[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48782-48783]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72825; File No. SR-OPRA-2014-04]

Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of
Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information To
Amend OPRA's Fee Schedule To Establish Fees for After-Hours Operations

August 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 3, 2014, the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information (``OPRA Plan'').\3\ The proposed
amendment establishes a category of fees for access to OPRA data during
periods of after-hours operations. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed OPRA
Plan amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by
the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608
thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31,
1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at http://www.opradata.com. The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and
dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that
are traded on the participant exchanges. The twelve participants to
the OPRA Plan are BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange, LLC,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated, International Securities Exchange, LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., and the Topaz Exchange, LLC (d/b/a ISE Gemini).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Plan Amendment

    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to amend the OPRA Fee
Schedule to include fees for access to data that OPRA disseminates as a
result of trading on the markets of one or more OPRA member exchanges
during hours outside of OPRA's regular hours of operations (``after-
hours'' operations). One of OPRA's member exchanges has indicated that
it is planning to initiate trading during hours outside of OPRA's
regular hours of operations and to request OPRA to operate during the
after-hours period when its market is open for trading. No exchange has
previously made such a request, and as a result OPRA currently does not
operate outside of its regular hours of operations.
    OPRA's Fee Schedule does not currently provide for fees
specifically for access to OPRA data during periods of after-hours
operations. OPRA believes that, in order to fairly allocate the burden
of funding OPRA's after-hours operations to those persons who choose to
have access to OPRA information during periods of after-hours
operations, it is appropriate, rather than to increase its current
fees, to establish fees specifically for receipt of OPRA information
disseminated during after-hours operations.
    The after-hours service fees that OPRA is proposing are shown in
Exhibit I. In general, with the exception of the Usage-based Vendor Fee
and the Voice-Synthesized Market Data Service Fee--which are described
below--the proposed after-hours service fees are established at
approximately twenty percent of their counterparts for regular hours.
For example, the after-hours Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee
is proposed to be $5.00 per device, compared to $27.00 per device for
the regular hours Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee, and the
after-hours Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee is proposed to be $0.25 per
nonprofessional, compared to $1.25 per nonprofessional for the regular
hours Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee.
    The proposed after-hours Usage-based Vendor Fees are the same as
the Usage-based Vendor Fees during regular hours. The Usage-based
Vendor Fees are on a ``per quote'' basis for either ``quote packets''
or ``options chains,'' and a quote packet or options chain disseminated
during after-hours operations would include the same amount of
information as one disseminated during regular hours. Footnote 8 to the
Fee Schedule is amended to apply the same ``cap'' concept to after-
hours Usage-based Vendor Fees that currently applies during regular
hours, so that these fees are capped at $5.00 per device for
Professional Subscribers and at $.25 for nonprofessional subscribers.
Footnote 5 to the Fee Schedule is revised to state an ``Enterprise Rate
Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee'' for after-hours service of $75,000 per
month.
    The Voice-Synthesized Market Data Service Fee for after-hours
service is proposed at the same rate as the Usage-based Vendor Fee, as
is the case for regular hours service.
    OPRA is not proposing an ``Enterprise Fee'' alternative at this
time for the after-hours Non-Display Application Fee. OPRA believes
that Professional Subscribers are unlikely to be interested in an
Enterprise Rate alternative for the after-hours Non-Display Application
Fee. However, OPRA is prepared to implement an Enterprise Fee
alternative for this fee if it becomes apparent that there is any
interest in it.
    Footnote 12 to the OPRA Fee Schedule provides an example to
illustrate the statement in the ``Description'' of the Non-Display
Application Fee that the fee ``includes device-based fees with respect
to the servers or other devices that comprise the trading engine, up to
the amount'' of the Non-Display Application Fee. OPRA is proposing to
revise the example so that it utilizes the 2014 regular hours
Professional Subscriber Device-based Fee of $27.00 (instead of the now-
obsolete 2012 Professional Subscriber Device-based Fee of $25.00), and
provides a parallel example for the after-hours fee using the after-
hours ``per installation'' fee and the proposed after-hours
Professional Subscriber Device-based Fee of $5.00.
    OPRA is not establishing an after-hours Control Service Fee or a
Television Fee at this time. OPRA does not currently have any
authorized control service providers, and believes that the control
service provider program is not likely to be of interest during after-
hours operations. Similarly, OPRA does not anticipate that any Vendor
is likely to be interested in providing television display of after-
hours OPRA information. In each case, however, OPRA is prepared to make
the service available if it becomes apparent that there is any interest
in it.
    Similarly, OPRA believes that Vendors are unlikely to be interested
in an after-hours Enterprise Fee for the Hosted Solution Fee. However,
OPRA is prepared to implement an Enterprise Fee alternative for this
fee if it becomes apparent that there is any interest in it.

    It is not possible to estimate with any precision the revenues that
these fees may generate. OPRA's best guess is that these fees may
generate up to $100,000 in gross revenues per month a few months after
they are first implemented. OPRA and the participant exchanges will
incur additional costs associated with OPRA's after-hours operations,
and OPRA believes that these fees will represent an appropriate
contribution to covering the overall costs of OPRA and its member
exchanges to which these fees may properly be applied.
    The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at
OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, http://opradata.com, and
on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

II. Implementation of the OPRA Plan Amendment

    Pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under
the Act, OPRA designated this amendment as establishing or changing
fees or other charges collected on behalf of all of the OPRA
participants in connection with access to or use of OPRA facilities. In
order to give persons subject to these fees advance notice of the
changes, OPRA proposes to provide notice of the changes to OPRA Vendors
at least two months before the date on which one or more of OPRA's
member exchanges plans to initiate trading during hours outside of
OPRA's regular hours of operation, and to put the changes into effect
as of the first day of a calendar month after one or more of OPRA's
member exchanges has initiated trading during hours outside of OPRA's
regular hours of operation, but no sooner than July 1, 2014.
    The Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment within sixty
days of its filing and require refiling and approval of the amendment
by Commission order pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under the Act \4\ if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA
Plan amendment 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 No. SR-OPRA-2014-04 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-OPRA-2014-04. 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 plan amendment that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed plan amendment 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 OPRA.
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-OPRA-2014-04
and should be submitted on or before September 8, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19481 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a). Title of the Information Collection

	Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging

	OMB No. 2070-0052; EPA No. 0616.10

	1(b). Short Characterization/Abstract

	This information collection program is designed to provide the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with assurances that the packaging
of pesticide products sold and distributed to the general public in the
United States meets standards set forth by the Agency pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Registrants
must certify to the Agency that the packaging or device meets these
standards. There are no forms associated with this information
collection activity.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a). Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 25(c)(3) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to establish standards for
packaging of pesticide products and pesticidal devices to protect
children and adults from serious illness or injury resulting from
accidental ingestion or contact (see Attachment A). The law requires
that these standards are designed to be consistent with those under the
Poison Prevention Packaging Act, administered by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC). Unless a pesticide product qualifies for an
exemption, if the product meets certain criteria regarding toxicity and
use, it must be sold and distributed in child-resistant packaging. The
authority for this information collection is pursuant to Section
25(c)(3) of the FIFRA. Compliance regulations are contained in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 157 (Attachment B).

