[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13838-13840]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-77]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0143; FRL-7768-6]

Bromine; Tolerance Reassessment Decision; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance
Reassessment Decision (TRED) for the pesticide Bromine, and opens a
public comment period on this document. The Agency's risk assessments
and other related documents also are available in the Bromine Docket.
Through the tolerance reassessment program, EPA is ensuring that all
pesticides meet current health and food safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2006.

ADDRESS: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0143 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP- 2006-0143. The
docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket
facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
     Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0143. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public 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 captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any

disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/
.

     Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although, listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public

Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ShaRon Carlisle, Antimicrobials
Division (7510C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.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 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. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

     EPA has reassessed risks associated with use of the pesticide
bromine, reassessed the one existing tolerance (40 CFR 180.519) or
legal residue limits for residues of residual bromine in potable water,
and on September 26, 2005, reached a tolerance reassessment and risk
management decision.
     The Agency has evaluated all current registered uses of bromine
and has determined based on available data, that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from
exposure to bromine. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed, and
the current tolerances established at 40 CFR180.519 for residues of
residual bromine in potable water are now considered reassessed under
section 408(q) of the FFDCA.
     Bromine is an active ingredient in four products; two products
with multiple active ingredients and two products as the sole active
ingredient. The multiple active ingredient products control mold,
mildew, fungi, insects, and odors in exposed surfaces of bedding,
mattresses, textiles, drapes, upholstered furniture, rugs, carpets, and
storage areas. The other two bromine products, formulated as
cartridges, are used to disinfect drinking water in nonresidential
settings. The ready-to-use liquid products containing bromine as well
as other active ingredients are intended for household, farm premises,
and animal quarters use. Use of the two drinking water bromine products
is for ships and oil rig platforms. The Agency is now issuing for
comment a Report on Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance
Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision for bromine, known
as a TRED, as well as related technical support documents.
     EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when FQPA was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these
existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet
the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are
considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a
revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety
finding for the bromine tolerances included in this notice.
     Although the Bromine TRED was signed on September 26, 2005,
certain components of the document, which did not affect the final
regulatory decision, were undergoing final editing at that time. None
of these additions or changes alter the conclusions documented in the
September 2006 Bromine TRED.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, low risks, and other factors, bromine was reviewed
through the modified 4-Phase public participation process. Through this
process, EPA worked extensively

with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory decisions for
bromine.
     The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under
Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is
issuing the bromine TRED for public comment. This comment period is
intended to provide an additional opportunity for public input and a
mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the TRED. All
comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must
be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will
become part of the Agency Docket for bromine. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
     The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the
Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the TRED in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
tolerance reassessment decisions reflected in this TRED will be
implemented as presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

     Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to
review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of
August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review
is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 9, 2006.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-2559 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20290-20292]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Hawthorne, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport,
Hawthorne, NV, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure
procedures at the airport, for the safety of aircraft and management of
airspace within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the earth at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0297/
Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.6-mile radius of
Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, and within 2 miles either
side of a curved line extending southeast to approximately 15 miles
east of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP NV E5 Hawthorne, NV [New]

Hawthorne Industrial Airport, NV
    (Lat. 38[deg]32'42'' N., long. 118[deg]37'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 3.6 miles of the Hawthorne Industrial Airport and within 2
miles each side of a line extending from lat. 38[deg]32'25'' N.,
long. 118[deg]37'26'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]28'43'' N., long.
118[deg]27'48'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]28'49'' N., long. 118[deg]24'19''
W.; to lat. 38[deg]32'06'' N., long. 118[deg]18'07'' W.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08748 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 11813]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-P-1189]

Canned Tuna Deviating From Identity Standard: Temporary Permit
for Market Testing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
extension of temporary permits issued to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken
of the Sea International; and StarKist Seafood Company (the applicants)
to market test products (designated as ``canned tuna'') that deviate
from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna. The extension
allows the applicants to continue to measure consumer acceptance of the
products and assess the commercial feasibility of the products, in
support of a petition to amend the standard of identity for canned
tuna. We also invite other interested parties to participate in the
market test.

