosing.  The pattern of excretion was similar after multiple dosing.  Faecal excretion was the primary route of elimination (90%).  Recovery in urine was much lower (2.5%).  Essentially no excretion occurred by exhalation.
Oxathiapiprolin metabolism pathways mainly involved hydroxylation at various ring carbons and ring opening.  Pyrazole-piperidine bridge cleavage followed by further oxidation resulted in pyrazole metabolites.
7. Metabolite toxicology. Oxathiapiprolin is considered to be the only molecule of toxicological relevance.  Toxicology studies conducted with metabolites support this conclusion.

8. Endocrine disruption. No relevant effects were observed on any endocrine tissue in short- and long-term studies in rats, mice and dogs to suggest an adverse impact on estrogen or androgen pathways or on steroid biosynthesis.  The reproduction studies in rats provided sufficient information to fully interpret the effects of oxathiapiprolin on reproduction. No observations in that study suggested an adverse effect on estrogen. Additionally, investigational studies were conducted that suggest no adverse effects on estrogen. The slight delay in maturation observed in male rats in the reproduction studies may be exacerbated by weight effects; however, the data suggest that other factors are involved. Investigational studies did not reveal any adverse effects on androgens by oxathiapiprolin in rats.

C. Aggregate Exposure

The residue of concern is parent oxathiapiprolin only. Due to the limited toxicity observed in the oxathiapiprolin toxicological database, EPA previously determined that toxicological endpoints and points of departure (POD) were not required for oxathiapiprolin.

1. Dietary exposure

While dietary exposure to oxathiapiprolin may occur through food and drinking water, no risks of concern are anticipated due to the lack of toxicity at anticipated human exposure levels from the proposed new uses for oxathiapiprolin.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Since there are no residential or home uses non-dietary exposure has not been assessed.

D. Cumulative Effects

A determination has not been made that oxathiapiprolin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Oxathiapiprolin does not appear to produce a common toxic metabolite with other substances. A cumulative risk assessment was, therefore, not performed for this analysis.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. While dietary exposure to oxathiapiprolin may occur through food and drinking water, no risks of concern are anticipated due to the lack of toxicity at anticipated human exposure levels from the proposed new uses for oxathiapiprolin. Thus, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate exposure to oxathiapiprolin.  No additional safety factors are warranted.

2. Infants and children. While dietary exposure to oxathiapiprolin may occur through food and drinking water, no risks of concern are anticipated due to the lack of toxicity at anticipated human exposure levels from the proposed new uses for oxathiapiprolin. Thus, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to oxathiapiprolin.  No additional safety factors are warranted.

F. INTERNATIONAL TOLERANCES

No tolerances have been established to date for oxathiapiprolin on the proposed new uses.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75599-75602]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29619]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73832; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

December 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 1, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 Fees Schedule, effective
December 1, 2014. First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Trade
Processing Services fee. Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.0025 fee
per contract side for each matched and unmatched trade. The Exchange
notes that unmatched trades are also charged if and when they become
matched. As such, the Exchange does not believe it's necessary to
charge unmatched trades the Trading Processing Fee, as the trades
ultimately will be charged once matched. The Exchange further notes
that when the fee was adopted, the billing processes were done manually
and the fee helped offset the work involved in processing each of the
trades, both matched and unmatched. The Exchange notes that this
billing process is now automated and does not believe it is necessary
to continue to bill unmatched trades. The Exchange additionally
proposes to explicitly state in the Fees Schedule that for billing
purposes, the Trade Processing Services fee will be rounded to the
nearest $0.01 using standard rounding rules on a monthly basis.
    Currently, the Fees Schedule states that the quoting bandwidth
allowance for a Market-Maker Trading Permit is equivalent to a maximum
of 32,400,000 quotes over the course of a trading day. The Exchange
intends to increase quoting bandwidth allowance by 10%. As such, the
Exchange seeks to make a corresponding amendment to the Fees Schedule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to update the number of maximum
quotes over the course of trading day from 32,400,000 to 35,640,000.
The Exchange notes that the increase of quoting bandwidth allowance
applies to all Market-Maker Trading Permits and all Quoting and Order
Entry Bandwidth Packets.
    The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules and Fees
Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how rules and
fees apply. As such, the Exchange proposes to clarify its use of the
terms ``multiply-listed'' (or ``multi listed'') and ``single-listed''
options classes in the Fees Schedule. In conjunction with these
clarifying changes, the Exchange also proposes to use the term
``Underlying Symbol List A'' in the Fees Schedule to refer to a
specific set of proprietary products (i.e., OEX, XEO, SPX (including
SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary options).
    By way of background, the Exchange notes that a specific set of
proprietary products are commonly listed out in the Fees Schedule as
being included or excluded from a variety of programs, qualification
calculations and transactions fees. In lieu of listing out