	2(b). Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	EPA reviews a registrant's child-resistant packaging (CRP)
certification to determine if there are human safety/health risk
concerns. Exemption requests are reviewed to ascertain if there is a
health risk, and if CRP is technically feasible, practicable, and
appropriate.

NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a). Non duplication

	To avoid duplicative testing of packages for pesticidal and
non-pesticidal purposes, EPA's CRP regulations reference the CPSC
packaging standards and protocol testing procedures.  This is the only
information collection activity of its kind and the information
collected under this activity is collected only once per event (e.g.,
once per certification of CRP compliance).

	3(b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	In preparing to renew this ICR, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register which provided a 60-day public notice and comment period on the
draft ICR (see 72 FR 13274; March 21, 2007).  EPA received one public
comment in response to this notice which is available in the docket for
this ICR and can be accessed at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
 http://www.regulations.gov  using the docket indentifier
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887.  That comment was general in nature about the risk
of pesticides, and did not address the burden, cost, or purpose of this
information collection.

	3(c). Consultations

	EPA consults with the CPSC on general packaging issues, products under
joint jurisdiction (e.g. bleaches and pine oil products), and the
regulatory aspect of implementing consumer (child) safety measures in a
way that keeps them consistent with those under the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act.

	The Agency also discusses specific packaging issues (for example,
determining what can reasonably be required or expected in terms of
technical and/or economic feasibility) with the CPSC and the packaging
industry itself. These consultations occur on an informal "as needed"
basis during the process of evaluating exemption requests and certifying
to the use of CRP.  In the past, when any sort of problem (technical,
administrative, or other) arose, or there were suggestions for
improvement in the program, the respondent is given ample opportunity to
inform the agency and vice versa. This communication between both
parties may take place either in a telephone conversation or in a
meeting setting, but not necessarily by a prescribed schedule.

	In addition to the informal consultations above, EPA will publish a
notice in the Federal Register concerning the renewal of this ICR. The
Agency will consult with stakeholders who actively interact with the
Agency through the use of this collection instrument and will solicit
stakeholder assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by
the Agency in this ICR.

	3(d).  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The information collection occurs once for each product-package
combination subject by law to the CRP provisions. In the absence of this
information collection activity, the burden of proof would be shifted
from the registrant to the EPA. Based on enforcement case precedents
involving CRP, EPA would need to have specific evidence to make the
product-package case. Consequently, on the basis of the time and cost
involved, EPA would find it difficult to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities to ensure that pesticides are equipped with protective
packages adequate to protect children from accidental illness or injury.

	3(e). General Guidelines

	The only PRA-imposed guideline in 5 CFR 1320.6 that is exceeded in this
collection is the recordkeeping retention period. Registrants or
applicants of pesticides for which CRP is required must retain the
records required under 40 CFR 157.36 for as long as the registration is
valid.

	Registrations are valid unless or until they are either voluntarily
canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until EPA has cause to
suspend or cancel the registration due to an adverse finding by EPA.
Since the average period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15
to 30 years, the PRA-imposed guideline indicating that data, other than
health, medical, or tax records need not be retained for more than three
years may often be exceeded in this program.

	The Agency solicits packaging manufacturers to voluntarily submit
samples of CRPs that have passed CRP testing, identify the packaging,
its manufacturer, and list the package's classification according to the
ASTM International Standard D3475, "Standard Classification of
Child-Resistant Packages."  The Agency will compile and update the
information on an ongoing basis on its CRP Website (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/crp/"  www.epa.gov/opprd001/crp/ ). The
Website includes descriptions and photographs of the package, with each
package classified according to the ASTM International D3475 Standard.

	The CRP Website provides a service to CRP manufacturers and pesticide
registrants by displaying the various types of CRP in the marketplace
which, in turn, should facilitate compliance with the CRP regulations.
An Agency request for, and the public’s submission of, these packaging
samples is not a collection of information for the purposes of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act
regulations.  OMB’s regulations define “information” such that it
excludes “samples of products or of any other physical objects” (see
5 CFR 1320.3(h)(2)).  Therefore, EPA is not required to estimate the
burden associated with submitting these packaging samples.

	3(f). Confidentiality

	Although submission of confidential information is not required as a
part of this information collection, there has been at least one
instance where confidential data have been submitted voluntarily as
supporting material for an exemption request from CRP compliance
requirements.

	When any trade secret or Confidential Business Information (CBI) is
provided to EPA, such information is protected from disclosure under
section 10 of FIFRA. Data submitted to EPA is handled strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business
Information Manual.

	This manual contains instructions relative to all contact with
confidential documents, including responsibilities of EPA employees,
physical security measures, CBI copying and destruction procedures,
transfer of CBI materials within the EPA, to contractors or other
government offices, computer security, CBI typing procedures (documents
to be typed internally or on contract), and division internal
procedures.

	The manual dictates that all CBI must be marked or flagged as such,
only authorized EPA personnel may be permitted access to CBI, and CBI
must be kept in secure (double locked) areas. Additionally, CBI for
destruction must be cleared by a Document Control Officer and placed in
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances paper
shredder.

	3(g).  Sensitive Questions

	No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in this
information collection activity.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a). Respondents/NAICS Codes

	The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for
respondents under this ICR include 325320 (Pesticide and other
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), 424690 (Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers), and 561710 (Exterminating and Pest
Control Services). EPA recognizes that while this list may not be
comprehensive, it represents a broad spectrum of large and small
entities who are engaged in manufacturing pesticide chemicals, wholesale
merchandising of pesticide products, or pest management activities and
who submit CRP applications.

	4(b). Information Requested

	Pesticide registrants subject to the regulations are required to
certify to the Agency that the packaging for the pesticide product meets
the standards of 40 CFR 157, or request an exemption to the requirement.

		(i)  Data items, including record keeping requirements

	The respondent certification letter must exercise one of the following
information options in this section or in section (i)(a) to comply with
40 CFR Part 157:

Certify to CRP by letter to Agency	The name, and EPA registration number
of the product to which the certification applies, the Certification
statement, the registrant’s name and address, the date, and the name,
title and signature of the company officer making the certification. The
Certification statement must contain a statement that the pesticide
product complies with 40 CFR 157.32.  A description of the packaging
used and the ASTM International Standard D3475, "Standard Classification
of Child-Resistant Packages," designation is requested (not required).

Product does not meet Toxicity Criteria	Submit toxicity data that
indicate a specific product's minimal toxicity, or reformulate to a less
toxic product and assert that the CRP regulations do not apply. Less
than 2 percent of pesticide registrants choose this option for complying
with the CRP program.

Product is not for Residential Use	Revise product labeling so that CRP
regulations do not apply, i.e., specifying non-residential use areas, or
eliminate residential use. The registrant is required to send EPA a copy
of the revised labeling. Less than 2 percent of pesticide registrants
use this option.

