[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51381-51383]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20468]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72903; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-065]

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

August 22, 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 August 12, 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 the
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. First, the
Exchange proposes to delete from Footnote 5 of the Fees Schedule the
sentence ``If a market-maker executes an order for an account in which
the market-maker is not a registered participant as reflected in the
TPH Department records, the market-maker will be assessed a floor
brokerage fee.'' Exchange Rule 8.9 currently prohibits a Market-Maker
from executing an order for an account in which the market-maker is not
a registered participant.\3\ As such, the Exchange does not wish to
have a statement in its Fees Schedule assessing a fee for such
activity, as this would seem to imply that such activity is permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Rule 8.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Floor Brokerage Fees
table. Currently, the Floor Brokerage Fees table sets forth the fees
per contract for the following products: (i) ``OEX, SPX and SPXpm Index
Options; (ii), ``SROs'' and (iii) ``VIX, VXST and Volatility Index
Options.'' Additionally, the Floor Brokerage Fees table groups together
like products and differentiates between fees for ``Non-Crossed
Orders'' and ``Crossed Orders.'' Although OEX, an American-Style
Exercise S&P 100 Index option, is explicitly referenced in the Floor
Brokerage Fees table, XEO, the European-Style Exercise S&P 100 Index
option, is not separately spelled out in the Floor Brokerage Fees
table. The Exchange is proposing to make clear in the text of the Fees
Schedule that XEO is a product in which floor brokerage fees apply. The
Exchange notes that the only difference between OEX and XEO options is
the manner in which the respective contracts are exercised (i.e.
American-style versus European-style). The Exchange believes the
proposed addition of rule text will provide greater clarity for
customers and will allow market participants to better understand how
fees are applied.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 7 of the Fees
Schedule. Footnote 7 of the current Fees Schedule provides ``After
three months, all fees as assessed by the Exchange are considered final
by the Exchange.'' The purpose of this statement is to encourage
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to promptly review their Exchange
invoices so that any disputed charges can be addressed in a timely
manner. The Exchange notes that the footnote is not intended to
preclude the Exchange from assessing fees more than three months after
they were incurred. Indeed, the Exchange is required to enforce
compliance by its TPHs and persons associated with its TPHs the rules
of the Exchange, including its Fees Schedule.\4\ As such, the Exchange
must ensure that it assesses the fees set forth in its Fees Schedule so
long as the fee(s) were required to be paid pursuant to the CBOE Fees
Schedule in effect at the time the fees were incurred, even if the
Exchange must assess the fees more than three months after they have
been incurred. The Exchange believes it would be beneficial to make
this clear in the Fees Schedule and provide further clarifying language
regarding the finality of fees. Specifically, the Exchange seeks to
amend Footnote 7 to state ``Any potential billing errors relating to
fees assessed by CBOE must be brought to the attention of CBOE's
Accounting Department within three months from the invoice date. All
fees assessed shall be deemed final and non-refundable after three
months from the invoice date. The Exchange is not precluded from
assessing fees more than three months after they were incurred if those
fees were required to be paid pursuant to the CBOE Fees Schedule in
effect at the time the fees were incurred.'' The Exchange notes that
this has always been the case, and the clarification is simply
reflecting how the current language of the CBOE Fees Schedule applies.
The Exchange also notes that its practice is to assess fees in a timely
manner at the time such fees are incurred. However, the Exchange
requires the ability to assess any fee upon discovering an error
regardless of how much time has passed since the fee was incurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to make an amendment to the CBOE Command
Connectivity Charges table. Currently, the Exchange charges TPHs a $500
per month Network Access Port fee for 1 gigabit (``1 Gbps'') network
access connectivity and $3,000 per month for 10 Gbps network
connectivity. The Network Access Ports provide direct access to CBOE
Command. Additionally, in order to be able to connect to the Exchange's
disaster recovery systems in case of a disaster, the Exchange offers a
Disaster Recovery Network Access Port in Chicago for a $250 per month
fee. The Exchange currently offers only a 1 Gbps Disaster Recovery
Network Access Port connection. Network Access Ports are used to
receive unicast (i.e., orders and quotes) and multicast (i.e., market
data) traffic. The Exchange notes that a 1 Gbps port may receive both
unicast and multicast traffic, whereas a 10 Gbps port may only receive
either multicast or unicast traffic. The Exchange seeks to clarify that
the Network Access Port fee