these products in various sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange
proposes to use the term ``Underlying Symbol List A,'' to represent
these products, which the Exchange believes will simplify the Fees
Schedule and make it easier to read. Underlying Symbol List A shall
represent the following: OEX, XEO, SPX (including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO,
VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary options. The Exchange proposes
to add a new Footnote (i.e., Footnote 34), which defines the term
``Underlying Symbol List A'' as referring to the products listed above.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale table. The Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale provides reduced
transaction fees for a CBOE Market-Maker based on the Market-Maker
executing a certain number of contracts per month. Currently, the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale table provides that the volume
thresholds are ``based on total national Market-Maker volume of any
option classes with traded volume on CBOE during the calendar month.''
Additionally, the notes section of the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale
table provides that the reduced transaction fees are not applicable to
``mini-options, SPX, SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES, OEX or
XEO.'' The Exchange proposes to change how the volume thresholds are
calculated. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the volume
thresholds be based on the total national Market-Maker volume in all
underlying symbols excluding those in Underlying Symbol List A and
mini-options. The Exchange notes that currently, the calculation of the
volume thresholds for the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale is based on
total national Market-Maker volume of any options classes with traded
volume on CBOE during the calendar month and excludes volume in
products that may not be listed on CBOE. As certain options classes may
have volume traded on CBOE in some months, but not others, the Exchange
believes it is more challenging for Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
to anticipate which classes will be part of the calculation each month
and how that may or may not affect which tier and transaction fee will
apply to them. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
eliminates this uncertainty by including all options classes except
those in Underlying Symbol List A (and mini-options), which will reduce
confusion and make it easier for TPHs to calculate and anticipate what
volume threshold tier they will fall into each month and consequently
which rates will be applicable to them. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed change will more accurately reflect which option
classes are counted towards the qualifying volume thresholds. Lastly
with respect to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the Exchange
proposes to replace the list of products for which the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale does not apply with the term ``Underlying Symbol
List A.''
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale table. Currently, the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale table provides that Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
transaction fees and transaction fees for Non-Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Affiliates in OEX, XEO, SPX, SPXpm, VIX, VXST, and VOLATILITY
INDEXES are reduced provided a Clearing Trading Permit Holder reaches
certain volume thresholds in ``multiply-listed'' options classes on the
Exchange in a month. The Exchange proposes to replace the list of
proprietary products set forth in the notes section with the term
``Underlying Symbol List A.'' \3\ The Exchange also proposes to replace
the term ``multiply-listed'' with the following language: ``all
underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A and mini-
options.'' The Exchange notes that the proposed change more accurately
describes which option classes are included in the qualification
thresholds for the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale.
Particularly, the Exchange notes that DJX, XSP, and XSPAM are included
towards the qualification thresholds of the CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale. Specifically, DJX and XSP are used to compete with
multi-listed products that are also listed on CBOE (for example, the
singly-listed XSP options compete with the multiply-listed SPY options,
both of which approximate 1/10 of the S&P 500 Index, and the singly-
listed DJX options compete with the multiply-listed DIA options, both
of which are based on 1/100 of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average). Including the multiply-listed products for qualification
towards the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale while excluding
their singly-listed competitors could create a pricing advantage that
might discourage trading in some of the singly-listed products that the
Exchange expended resources to develop. As such, the Exchange includes
these singly-listed products for qualification towards the CBOE
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale along with their multiply-listed
competitors. The Exchange believes the proposed change makes the CBOE
Proprietary Sliding Scale table easier to read and more clearly
describes the option classes included and excluded in the threshold
volumes. The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to
Footnote 23, which Footnote relates to the CBOE Proprietary Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although included in the proposed Footnote 34 definition of
``Underlying Symbol List A,'' the Exchange notes that SROs are
excluded from the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. This
exclusion is already, and will continue to be, referenced in the
Notes section of the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to amend the Volume Incentive Program
(VIP) table. Under VIP, the Exchange credits each TPH the per contract
amount set forth in the VIP table resulting from each public customer
(``C'' origin code) order transmitted by that TPH which is executed
electronically on the Exchange in all ``multiply-listed option
classes,'' with certain exclusions, provided the TPH meets certain
volume thresholds in ``multiply-listed options classes.'' The Exchange
proposes to replace the term ``multiply-listed options classes'' with
the phrase ``all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A,
RUT, DJX, XSP, XSPAM, credit default options, credit default basket
options and mini-options.'' The Exchange notes that the VIP Program has
always been limited to multiply-listed options classes (i.e., options
listed and traded on another national securities exchange) and mini-
options. The Exchange believes the proposed change more clearly
describes the option classes that are currently excluded from the VIP
volume thresholds and per contract credit.
    The Exchange proposes to similarly amend Footnote 12 (relating to
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction Fees).
Currently, Footnote 12 of the Fees Schedule provides that the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction Fee will be waived for
Clearing Trading Permit Holders executing facilitation orders in
``multiply-listed'' FLEX Options classes. The Exchange proposes to
change the reference to ``multiply-listed'' FLEX options to ``FLEX
options in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A,
credit default options and credit default basket options.'' The
Exchange believes the proposed change more accurately describes which
Flex options will and will not have the Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Transaction Fee waived. For the reasons described above, the Exchange
notes that Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction Fees
are waived for DJX, XSP, and