	Approximately 92 percent of pesticide registrants choose to certify
that their pesticide product packaging meets the effectiveness,
compatibility, and durability standards at 40 CFR 157.32. Registrants
who certify are required to maintain data to corroborate the
certification for the duration of the pesticide's registration as
required by 40 CFR 157.36. Of those registrants who do certify,
approximately 35% may also be required to submit additional data because
of human safety/health risk concerns.  If data is needed, EPA requests
that registrants submit data electronically to expedite data analysis.
Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notice 97-9 describes the benefits and
requirements of electronic data submission (see Attachment D).

		(i)(a)  Exemptions from CRP

	Currently, registrants have several options by which they may be
exempted from CRP requirements. These options include:

	(1) Package the product in a large size so that CRP regulations do not
apply. Exercising this option effectively eliminates sales to the
general public. It is based on the concept that certain bulk size
pesticide packages are intended for commercial use even in residential
areas (i.e., exterminator-use insecticides and contract lawn care
products). These package sizes are specified in 40 CFR 157.24 (a)(2).
The pesticide registrant is not required to seek a formal exemption for
this option, and less than 4 percent of registrants use this option.
However, CRP may be required for products packaged in a size exceeding
those outlined in exemption criteria at 40 CFR 157.24(a)(2) if it is
determined by the EPA that the product is distributed or sold to the
general public. As such, EPA expects that some of these registrants will
no longer meet the criteria for the exemption.

	(2) Registrants may also assert that an exemption to CRP is warranted
because the hazards indicated by the toxicity criteria are not
indicative of risk to humans, or that CRP is not technically feasible,
practicable, or appropriate. Each request for an exemption is unique,
and the data necessary to support an exemption are unique. Less than 2
percent of pesticide registrants choose this option with the CRP
program.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

	In order to comply with the CRP regulations, registrants must engage in
the following activities:

Read instructions	Review requirements of FIFRA section 25 (c)(3) and 40
CFR Part 157, including its reference to 16 CFR 1700.15(b) and 16 CFR
1700.20;

Plan activities	Decide under which option to comply with CRP compliance
requirements or whether an exemption will be requested;

Create information 	Compile necessary data regarding compliance or
exemption from CRP requirements;

Review data for

reliability and

appropriateness	Review performance testing data to ensure that it will
support CRP certification and identify the ASTM International Standard
D3475, “Standard Classification of Child-Resistant Packages,” for
the package.

Prepare and submit certification statement. 	Draft a certification
statement citing compliance with CRP requirements and include a
description of the package, or explain why the product is not subject to
CRP, or request an exemption from CRP compliance requirements and
compile/cite any supporting data as necessary. Submit information to
EPA.

Store, file, and

maintain data	Maintain any data and information sent to EPA to certify
CRP compliance, support a determination as to why product is not subject
to CRP, or justify an exemption from CRP.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a). Agency Activities

	Upon receipt of a certification letter, EPA performs the following
activities:

Review correspondence	Review correspondence for completeness.
Incomplete/incorrect certifications are returned to registrants;

Evaluate data and advise registrant 	Evaluate data submitted and
determine whether the registrant has met the CRP requirements, has
sufficiently substantiated reasons for not being subject to CRP (e.g.
reformulate to a less toxic product) or decide whether or not to grant
an exemption. Advise registrant of decision;

Store, file, and

maintain data	All CRP data submitted to the Agency are referenced by an
MRID number in the registration file jacket for the pesticide product.
The Agency maintains a record of all CRP certifications in its generic
database.

	5(b). Collection Methodology and Management

	Respondents to this ICR submit the information as part of their larger
package for registration of a pesticide product.  Although EPA is
working to allow electronic submission of registration packages, they
are currently submitted by mail.  The Agency has no objection to
submission of the CRP information on CD ROM as part of the registration
package.

	For CRP certifications with data, EPA requests that responses are
submitted electronically to expedite data analysis.  See Attachment D
for guidance on electronic data submission.  CRP certifications with
data are the most burdensome of the four response types under this ICR,
comprising about 35 percent of all responses and nearly 80 percent of
the total estimated burden.

	EPA only collects data in support of a CRP certification when there are
human safety/health risk concerns. EPA requires that registrants
maintain data in support of their certifications of the child-resistance
of the product's packaging or devices. At the time of CRP certification
we are requesting that the registrant identify the type of packaging
used. This data is a part of their recordkeeping requirements (under 40
CFR 157.36). This additional piece of data may enable the Agency to
contact all pesticide registrants using a particular type of CRP should
a generic problem with the CRP become evident (e.g. trigger sprayers
that are no longer considered CRP).  It will also facilitate the review
of CRP exemption requests because the Agency can ascertain how similar
pesticide formulations are packaged.

	The generic database system continually tracks all registration actions
from the registration-pending stage through to full registration and
until a product is canceled. A generic database maintains information on
both currently registered products and previously registered products,
thereby acting as a registration action historical file. Additionally,
the CRP compliance certification hard copy correspondence letters are
filed in the pesticide product registration jacket.

	5(c). Small Entity Flexibility

	The incorporation of alternative methods to verify that the package
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 157.32 have allowed manufacturers to
use extrapolation schemes, available child-resistant protocol test data,
and supporting documentation without spending the time and money to
develop the data on their exact package. The burden and cost to industry
also is minimized by: the reference of the CPSC effectiveness standards
and protocol test procedures that preclude duplicative testing for
pesticidal and non-pesticidal purposes, and also allow for the use of
CRP developed for non-pesticidal purposes; the use of packaging
manufacturer's data rather than product-specific data; discretion and
innovation with regard to product packaging compatibility and package
selection; and the granting of the size exemptions without requiring an
application from the registrant or approval by EPA.

	During the current ICR renewal, OMB was concerned about the impact of
this information collection on small entities. The ICR was conditionally
cleared by OMB with the request that EPA provide the number of small
entities that are respondents. In order to respond to this request from
OMB, EPA used information on company revenue and employment from the Dun
and Bradstreet 2009 database. Child Resistant Packaging applications
were submitted to the Agency by 49 parent firms between 2006 and 2009.
EPA determined that 27 of the submitting companies were large and 21
were small (see Attachment F for the list of small entities). EPA was
unable to size one company.  The table below presents the total and
average revenue and employment for small companies, large companies, and
all companies combined. As shown below in Section 6, the burden cost per
CRP submission is $215.  Assuming that CRP submissions are evenly
distributed across small and large companies, an average firm would
submit 22 CRP applications per year.  This would result in an average
annual company burden of $4,945, which is significantly less than one
percent of an average small company’s annual revenue.

 	Total Number of Firms	Total Revenue

($)	Total Employee Size	Average Revenue1

($)	Average Employment1

	Small Firms	21	414,668,000	1,737	23,037,111	73

Large Firms	27	312,730,280,167	598,975	12,028,087,699	23,031

All Firms	48	313,144,948,167	600,712	7,116,930,640	13,639

1 Only based on firms that report sales on D&B.

5(d). Collection Schedule

	CRP certification is usually conducted only when a registrant notifies
EPA by application of their intention to change packaging, enter the
residential market, or otherwise become subject to CRP regulations.
Therefore, for each registered pesticide product, this is a one-time
submission unless labeled product use or package design changes.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a). Estimating Respondent Burden

	In calculating the respondent burden, EPA estimates that registrants
will submit 1,120 responses to this information collection activity
annually during this renewal ICR.  The number of responses is based on
the number of products in FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 with
Child-Resistant Packaging (CRP) requirements. During this three year
period, approximately 703 CRP applications were submitted annually. This
number has been adjusted to account for the projected increase in the
number of CRP submissions associated with the full implementation of the
EPA’s Registration Review program.