is assessed separately for unicast and multicast connectivity.
Accordingly, if a TPH has 1 Gbps connectivity and receives both unicast
and multicast traffic through a single port, the TPH would be charged
$1,000 dollars per month (i.e., $500 per month for unicast connectivity
and $500 per month for multicast connectivity). Similarly, if a TPH has
one 1 Gbps Network Access Port for unicast connectivity only and
another 1 Gbps Network Access Port for multicast connectivity only, the
TPH would be charged $1,000 dollars per month (i.e. $500 per month for
each port). Additionally, if a TPH has a single 1 Gbps Disaster
Recovery Network Access Port and receives both unicast and multicast
traffic through the single port, the TPH would be charged $500 dollars
per month (i.e., $250 per month for unicast connectivity and $250 per
month for multicast connectivity). Similarly, if a TPH has one 1 Gbps
Disaster Recovery Network Access Port for unicast connectivity only and
another 1 Gbps Disaster Recovery Network Access Port for multicast
connectivity only, the TPH would be charged $500 dollars per month
(i.e. $250 per month for each port). As noted above, a single 10 Gbps
Network Access Port cannot receive both unicast and multicast traffic.
Accordingly, if a TPH wants a 10 Gbps connection, in order to receive
both traffic types the TPH would need to purchase two 10 Gbps Network
Access Ports (i.e., one to be used for multicast connectivity and one
to be used for unicast activity) and would therefore be charged $6,000
per month (i.e., $3,000 per month for each port)
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to make a clarification to the
``Notes'' section of the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Position Re-
Assignment Rebate Program (``Rebate Program''). By way of background,
the Rebate Program allows the Exchange to rebate assessed transaction
fees to a Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') who, as a result of
a trade adjustment on any business day following the original trade,
re-assigns a position established by the initial trade to a different
CTPH. In such a circumstance, the Exchange will rebate, for the party
for whom the position is being re-assigned, that party's transaction
fees from the original transaction as well as the transaction in which
the position is re-assigned. Because the Exchange may not always be
able to automatically identify these situations, in order to receive a
rebate, the Exchange requires a written request with all supporting
documentation (trade detail regarding both the original and re-
assigning trades) and a summary of the reasons for the re-assignment to
be submitted within 60 days after the last day of the month in which
the error occurred. In SR-CBOE-2002-013 \5\ and again in SR-CBOE-2013-
058,\6\ the Exchange describes a situation involving a member's clerk,
or other similar personnel, inputting the wrong clearing firm code into
the appropriate form or program. As a result, the Exchange noted that
the trade would be cleared through the wrong clearing firm and, in
order to correct the situation, corrective transactions would be
entered to reverse the error trades and then new trades would be
submitted to reflect the original intentions of the parties. Without
the keypunch error rebate program, the clearing firm whose code was
erroneously entered would have to pay Exchange transaction fees for any
transactions necessary to reverse the initial trade (despite not having
been a party to such trade). The Exchange proposes to clarify that it
is the ``executing'' CTPH that would be rebated, as opposed to a CTPH
that received a trade via a Clearing Member Trade Agreement (CMTA).\7\
The Exchange believes the proposed clarification to the Notes section
of the Rebate Program will provide greater clarity for market
participants and reduce potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-45675 (March 29,
2002), 67 FR 16480 (April 5, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2002-013).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69760 (June 13,
2013), 78 FR 36805 (June 19, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-058).
    \7\ Under a CMTA agreement, an Options Clearing Corporation
clearing member (``carrying clearing member'') authorizes another
clearing member (``executing clearing member'') to give up the name
of the carrying clearing member with respect to any trade executed
on a specific exchange (i.e., the re-assignment of a trade to a
different Clearing firm occurs post-trade at the OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ 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. The Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed
clarifications to the Fees Schedule will make the Fees Schedule easier
to read and alleviate potential confusion. 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change to delete the sentence in Footnote 5
will alleviate any potential confusion regarding whether such activity
is permitted. The Exchange believes that the amendments to Footnote 7
provides further clarification as to the finality of assessed fees and
prevents potential confusion as to whether or not the Exchange may
assess fees more than three months after they were incurred.
    The Exchange believes the amendment to the Floor Brokerage fees
table will promote just and equitable principles of trade by clarifying
to Trading Permit Holders that floor brokerage fees apply to the
European-Style Exercise S&P 100 Index option (XEO) as well as the
American-Style Exercise S&P 100 Index option (OEX), thereby eliminating
potential confusion and removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Providing a clearer representation of fees in the Exchange Fees
Schedule will remove any confusion that may exist as to which products
may be subject to certain fees. The Exchange believes it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the same floor
brokerage fees to XEO options as currently applied to OEX options,
because both are S&P 100 Index options. As noted above, the only
difference between the two options is the manner in which the options
are exercised (i.e. American-style versus European-style).
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to specify that
separate Network Access Fees are assessed for unicast and multicast
connectivity also alleviates potential confusion regarding