XSPAM, as not waiving Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
Transaction Fees for both these products and their multiply-listed
competitors could create a pricing advantage that might discourage
trading in some of the singly-listed products that the Exchange
expended resources to develop.
    Current Footnote 25, which governs rebates on Floor Broker Trading
Permits, also references the term ``multiply-listed options classes.''
Specifically, Footnote 25 provides that any Floor Broker that executes
a certain average of customer open-outcry contracts per day over the
course of a calendar month in ``multiply-listed option classes,''
excluding subcabinet trades, will receive a rebate on that Floor
Broker's Trading Permit Holder's Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees. The
Exchange proposes to replace the term multiply-listed options classes''
with ``all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX,
XSP, XSPAM, credit default options, credit default basket options'' and
also proposes to not count mini-options towards the Floor Broker
Trading Permit rebate. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
provides consistency in the Fees Schedule and makes clear which option
classes are meant to be included (and excluded) in the calculation of
the volume threshold used to qualify for the rebate.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove the reference to ``single-
listed options traded on CBOE'' in Footnotes 29 and 30 (relating to the
Order Router Subsidy (``ORS'') and Complex Order Router Subsidy
(``CORS'') Programs) and instead reference the options classes
``included in Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, XSP or XSPAM.'' The
Exchange notes that each of the products listed in Underlying Symbol
List A are considered ``single-listed'' products, as are DJX, XSP and
XSPAM (i.e., not listed and traded on another national securities
exchange) and that no substantive changes are being made by this
change. Rather, the proposed change is intended to provide further
consistency and clarity in the Fees Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires
that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable
to cease charging the Trade Processing Services fee for unmatched trade
data. As noted above, unmatched trades will be charged if and when they
become matched. As such, the Exchange does not believe it's necessary
to assess the Trading Processing Fee to unmatched trades. Additionally,
when the fee was originally introduced, the billing processes for
assessing this fee were done manually and the fee helped offset the
work involved in matched and unmatched data. As the billing process is
now automated, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to
continue to bill unmatched trades. The Exchange believes it's
reasonable to cease charging unmatched trade data the Trade Processing
Services fee because it will merely result in Trading Permit Holders no
longer being subject to this fee. The Exchange believes the proposed
change is not unfairly discriminatory as it applies equally to all
Trading Permit Holders, who no longer will be charged the fee for
unmatched trade data. Additionally, all trades, once matched, will
continue to be charged the fee. The Exchange believes providing in the
Fees Schedule that for billing purposes, the Trade Processing Services
fee will be rounded to the nearest $0.01 using standard rounding rules
on a monthly basis, will alleviate confusion as to how the fee, which
is under $0.01, will be assessed. The alleviation of potential
confusion will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also believes
that amending the Fees Schedule to accurately reflect the increase in
quoting bandwidth allowance, alleviates confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free open market and a
national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory to include DJX, XSP and XSPAM towards qualification of
the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale and to waive Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction Fees for DJX, XSP and
XSPAM as these products are used to compete with multi-listed products
that are also listed on CBOE (as explained above). The Exchange also
believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
not count mini-option volume towards the Floor Broker Trading Permit
rebate. The Exchange notes that it funds the costs associated with
mini-options with revenues only from those participants who trade them.
The Exchange also notes that the cost to process quotes, orders and
trades in mini-options is the same as for standard options. Including
mini-option volume towards the qualifying threshold for a Floor Broker
Trading Permit rebate might necessitate raising costs for other market
participants; therefore, the Exchange believes that the exclusion of
mini-options is both reasonable and equitable. Further, as the
measuring stick to determine whether a Trading Permit Holder meets the
qualifying thresholds is the number of contracts traded, it would be
difficult for the Exchange to count mini-option contracts, since they
effectively function as 1/10th of a regular standard options contract.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that eliminating potentially vague
terms like ``multiply-listed options classes'' and ``single-listed
option classes'' and replacing those terms with more explicit
references to which option classes are or are not included or excluded
in a program alleviates potential confusion. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule changes also eliminates uncertainty as to which options
classes will or will not be used in calculating certain volume, which
will reduce confusion and make it easier for TPHs to calculate and
anticipate what volume thresholds they will meet and consequently which

rates will be applicable to them. The Exchange believes that defining
and then using the term ``Underlying Symbol List A'' to represent a
commonly referred to set of proprietary products in lieu of listing out
these products in various sections of the Fees Schedule simplifies the
Fees Schedule and makes it easier to read. The alleviation of potential
confusion will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed changes apply to all Trading Permit
Holders. The Exchange believes that the proposal to cease charging the
Trade Processing Services fee for unmatched trade data will not cause
an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because other
exchanges already do not charge a similar fee. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 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-CBOE-2014-092 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-092. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-092 and should be
submitted on or before January 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29619 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P