	EPA estimates that the average burden associated with this information
collection activity is approximately 4 hours per response. This estimate
is based on an average response time across all response types (i.e.
submit CRP certifications, submit CRP certifications with data, submit
CRP exemption explanation based on large package size, submit CRP
exemption explanation based on a lack of toxicity, packaging issues,
eliminating residential use, lower product toxicity). The number of
respondents expected for each of the various response types is based on
the number of each type of CRP submission received annually.

	EPA’s estimates of respondent burden do not include any burden at
management levels.  Responses to this information collection activity
are generally handled, without management time, by the technical
personnel such as the regulatory affairs person and packaging personnel
with some clerical support.  These CRP actions require an estimated
average of 2.85 hours technical time and 1.19 hours clerical time, which
is broken down as follows:

20 technical minutes to ascertain whether the product is subject to the
CRP regulations (meets toxicity criteria, residential use) and to decide
whether to submit a CRP certification, data, be exempt from regulations
due to large size or other criteria;

70 technical minutes to create/prepare the information;

60 technical minutes to review submission for accuracy and
appropriateness (process, compile, complete document);

51 clerical minutes to format submission and prepare information;

20 technical minutes to review and sign the appropriate documents; and,

20 clerical minutes to mail the submission, file the respondent copy and
CRP documentation

Type of Response	Number of Responses	Percent of Total

CRP certification without data	798	71

CRP certification with data	296	26

Exempt – large package size	14	1

Exempt – lack of toxicity, packaging, no residential use, lower
product toxicity	12	1

	Respondents submitting CRP certifications without data require 1 hour
of technical labor time in order to determine whether the product is
subject to the CRP regulations (meets toxicity criteria, residential
use), identify the type of CRP used, and prepare the CRP certification.
An additional 30 minutes clerical time is required to complete the CRP
certification submission to the Agency and file the supporting CRP
information.

	Respondents submitting CRP certifications with data require 8 hours of
technical labor time in order to determine the product is subject to the
CRP regulations (meets toxicity criteria, residential use); identify the
type of CRP used; prepare the CRP certification; gather the supporting
CRP data; and 3 hours of clerical time to prepare the CRP data package,
complete the CRP certification submission to the Agency, and file the
supporting CRP data.

	Respondents that are exempt from CRP requirements based on large
package size require no time because the CRP regulations require no
action on their part. Respondents that are exempt from CRP requirements
for the reasons described in Section 4(b) of this ICR require 4
technical hours and 1.9 clerical hours to prepare their submission
indicating why CRP is not required and/or CRP is not possible.  These
burden estimates by response type are summarized in Table 1.

	The total estimated respondent burden to comply with this information
collection activity is 4,524 burden hours/year (4.04 hours per
respondent x 1,120 respondents) at a cost of $240,660.  This cost
estimate is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 1.	ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN BY RESPONSE TYPE

Type of Response	No. of Responses	Technical Burden 	Clerical Burden
Aggregate Burden

Hours Per Event	Total	Hours Per Event	Total

	CRP certification	798	1.00	798	0.50	399	1,197

CRP certification with data	296	8.00	2,368	3.00	888	3,256

Exempt from CRP due to large package size	14	0.00	0	0.00	0	0

Exempt from CRP due to lack of toxicity, packaging, no residential use,
lower product toxicity	12	4.00	48	1.90	23	71

TOTAL	1,120	NA	3,214	NA	1,310	4,524

	6(b). Estimating Respondent Costs

	Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP is using labor cost estimates
from Agency economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for
all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and EPA
employees.  This approach uses a transparent and consistent methodology
employing publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates and
allow easy replication of the calculations.

	Methodology:	The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type
for an Unloaded wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the Loaded
wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits), and the Fully loaded wage
rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).  Fully loaded wage rates are used to
calculate the Agency’s staffing costs.

	Unloaded Wage Rate:  Wages are estimated for labor types (management,
technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses
average wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National
Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm .

	Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector’s
wage rate table.  Within each sector, the wage data are provided by
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).  The SOC system is used by
Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational
categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating
data (see   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm  ).

	Loaded Wage Rate: Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 43%
of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm
workers, from   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm"
 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm . However, if other
sectors are listed for which 43% is not applicable; the applicable
percentage will be stated.

	Fully Loaded Wage Rate: We multiply the loaded wage rate by 50% (EPA
guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs.  Attachments F and F.1 contain
worksheets providing the breakout of these costs.  Costs are indexed to
2008 data.

	To derive the labor rates for this ICR, Agency economists estimated the
wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories using
the methodology cited above.  The respondent costs for this renewal for
managerial, technical and clerical rates are estimated at $109.82,
$60.39 and $35.89 per hour, respectively.  These labor rates are fully
loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.

	The total average cost of the estimated burden per respondent to comply
with the CRP is approximately $215 per response. Using the Agency’s
burden estimate and the fully-loaded labor rates, the Agency estimates
total applicant costs to be approximately $240,660 per year. There are
no capital expenditures associated with this information collection
activity.

Table 2.	ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES	Burden Hours	TOTAL

	Tech.

$60.39/hr.	Clerical

$35.89/hr.	Burden

Hours	Cost

Read instructions	0.16	0.00	0.16	$9.88

Plan activities	0.17	0.00	0.17	$10.37

Create information including electronic format of data	1.17	0.00	1.17
$70.61

Process, compile, and complete written compliance document	1.01	0.85
1.86	$91.75

Review submission	0.34	0.00	0.34	$20.24

Store, submit, file, or maintain data	0.00	0.34	0.34	$12.03

TOTAL	2.85	1.19	4.04	$214.88

ANNUAL BURDEN:        4.04 Hours Per Response  x   1,120 Responses    =
4,524 Burden Hours

ANNUAL COSTS:

		(a) Technical: 2.85 hours x $60.39 x 1,120 responses = 	$193,004

		(b) Clerical:    1.19 hours x $35.89 x 1,120 responses = 	$  47,656

	Total      =     	$240,660

	6(c). Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The Agency burden hours for the entire CRP process will decrease from
18.9 hours to 13.9 hours per response.  There has been an increase in
the number of CRP submissions to the Agency.  However, the majority of
new submissions are for CRP Certification without data, which is the
least resource intensive activity for EPA. As a result, there is an
overall decrease in the average Agency burden per response.

	Annual burden to the Agency is estimated at 15,578 burden hours at a
cost of $1,092,612.  Despite the larger increase in applications for CRP
Certification without data, the main portion of the burden hours is
still expected to result from the evaluation of those CRP Certifications
submitted with data related to human safety/health risk concerns, and
assessing some of the more complex options for compliance (e.g.
requesting an exemption).