how the Network Access Fee is assessed, thereby removing impediments to
and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable
because the amount assessed for unicast connectivity and multicast
connectivity to TPHs using 1 Gbps Network Access Port(s) is the same.
Additionally, the Exchange believes this change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all TPHs who use a 1
Gbps Network Access Port equally. The Exchange notes that whether a TPH
receives unicast and multicast connectivity via a single 1 Gbps Network
Access Port, two separate 1 Gbps Network Access Ports or two separate
10 Gbps Network Access Ports, in each instance, the TPH would be
charged for each type of access regardless of how many physical ports
they use.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes it will be beneficial to market
participants to make it explicitly clear that it is the ``executing''
CTPH that would be rebated under the Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Position Re-Assignment Rebate Program. The Exchange believes this
proposed rule change reduces confusion as to which CTPHs are entitled
to a rebate under the Rebate Program, thereby removing impediments to
and perfecting 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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes to
alleviate confusion are not intended for competitive reasons and only
apply to CBOE.

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 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 \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-CBOE-2014-065 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-CBOE-2014-065. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-065 and should be
submitted on or before September 18, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20468 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19589-19591]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20

Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session
to solicit information, concepts, ideas, and comments on Electronic On-
Board Recorders (EOBRs) and the issue of driver harassment.
Specifically, the Agency wants to know what factors, issues, and data
it should consider as it addresses the distinction between productivity
and harassment: What will prevent harassment from occurring; what types
of harassment already exist; how frequently and to what extent
harassment happens; and how an electronic device such as an EOBR,
capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor
carrier, will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment.
Additionally, the Agency will solicit concepts, ideas, and comments
from enforcement personnel on the hours-of-service (HOS) information
they would need to see on the EOBR display screen to effectively
enforce the HOS rules at the roadside and the type of evidence they
would need to retain in order to support issuing drivers citations for
HOS

violations observed during roadside inspections. This session will be
held in Bellevue, Washington (WA), and will allow interested persons to
present comments, views, and relevant new research that FMCSA should
consider in development of Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM). This listening session will be recorded and a transcript of
the session will be placed in the docket for FMCSA's consideration. The
listening session will also be webcast via the Internet and will allow
for email interactivity during the webcast.