Table 3.	ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN BY RESPONSE TYPE

Action	No. of Respondents	Technical Burden 	Clerical Burden	Aggregate
Burden

Hrs Per Event	Total	Hrs Per Event	Total

	CRP certification without data	798	2.3	1,835	1.0	798	2,633

CRP certification with data	296	40.0	11,840	1.0	296	12,136

Exempt from CRP due to large package size (registrant meets size
requirement, no action needed)	14	0.0	0	0.0	0	0

Exempt from CRP due to lack of toxicity, packaging, no residential use,
lower product toxicity	12	66.5	798	0.9	11	809

TOTAL	1,120	n/a	14,473	n/a	1,105	15,578

Agency Burden = 14,473 (technical burden) + 1,105 (clerical burden) =
15,578

Total hrs/Agency Action = 15,578 ÷ 1,120 = 13.9 hrs

Table 4.	ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES	BURDEN HOURS (per respondent)	TOTAL

	Mgmt. $107.56/hr	Tech. $71.58/hr	Clerical

$41.21/hr.	Burden

Hours	Costs

Read correspondence	0.00	0.74	0.00	0.74	$52.68

Execute activities including data review and certifications for large
size nonliquid pool chemicals	0.00	12.51	0.00	12.51	$895.57

Store, file, or maintain data	0.00	0.00	0.66	0.66	$27.29

TOTAL	0.00	13.25	0.66	13.91	$975.55

ANNUAL BURDEN: The average Agency burden per CRP response is estimated
to be approximately 13.9 hours, costing $975.55 per response
($1,092,612.00 ÷ 1,120).

ANNUAL COSTS:

		(a) Technical:    13.25 hours x $71.58 x 1,120 responses = 	$1,062,045

		(b) Clerical:       0.66 hours x $41.21 x 1,120 responses   =
$30,568

       Total    =  	$1,092,612

	6(d). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Table

	Hours	Costs

Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates 	4,524	$240,660

Agency Burden/Cost Estimates	15,578 	$1,092,612

	6(e). Reasons for Change In Burden

	The number of responses has increased from 703 in the last ICR approval
to 1,120.  The increase in the expected number of responses is primarily
driven by the expected influx of CRP submissions associated with the
full implementation of the Registration Review program. In addition, the
exclusive use period for certain pesticide chemicals is expiring.
Registrants with products using these chemicals will now be required to
provide their own CRP test data, which will have to be reviewed for
human safety/health risk concerns.

	The total burden hours per respondent for compliance with the CRP
requirements decreased from 4.94 hours to 4.04 hours. The estimated
annual burden under the last ICR approval was 3,473 hours. Under this
renewal ICR, the annual burden is estimated to be 4,524 hours. The
estimated burden increase represents an adjustment.  The average burden
estimate for each response type has not changed.  However, the
distribution of those responses among the four response types has
changed, resulting in a significant net shift from more-burdensome to
less-burdensome type responses (e.g., increased percentage of
registrants submitting CRP Certifications without data).

	6(f). Burden Statement

	The total annual respondent burden for the collection of information
contained in this ICR is estimated to be 4,524 hours. The average
"respondent" (certifier) burden for the Compliance Requirement for the
CRP regulations is estimated to be 4.04 hours per submission of data
necessary to support a claim that product is not subject to CRP, should
be exempt from CRP, or CRP certification, including time for:  reading
relevant federal legislation and regulations; conducting performance
testing on closures and/or devices; reviewing test data; prepare
submission or CRP certification; and recordkeeping regarding the CRP
certification or submission.

As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), “burden” means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable.

To facilitate public comment on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated
collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887.  All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887 and OMB Control No. 2070-0052
in any correspondence.

Attachments to the Supporting Statement

All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this
ICR (unless otherwise noted); accessible electronically through
HYPERLINK "http://www.Regulations.gov"  www.Regulations.gov . On the
main page, select Advanced Search from the menu bar at the top and
select Docket Search. Enter the Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887
in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button. From the results
page, you will be able to link to the docket view or directly open
select documents found in the docket.

Attachment A:	Section 25 (c)(3) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/crp/"  http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/crp/

Attachment B:	40 CFR Part 157 - PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS FOR PESTICIDES
AND DEVICES – available at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr157_03.html"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr157_03.html

Attachment C:	Record of Consultations Between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Respondents to the Information Collection Request:
“Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging” – reserved

 Attachment D:	Pesticide Registration Notice 97-9 - Electronic
Submission of Child-resistant Packaging Test Data for All Pesticides and
Child-resistant Testing of Prefilled, Nonrefillable Insecticide Bait
Stations Not Designed or Intended To Be Opened or Activated in a Manner
That Exposes the Contents to Human Contact – available at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr97-9.html"
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr97-9.html

Attachment E:	Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Industry,
State and EPA Labor Costs; See attachment below

Attachment F:	Classification and List of Small Entities

Attachment E

Work Sheets used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887 and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS:  325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$51.01 	$28.05 	$16.67

Benefits Percentage2	Lb = B/W	44%	44%	44%

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$22.20 	$12.21 	$7.26

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$73.21 	$40.26 	$23.93

Overhead Percentage3	Lo = OH/Wb	50%	50%	50%

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$36.61 	$20.13 	$11.96

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$109.82 	$60.39 	$35.89

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm      May 2008 data

     NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural
Chemical Manufacturing

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

       Technical:        19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science
Occupations

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support
Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34.  The
loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-70% of the load
labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.

Attachment E.1

Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887 and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$49.96 	$33.25 	$19.14

Benefits Percentage2	Lb = B/W	44%	44%	44%

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$21.75 	$14.47 	$8.33

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$71.71 	$47.72 	$27.47

Overhead Percentage3	Lo = OH/Wb	50%	50%	50%

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$35.85 	$23.86 	$13.74

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$107.56 	$71.58 	$41.21

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm      May 2008 data

     NAICS  999100 -  Federal Executive Branch

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

       Technical:        19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science
Occupations

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support
Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34.  The
loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-70% of the load
labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.

Attachment F

Classification of Small Entities

Between 2006 and 2009, 49 parent firms submitted Child Resistant
Packaging applications to the Agency.  Using information on company
revenue and employment from the Dun and Bradstreet 2009 database, EPA
determined that 27 of the submitting companies were large and 21 were
small.  EPA was unable to size one company.  The table below lists small
entities that submitted CRP applications between 2006 and 2009.
Companies are listed at the parent level.  The table includes company
NAICS code, annual sales, employment, US Small Business Administration
(SBA) small business definition, and SBA size threshold.

Parent Company	NAICS Code	Annual

Sales ($)	Employees	SBA Definition1	SBA Size Threshold1

Alden - Leeds, Inc.	325998

75	E	500

American Vanguard Corporation	325320	237,538,000	320	E	500

Aqua Tri	424690	2,000,000	24	E	100

Biosensory Insect Control	561710	130,000	3	R	6,000,000

Bonide Products, Inc.	325998	35,700,000	200	E	500

Bug Stompers Inc	561710	200,000	3	R	6,000,000

Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc.-	325320	35,000,000	40	E	500

Control Solutions, Inc.	325320

50	E	500

Db Square LLC	561990	100,000	2	R	6,000,000

Envirosafe Technologies, Inc.	334112	2,200,000	18	E	1,000

Gil Manufacturing Inc	453998	1,100,000	11	R	6,000,000

Haco Group Inc	423610	250,000	2	E	100

McLaughlin Gormley King Company	325320	1,000,000	90	E	500

Pbi/Gordon Corporation	325320

300	E	500

Pic Corporation (inc)	325320	5,400,000	30	E	500

Porpoise Pool & Patio, Inc.	533110	1,000,000	280	R	6,000,000

Share Corporation	325612	16,900,000	172	E	500

Southeast Laboratories, Inc.	335314	250,000	3	E	750

Spurrier Chemical Companies, Inc.	325199	20,900,000	67	E	1,000

Vertex Chemical Corp	325188	52,000,000	45	E	1,000

Vetsource, Inc.	423390	3,000,000	2	E	100

1. An “E” indicates that the SBA small business definition is based
on employment and an “R” indicates that the SBA small business
definition is based on revenue from annual sales.  Definitions and SBA
size thresholds are based on the US Small Business Administration’s
2008 “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American
Industry Classification System Codes” available online at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_t
ablepdf.pdf"
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ta
blepdf.pdf

 The Dun and Bradstreet database is a comprehensive source of financial
information on entities, including firm locations, sales, number of
employees, and primary business classifications under North American
Industrial Classification System code (NAICS).

 Based on Table 1, the avg. technical burden across all response types
is approx. 2.87 hrs. per response (3,214 ÷ 1,120) and the avg. clerical
burden across all response types is approx. 1.17 hrs. per response
(1,310 ÷ 1,120).  For the purposes of estimating respondent burden and
cost (see Table 2), EPA assumes that the average burden is 4.04 hrs. per
response (2.85 technical hrs. + 1.19 clerical hrs.).

 The Dun and Bradstreet database is a comprehensive source of financial
information on entities, including firm locations, sales, number of
employees, and primary business classifications under North American
Industrial Classification System code (NAICS).

 PAGE

p.  PAGE   19  of   NUMPAGES  19

January 29, 2010


[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 65792]
[DOCID:fr09no06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-096]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate

November 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2006, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, Thirty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 15, to
become effective November 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18984 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13623]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0447]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Devices; Third Party Review
Program Under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices; Third Party
Review Program Under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 28, 2010
(75 FR 81616), the Agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0375.
The approval expires on February 28, 2014. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-5738 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90061-90062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0078; Notice No. 2016-14]

Hazardous Materials: Use of DOT Specification 39 Cylinders for
Liquefied Flammable Compressed Gas

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Safety advisory notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this safety advisory notice to inform
offerors and users of DOT Specification 39 (DOT-39) cylinders that DOT-
39 cylinders with an internal volume exceeding 75 cubic inches (in\3\)
(1.23 L) should not be filled with liquefied flammable compressed gas.
PHMSA maintains filling or transporting DOT-39 cylinders with an
internal volume exceeding 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) is not safe.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refaat Shafkey, General Engineer,
Engineering and Research Division, Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or, via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Action Requested

    PHMSA advises offerors of DOT-39 cylinders having an internal
volume exceeding 75 cubic inches (in\3\) (1.23 L) that such cylinders
should not be filled with liquefied flammable compressed gas. PHMSA
further advises the public not to use any DOT-39 cylinder with an
internal volume greater than 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) containing a liquefied
flammable compressed gas.

Safety Concern

    The release of a liquefied flammable compressed gas from or rupture
of such a cylinder having an internal volume exceeding 75 in\3\ (1.23
L) is a safety concern that could result in extensive property damage,
serious personal injury, or even death. A liquefied flammable
compressed gas has a stored energy that is several times greater than
that of a non-liquefied compressed gas. Further, a DOT-39 cylinder can
have a volume of up to 1,526 in\3\ (25 L) at a service pressure of 500
psig or less and, as such, can have up to 22 times the stored energy of
a DOT-39 cylinder limited to 75 in\3\ (1.23 L). Additionally, because
of the design specifications that allow for thinner walls when used at
lower pressure, the cylinders may be at greater risk from corrosion or
puncture. Given the known risks associated with cylinders that are
filled with liquefied flammable compressed gases, PHMSA is issuing this
safety advisory notice to inform offerors and users of DOT-39 cylinders
that cylinders with an internal volume of 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) or more
should not be filled with liquefied flammable compressed gas.

Background

    This safety advisory notice is being issued in part because of
concern over confusion about the regulatory requirements when using
DOT-39 cylinders for liquefied compressed gases. Historically, the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) limited the
internal volume of a DOT-39 specification cylinder to 75 in\3\ (1.23 L)
when used for certain liquefied flammable compressed gases. This size
limitation applied when DOT-39 cylinders were used for gases that were
subject to Note 9 following the table at Sec.  173.304(a)(2) or
liquefied petroleum gas as addressed in Sec.  173.304(d)(3) (The table
is currently located at Sec.  173.304a).
    In an October 30, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)--the predecessor
agency to PHMSA--proposed to extend the 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) volume
limitation of DOT-39 cylinders to all liquefied flammable compressed
gases by revising Sec.  173.304 to delete Note 9 from the table at
Sec.  173.304(a)(2) and adding Sec. Sec.  173.304a and 173.304b.\1\
RSPA received several comments in opposition to extending the limit to
all liquefied flammable compressed gases which would have been codified
in Sec.  173.304a(a)(3). RSPA published a final rule on August 8, 2002
and, based on the opposing comments, decided not to extend the 75 in\3\
(1.23 L) limitation to all liquefied flammable compressed gases in a
DOT-39 cylinder at that time. However, in the process of publishing the
final rule, the agency inadvertently omitted the 75 in\3\ (1.23 L)
limitation for liquefied flammable compressed gas and liquefied
petroleum gas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NPRM--Hazardous Materials: Requirements for DOT
Specification Cylinders (HM-220D) [63 FR 58460].
    \2\ Final Rule--Hazardous Materials: Requirements for
Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification
Cylinders (HM-220D) [67 FR 51625]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 2014, PHMSA accepted a petition for rulemaking (P-
1622) from Worthington Cylinders to address this error in a rulemaking.
On July 26, 2016, PHMSA published in the Federal Register an NPRM
titled, ``Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to
DOT Specification Cylinders (RRR),'' [81 FR 48977; Docket No. PHMSA-
2011-0140 (HM-234) \3\] that again proposes to extend the limit on the
internal volume of DOT-39 cylinders to use with all liquefied flammable
compressed gases, thus correcting the inadvertently omitted size
limitation and expanding the applicability to capture those liquefied
flammable compressed gases (e.g., difluoromethane (Refrigerant gas R
32)) either not reflected in the Sec.  173.304a(a)(2) table or not
considered a liquefied petroleum gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-16689.pdf.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 5, 2016.
William S. Schoonover,
Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-29813 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58830-58832]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23489]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9731-4]

State Program Requirements; Application To Administer Partial
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program; Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
(ODAFF) has submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an
application for authorization of the Agriculture Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (AgPDES) program pursuant to Section 402(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA or ``the Act''). ODAFF seeks approval to
administer a major category partial National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(n)(3) of
the Act for all discharges of pollutants into waters of the United
States within its jurisdiction. Today, EPA is providing public notice
of ODAFF's request for AgPDES program approval and of both a public
hearing and public comment period on the State's program approval
submission. EPA will either approve or disapprove authorization of the
AgPDES program after considering all comments received.
    To View or Obtain Copies of Documents: Copies of ODAFF's program
approval submission (referred to throughout this document as ODAFF's
application) and all other documents in the official record are
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas,
Texas 75202.
    A copy of ODAFF's application is available online at the EPA Region
6 Web page http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/ok-daff/index.html. A
paper copy of part of all of the State's application may be obtained
from EPA Region 6 in Dallas for a cost of $0.15 per page.