DATES: The listening session will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2012,
at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) meeting in Bellevue,
WA. The listening session will run from 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m., with a
break between 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., and continue from 4 p.m.-5:30 p.m.
local time, or earlier, if all participants wishing to express their
views have done so.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the Hyatt Regency
Bellevue, 900 Bellevue Way NE., Bellevue, WA 98004, telephone: (425)
462-1234 and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The session will be held in the Grand
Ballroom IJK on the 2nd floor.
    Internet Address for Live Webcast. FMCSA will post specific
information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA Web
site at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov in advance of the listening session.
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0167 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
listening session or the live Webcast, please contact Ms. Shannon L.
Watson, Senior Advisor for Policy, FMCSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Should you need sign language interpretation or other assistance to
participate in this listening session, please contact Ms. Watson by
Thursday, April 12, 2012, to allow us to arrange for such services.
There is no guarantee that services requested on short notice can be
provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. Background

    On February 13, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of intent in the
Federal Register announcing the Agency's plan for the Electronic On-
Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents rulemaking
(EOBR 2) by working towards preparing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) (77 FR 7562). In this notice, FMCSA stated it would
do the following: (1) Hold listening sessions on the issue of driver
harassment; (2) task the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
(MCSAC) to assist in developing material to support this rulemaking,
including technical specifications for EOBRs and their potential to be
used to harass drivers; and (3) conduct research by surveying drivers,
carriers, and vendors regarding harassment issues.
    The following discussion summarizes the recent regulatory history
of the agency's EOBR program:

EOBR 1

    On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (EOBR 1) (75 FR
17208) that provided new technical requirements for EOBRs. The EOBR 1
final rule also required the limited, remedial use of EOBRs for motor
carriers with significant HOS violations. The EOBR 1 final rule
required a motor carrier found to have a 10 percent violation rate for
any HOS regulation listed in Appendix C of 49 CFR part 385 during a
single compliance review to install and use EOBRs on all of its CMVs
for a period of 2 years. The compliance date for the rule was June 4,
2012.
    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
challenged the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. OOIDA raised several concerns relating to EOBRs and
their potential use for driver harassment. On August 26, 2011, the
Court vacated the entire final rule. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers
Ass'n et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d. 580 (7th
Cir. 2011). The Court held that, contrary to statutory requirements,
the Agency failed to address the issue of driver harassment, including
how EOBRs could potentially be used to harass drivers and ways to
ensure that EOBRs were not used to harass drivers. The basis for the
decision was FMCSA's failure to directly address a requirement in 49
U.S.C. 31137(a), which reads as follows:

    USE OF MONITORING DEVICES. If the Secretary of Transportation
prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring devices on
commercial motor vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the
vehicles with hours of service regulations of the Secretary, the
regulation shall ensure that the devices are not used to harass
vehicle operators. However, the devices may be used to monitor
productivity of the operators.

    The court's expectation about how the Agency should address
harassment and productivity under the statutory directive included the
following:

    In addition, an adequate explanation that addresses the
distinction between productivity and harassment must also describe
what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring.
The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist,
how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an
electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of
information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard
against) harassment. A study of these problems with EOBRs already in
use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices,
might

be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might
have on driver harassment (Id. at 588-89).

    As a result of the vacatur, carriers relying on electronic devices
to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the Agency's
previous rules regarding the use of automatic on-board recording
devices (49 CFR 395.15). The requirements set forth in 49 CFR 395.15
were not affected by the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the
technical specifications set out in 49 CFR 395.16 in the EOBR 1 Final
Rule.