DATES: The public comment period on the State's application will run
from the date of publication until November 8, 2012. Comments may be
submitted in paper or electronically and must be received or post-
marked no later than midnight on November 8, 2012. Both an informal
public meeting and a public hearing will be held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma on October 25, 2012. The public meeting will include a
presentation on the AgPDES program approval request and a question and
answer session. Written, but not oral, comments for the official record
will be accepted at the public meeting. The public hearing will be
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 and will provide interested
parties with the opportunity to provide written and/or oral comments
for the official record. The public meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The
public hearing will begin at 7 p.m. Both the public meeting and the
public hearing will be held at the Metro Technology Centers, Springlake
Campus/Business Conference Center, Auditorium, 1900 Springlake Drive,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Ms. Diane Smith (6WQ-NP), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Comments may also be submitted via email to the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Denise Hamilton at the EPA address
listed above or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 402 of the CWA created the NPDES
program under which EPA may issue permits for the point source
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions
required by the Act. Section 402(b) requires EPA to authorize a State
to administer an equivalent state program upon the Governor's request,
provided the State has appropriate legal authority and a program
sufficient to meet the Act's requirements. Major category partial
permit program approval is provided for under section 402(n)(3) of the
CWA. Pursuant to that Section, EPA may approve a partial permit program
covering a major category of a State's discharges if the program
represents a complete permit program and covers all of the discharges
under the jurisdiction of the agency seeking approval, and if EPA
determines that the partial program represents a significant and
identifiable part of the State program required by Section 402(b) of
the Act. However, ODAFF does not have jurisdiction over all discharges
within the State of Oklahoma. A large portion of the State's discharges
are within the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) and other discharges are within the jurisdiction of the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
    The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set
forth in 40 CFR part 123. 40 CFR 123.21 lists the basic elements of an
approvable application. EPA Region 6 considers the documents submitted
by the State of Oklahoma administratively complete at the time of this
document. EPA will make a final decision regarding AgPDES program
approval after completion of a public hearing and public comment period
on the State's application and after consideration of all public
comments provided during the public comment period or at the public
hearing.
    On August 16, 2012, the Governor of Oklahoma requested NPDES major
category partial permit program approval and submitted, in accordance
with 40 CFR Section 123.21 program description (including funding,
personnel requirements and organization, and permit and enforcement
procedures), a Statement of Legal Authority, copies of applicable State
statutes and regulations, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be
executed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 and the
Commissioner of Agriculture for ODAFF. ODAFF seeks permitting and
enforcement authority for all discharges within its jurisdiction. At
the request of EPA, ODAFF made revisions to several of the program
submittal documents and the last of these revisions was received by EPA
on September 7, 2012. EPA has determined that ODAFF's August 16th
application for partial program approval, as amended September 7, 2012,
constitutes a complete State program submission under 40 CFR 123.21. A
letter of completeness was sent to ODAFF on September 13, 2012. EPA is
required to approve ODAFF's application within 90 days of submittal of
a complete submission unless the submittal does not meet the
requirements of Section 402(b) of the Act and EPA regulations, or EPA
and ODAFF jointly agree to extend this deadline. (See 40 CFR
123.21(d)). To obtain such approval, ODAFF must show among other things
that it has authority to issue permits that comply with the Act,
authority to impose civil and criminal penalties for permit violations,
and authority to ensure that the public is given notice and opportunity
for a hearing on each proposed permit. After close of the comment
period, the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 6 will make a
decision to approve or disapprove the AgPDES program for implementation
by the State. EPA's final decision to approve or disapprove the AgPDES
program will be based on the requirements of Section 402 of the CWA and
40 CFR part 123.
    If EPA approves the AgPDES program, the Regional Administrator will
so notify the State and will sign the proposed MOA. Notice will be
published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of program
approval, EPA will transfer to ODAFF NPDES permitting authority and
primary enforcement responsibility for those discharges subject to the
AgPDES program. If EPA's Regional Administrator disapproves the AgPDES
program, ODAFF will be notified of the reasons for disapproval and of
any revisions or modifications to the program which are necessary to
obtain approval.

Public Hearing Procedures

    The following procedures will be used at the public hearing:
    1. The Presiding Officer will conduct the hearing in a manner which
will allow all interested persons wishing to make oral statements an
opportunity to do so; however, the Presiding Officer may inform
attendees of any time limits during the opening statement of the
hearing.
    2. Any person may submit written statements or documents for the
record.
    3. The Presiding Officer may in his discretion exclude oral
testimony if such testimony is overly repetitious of previous testimony
or is not relevant to the decision to approve or require revision of
ODAFF's application.
    4. The transcript taken at the hearing, together with copies of all
submitted statements and documents, shall become a part of the record
submitted to the Regional Administrator.
    5. The hearing record will be left open until the deadline for
receipt of comments specified at the beginning of this Notice to allow
any person time to submit additional written statements or to present
views or evidence tending to rebut testimony presented at the public
hearing.
    6. Hearing statements may be oral or written. Written copies of
oral statements are urged for accuracy of the record and for use of the
Hearing Panel and other interested persons. Persons wishing to make
oral testimony supporting their written comments are encouraged to
summarize their points rather than reading lengthy written comments
verbatim into the record. All comments received by EPA Region 6 by the
deadline for receipt of comments, or presented at the public hearing,
will be considered by EPA before taking final action on ODAFF's request
for AgPDES program approval.

Scope, Transfer of NPDES Authority, and Summary of the AgPDES Program
Documents

A. Scope of the Partial Program

    The proposed AgPDES program is a major category partial permit
program in conformance with the requirements of Section 402(n)(3) of
the CWA. The proposed program is a complete permit program for all
discharges under ODAFF's jurisdiction and represents a significant and
identifiable part of the state program required by Sec.  402(b) of the
CWA. The Oklahoma discharges subject to regulation under the federal
NPDES program and the AgPDES program administered by ODAFF are point
source discharges associated with concentrated animal feeding
operations (``CAFO''), discharges from the application of biological
pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue,

discharges from silviculture activities, and discharges of storm water
from agricultural activities.
    ODAFF has jurisdiction over all matters affecting agriculture that
have not been expressly delegated to another state or federal agency,
as set out in the Oklahoma Agriculture Code, and is responsible for
fully implementing and enforcing the laws and rules within its
jurisdictional areas of environmental responsibility. The Oklahoma
Environmental Quality Act gives ODAFF environmental jurisdiction over
point source discharges from agricultural crop production and
agricultural services. It also gives the Agency environmental
jurisdiction specific to the application of pesticides. ODAFF does not
have jurisdiction over storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity (as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)) at facilities
whose primary industrial activity is storage of grain, feed seed,
fertilizer, and agriculture chemicals (e.g., SIC code 4121) and are
thus required by federal regulations to have a storm water permit.
However, ODAFF's jurisdiction includes all discharges at facilities
regulated by ODAFF that only incidentally store grain, feed, seed,
fertilizer, and agriculture chemicals to support the primary activity
of the facility (e.g., feed storage at a CAFO). ODAFF has the necessary
jurisdiction to regulate discharges resulting from agricultural and
non-agricultural applications of pesticides; except for discharges from
industrial processes, municipal treatment works, and municipal and
industrial storm water, for which the Oklahoma Environmental Quality
Act has expressly delegated jurisdiction to the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ). ODAFF also has jurisdiction to regulate
discharges resulting from silvicultural discharges related to tree
growing, planting management, log transport and log storage, and other
activities, except those related to wood preservation and processing
regulated pursuant to 40 CFR part 429 (Timber Products Processing) and
part 436 (Mineral Mining and Processing), which are regulated by ODEQ.
    Activities that are not within ODAFF's environmental jurisdiction
include commercial manufacturers of fertilizers, grain and feed
products, and chemicals; manufacturing of food and kindred products,
tobacco, paper, lumber, wood, textile mill and other agricultural
products; slaughterhouses, except for feedlots at those facilities; and
aquaculture and fish hatcheries. These exceptions to the Agency's
jurisdiction include, but are not limited to, discharges of pollutants
and storm water to waters of the state, surface impoundments and land
application of wastes and sludge, and other pollution originating at
these facilities.
    ODAFF is not seeking authority to regulate discharges to Indian
Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA retains NPDES permitting
authority and primary enforcement responsibility over Indian Country in
the State of Oklahoma.

B. Transfer of NPDES Authority and Pending Actions

    Upon approval of the AgPDES program, authority for all NPDES
permitting activities, as well as primary responsibility for NPDES
enforcement activities, within the scope of ODAFF's jurisdiction, would
be transferred to the State. EPA would retain on a permanent basis its
authority under section 402(d) of the CWA to object to AgPDES permits
proposed by ODAFF, and if the objections are not resolved, to issue
federal NPDES permits for those discharges. EPA would also retain on a
permanent basis its authority under sections 402(I) and 309 of the CWA
to file federal enforcement actions in those instances in which EPA
determines the State has not taken timely or appropriate enforcement
action.
    Upon program authorization, ODAFF will take over administration and
enforcement of EPA-issued general permits for those discharges under
its jurisdiction while EPA will retain administration of the general
permits for those discharges remaining under EPA jurisdiction.
Dischargers remaining under EPA jurisdiction include those discharges
to waters in Indian Country and those discharges under the jurisdiction
of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The transfer of EPA-issued
permits is described in Section IV.B of the MOA. A Table outlining
jurisdiction over general permits after program authorization has been
prepared and is available on EPA's Web site. This notice also serves as
notice that the permits will be modified by EPA and ODAFF as necessary
to reflect the transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to 40 CFR 123.1(d)(1)
and 123.24(b)(1)(i).
    I hereby provide public notice of the application by the State of
Oklahoma for approval to administer the AgPDES program for discharges
into navigable waters within its jurisdiction in accordance with
Section 402(b) of the CWA and 40 CFR part 123.

    Dated: September 13, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-23489 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


\162\ The markings in this Article compare the text of CHX
Article XXVIII against the proposed rule changes. The rules
contained in current CHX Article XXI, which relates to the
contracts, tickets and comparisons, would either be moved to other
sections of the proposed new trading model rules (e.g., CHX Article
XXI, Rules 4 and 13 have been moved to CHX Article 22) or would be
deleted in the new trading model because the issues covered by this
provision are the subject of clearing depository rules or agreements
between participants and their clearing firms and/or a clearing
depository.
    \163\ See CHX Rule 23(a) (correcting the omission of the roman
numeral ``I''); Interpretations and Policies to Rule 23 (clarifying
the work of market surveillance; deleting references to specialists;
and correcting a telephone number); and CHX Rule 26 (eliminating
references to the Exchange's trading floor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Other deleted provisions. In addition to the changes noted in
the paragraphs above, the Exchange's new trading model proposal would
also eliminate the following Articles from its rulebook: CHX Article
XVI (Insurance as an Ancillary Activity); CHX Article XVII (Suspension
and Termination of Special Floor Registration for Unsatisfactory
Performance); CHX Article XX (Regular Trading Session); XXIII
(Reclamations); XXIV (Lending Securities); XXV (Closing of Contracts);
XXVI (Marking to the Market); CHX Article XXIX (Special Offerings); CHX
Article XXX (Specialists); CHX Article XXXI (Odd-lots); CHX Article
XXXII (Exchange Distribution Plan); XXXIV (registered Market Makers--
Equity Floor); CHX Article XXXV (Secondary Trading Session); CHX
Article XXXVI (Baskets); and CHX Article XXXVII (Chicago Match). Each
of these sets of rules would no longer be necessary in the new trading
model.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ A few of these Articles contain rules for trading sessions
that have been already discontinued. The Exchange, for example, is
not conducting a secondary trading session under the rules set out
in CHX Article XXXV and is not using the Chicago Match system
described in CHX Article XXXVII. One Article, CHX Article XX,
contains the rules relating to the Exchange's operation of its MAX
trading system, which will be replaced with the new model's Matching
System. Other Articles relate to special registration categories--
such as those for odd-lot dealers (CHX Article XXXI) or specialists
(CHX Article XXX)--which are not part of the new trading model.
Moreover, the Exchange does not currently intend to permit special
offerings (CHX Article XXIX) or use the Exchange Distribution Plan
(CHX Article XXXII) or the basket rules (CHX Article XXXVI) in the
new model. Finally, some of the Articles that the Exchange proposes
to delete appear to be more related to clearing and settlement or to
back office processes (CHX Articles XXIII (Reclamations), XV
(Closing of Contracts) and XXVI (Marking to the Market) and less
related to the Exchange's on-going role as a market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Proposed Roll-Out of New Trading Model

    The Exchange anticipates that it will be ready to begin
implementing its new trading model in September 2006. Closer to the
implementation date, the Exchange will notify participants of its
detailed roll-out plans.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\165\
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\166\ because it would
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 by permitting the Exchange to operate an efficient, automated
market for the trading of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \166\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has reviewed drafts of various sections of the
proposed rule text, and the concept of the new trading model, with
various participants. Although some participants provided varying
levels of input, the Exchange did not solicit, nor did it receive,
written comments with respect to this final version of the proposed
rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2006-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-CHX-2006-05 and should be submitted on or before September 8, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13618 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P