II. Meeting Participation and Information FMCSA Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks will
be limited to five minutes each. The public may submit material to the
FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-
2010-0167. FMCSA will docket the transcription of the listening session
that will be prepared by an official court reporter.
    FMCSA tasked the MCSAC with addressing harassment through Task 12-
01, titled, ``Measures to Ensure Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs)
Are Not Used to Harass Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operators''.
MCSAC held public meetings on this task on February 7-8, 2012, and
based on its deliberations, submitted a report to the FMCSA
Administrator on February 8, 2012. This report is available for review
at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm and in the public docket,
FMCSA-2010-0167. The questions posed to MCSAC will be used as a
template for public comment and discussion at the listening session.
    The comments sought from the questions below may be submitted in
written form at the session and summarized verbally, if desired:
    1. In terms of motor carriers' and enforcement officials'
monitoring or review of drivers' records of duty status (RODS), what
would constitute driver harassment? Would that definition change based
on whether the system for recording HOS is paper or electronically
based? If so, how? As a starting point, the Agency is interested in
potential forms of harassment, including but not limited to those that
are: (1) Not prohibited already by current statutes and regulations;
(2) distinct from monitoring for legitimate business purposes (e.g.,
efforts to maintain or improve productivity); and (3) facilitated or
made possible solely by EOBR devices and not as a result of functions
or features that motor carriers may choose to purchase, such as fleet
management system capabilities. Is this interpretation appropriate?
Should it be broader? Or narrower?
    2. Are there types of driver harassment to which drivers are
uniquely vulnerable if they are using EOBRs rather than paper logs? If
so, what and how would use of an EOBR rather than a paper log make a
driver more susceptible to harassment? Are there ways in which the use
of an EOBR rather than a paper log makes a driver less susceptible to
harassment?
    3. What types of harassment are motor carrier drivers subjected to
currently, how frequently, and to what extent does this harassment
happen? How would an electronic device capable of contemporaneous
transmission of information to a motor carrier guard against (or fail
to guard against) this kind of harassment? What experience have motor
carriers and drivers had with carriers using EOBRs as compared to those
who do not use these devices in terms of their effect on driver
harassment or complaints of driver harassment?
    4. What measures should the Agency consider taking to eliminate the
potential for EOBRs to be used to harass drivers? Are there specific
functions and capabilities of EOBRs that should be restricted to reduce
the likelihood of the devices being used to harass vehicle operators?
    5. Motor carriers are often responsible for managing their drivers
and equipment to optimize efficiency and productivity and to ensure
transportation services are provided in accordance with a planned
schedule. Carriers commonly use electronic devices, which may include
but are not limited to EOBRs, to enhance productivity and optimize
fleet operation. Provided such devices are not used to coerce drivers
into violating Federal safety regulations, where is the line between
legitimate productivity measures and inappropriate oversight or actions
that may be construed as harassment?
    FMCSA also seeks concepts, ideas, and comments from enforcement
personnel on the HOS information they would need to see on the EOBR
display screen at the roadside to effectively enforce the HOS rules and
the type of evidence they would need to retain in order to support
issuing drivers a citation for HOS violations observed during roadside
inspections.

III. Alternative Media Broadcasts During and Immediately After the
Listening Session on April 26, 2012

    FMCSA will webcast the listening session on the Internet. Specific
information on how to participate via the Internet and the telephone
access number will be on the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov. FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and
a separate transcription of the listening session that will be prepared
by an official court reporter.

    Issued on: March 26, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7899 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16483]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-7-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-915); Comment
Request; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments;
withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws the Notice of Information Collection
and request for comments published in the Federal Register of April 12,
2019, soliciting public comment on the currently approved information
collection FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization
Holders--Records Retention Requirements) and submitting the information
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The
notice was issued in error.

DATES: The notice published on April 12, 2019 (84 FR 14935) is
withdrawn as of April 19, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 8, 2019, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a 30-day public notice
regarding the extension of information collection FERC-915, Public
Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders, Records Retention
Requirement, which published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2019.
The 30-day notice was issued in error and was withdrawn.

    Dated: April 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07947 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53575-53577]
[DOCID:fr19se07-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0936; FRL-8144-3]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest, by one
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

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

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in

hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PP Number                        Docket ID Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 1F6253                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637 (07P-
                                             1242)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F3530                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0704 (07P-
                                             1243)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7219                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0564 (07P-
                                             1244)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7220                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0565 (07P-
                                             1245)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 1F6253. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0637). Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the fungicide 1,3-D, [1,3-dichloropropene] in
or on the food commodity grape at 0.009 parts per million (ppm). There
is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of
1,3-D in or on food with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.003 ppm.
Contact: Tamue Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    2. PP 7F3530. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0704). Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.,
Preservation and Material Protection Division, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton
Road, Titusville, NJ 08560, proposes to establish a tolerance for the
combined residues of the fungicide imazalil, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-
2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1H-imidazole and its metabolite, 1-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-(1H-imidazole-1-yl)-1-ethanol (R014821) in or on the
food commodities melon crop subgroup (9-A), except watermelon at 5.0
ppm and corn, fresh, sweet, forage and fodder at 0.2 ppm. Melon crop
subgroup (9-A), except watermelon includes the raw agricultural
commodities cantaloupe, casaba, citron melon, crenshaw melon, golden
pershaw melon, honeydew melon, honeyballs, mango melon, Persian melon,
pineapple melon, Santa Claus melon , snake melon, and true cantaloupe.
The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II lists a gas
chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD) method, designated as
Method I for the quantification of residues of imazalil and its
metabolite R014821. Briefly, residues are extracted from plant samples
with heptane:isoamyl alcohol (95:5, v:v), partitioned into 0.1
NH2SO4 and re-extracted from alkaline solution
into heptane:isoamyl alcohol (95:5, v:v). The extract is evaporated to
dryness and N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl) acetamide is added to convert the
metabolite to the trimethylsilyl derivative. Imazalil and the
derivatized metabolite are determined separately by GC with ECD from a
single injection of the derivative solution. The limit of detection
(LOD) ranges from 0.01 - 0.05 ppm, depending on the plant matrix. This
enforcement method has been successfully radio-validated. Contact: John
Bazuin,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    3. PP 7F7219. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0564). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, DuPont Crop Protection, Laurel Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80038,
Wilmington, DE 19880-0038, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the herbicide thifensulfuron methyl, methyl-3-[[[[(4-
methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino] sulfonyl]-2-
thiophenecarboxylate, in or on the food commodities barley, hay at 0.7
ppm; oat, forage at 0.2 ppm; oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; wheat, forage at 1.0
ppm; and wheat, hay at 0.8 ppm. Thifensulfuron methyl residues in wheat
forage and hay, barley hay, and oat forage and hay were determined by
an analytical method utilizing liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/
mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analysis. The analytes were resolved by
high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) and quantitatively analyzed
by using the Total Ion Chromatogram (TIC) from two molecular ion
transitions for each analyte. The LOQ was 0.01 ppm in these
commodities. Contact: Vickie Walters,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    4. PP 7F7220. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0565). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, DuPont Crop Protection, Laurel Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80038,
Wilmington, DE 19880-0038, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the herbicide tribenuron methyl; methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-
methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]benzoate
in or on the food commodities wheat, forage at 0.3 ppm; wheat, hay at
0.3 ppm; barley, hay at 0.3 ppm; oat, forage at 0.3 ppm; oat, hay at
0.8 ppm. Tribenuron methyl residues in wheat forage and hay, barley
hay, and oat forage and hay were determined by an analytical method
utilizing liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) analysis. The analytes were resolved by HPLC and
quantitatively analyzed by using the Total Ion Chromatogram (TIC) from
two molecular ion transitions for each analyte. The LOQ was 0.01 ppm in
these commodities. There are other analytical methods to determine
tribenuron methyl residues in wheat forage and hay, including HPLC
column switching and ultraviolet (UV) detection. The LOQ is 0.01 ppm
for wheat grain and forage, and 0.05 ppm for wheat hay. Contact: Vickie
Walters,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 11, 2007.
Kathy S. Monk,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-18362 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S