DATES: The new expiration date of the permit will be either the
effective date of a final rule amending the standard of identity for
canned tuna that may result from the petition or 30 days after denial
of the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 130.17, we issued
temporary permits to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, 9655 Granite Ridge Dr., San
Diego, CA 92123; Chicken of the Sea International, 9330 Scranton Rd.
Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92121; and StarKist Seafood Company, 225 North
Shore Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15212, to market test products identified as
``canned tuna'' that deviate from the requirements of the standard of
identity for canned tuna in 21 CFR 161.190 (79 FR 35362, June 20,
2014). We issued the permits to facilitate market testing of products
that deviate from the requirements of the standard of identity for
canned tuna issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341). The permit covers limited interstate
marketing tests of products identified as ``canned tuna.'' These test
products deviate from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna
(Sec.  161.190) in that they are labeled without the statement ``Below
Standard in Fill'' as required in Sec.  161.190(c)(4) and Sec.
130.14(b). The test products meet all the requirements of the standard
with the exception of this deviation.
    On September 3, 2015, the applicants asked us to extend the
temporary permit so they could have more time to market test the canned
tuna products and gain additional consumer acceptance in support of the
petition to amend the standard for canned tuna. We find that it is in
the interest of consumers to extend the permit for the market testing
of canned tuna to gain additional information on consumer expectations
and acceptance. Therefore, under Sec.  130.17(i), we are extending the
temporary permits granted to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC (141,000,000 pounds
(lbs) (63,800,905 kilograms (kgs))); Chicken of the Sea International
(77,500,000 lbs (35,067,873 kgs)); and StarKist Seafood Company
(182,500,000 lbs (82,579,185 kgs)) to provide continued market testing
of the specified amounts of product for each applicant on an annual
basis. The test products will bear the name ``canned tuna.'' The new
expiration date of the permit will be either the effective date of a
final rule amending the standard of identity for canned tuna that may
result from the petition or 30 days after denial of the petition. All
other conditions and terms of this permit remain the same.
    In addition, we invite interested persons to participate in the
market test under the conditions of the permit, except for the
designated area of distribution. Any person who wishes to participate
in the extended market test must notify, in writing, the Supervisor,
Product Evaluation Labeling Team, Food Labeling and Standards Staff,
Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. The notification must describe
the test products and the area of distribution, specify and justify the
amount requested, and include the labeling that will be used for the
test product (i.e., a draft label for each size of container and each
brand of product to be market tested) (see Sec.  130.17(c)). The
information panel of the label must bear nutrition labeling in
accordance with 21 CFR 101.9. Each of the ingredients used in the food
must be declared on the label as required by 21 CFR part 101.

    Dated: March 1, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-04944 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26127-26130]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10504]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74853; File No. SR-OCC-2015-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Provision of
Clearance and Settlement Services for Energy Futures and Options on
Energy Futures

April 30, 2015.
    On March 2, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change OCC-2015-006 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 20, 2015.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order approves the rule change as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Release No. 74511 (March 16, 2015), 80
FR 15042 (March 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description

    OCC is amending its rules to provide clearance and settlement
services to NASDAQ Futures, Inc. (``NFX'') for certain enumerated
Energy Futures contracts and options on Energy Futures. OCC further
proposed to add new risk models to its System for Theoretical Analysis
and Numerical Simulations (``STANS'') methodology \4\ to risk manage
Energy Futures contracts. OCC's STANS methodology already accommodates
the margining of futures and futures options, and after adopting the
models described more fully in the proposed rule change, Energy Futures
contracts will be risk managed using the same methodology as futures
products currently cleared and settled by OCC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC's STANS methodology is used to measure the exposure of
portfolios of options, futures and cash instruments cleared and
carried by OCC on behalf of its clearing member firms. STANS allows
clearing institutions to measure, monitor and manage the level of
risk exposure of their members' portfolios. For more information,
see www.optionsclearing.com/risk-management/margins.
    \5\ OCC will compute initial margin requirements for segregated
futures accounts Through the Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk
(``SPAN''[supreg]) margin calculation system without further
modification, subject to OCC's collection of enhanced margin to be
deposited in the segregated futures account in the event that the
margin requirement as calculated under STANS would exceed the
requirement calculated under SPAN. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 72331 (June 5, 2014), 79 FR 33607 (June 11, 2014) (SR-
OCC-2014-13). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74268
(February 12, 2015), 80 FR 8917 (February 19, 2015) (SR-OCC-2014-
24). This rule change has been approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these Energy Futures contracts and options on Energy
Futures do not fall within the scope of contracts for which OCC has
previously agreed to provide clearance and settlement services to
NFX,\6\ OCC also added a new ``Schedule C'' to its Agreement for
Clearing and Settlement Services (``Clearing Agreement'') with NFX. The
Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement has been approved by the
Commission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NFX previously operated as a designated contract market
(``DCM'') regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''), and OCC provided clearing and settlement services
pursuant to a January 13, 2012 agreement (``Previous Agreement'').
NFX became a dormant contract market and ceased operations as a DCM
as of January 31, 2014, thus terminating the Previous Agreement. The
CFTC later approved NFX as a DCM and the Clearing Agreement permits
OCC to once again provide clearing services to NFX.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74432 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12652 (March 10, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-03)(notice of
filing of proposed rule change concerning execution of a clearing
and settlement agreement between OCC and NFX); See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74747(April 16, 2015), 80 FR 22591 (April
22, 2015)(order approving the proposed clearing and settlement
agreement between OCC and NFX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    As proposed in its rule change OCC will clear and settle Energy
Futures contracts and options on Energy Futures that are to be traded
on NFX.\8\ They include nine futures contracts on petrol and natural
gas products, three of which will have related options contracts, along
with 16 electricity futures contracts. The Energy Futures contracts are
all cash-settled, and the options contracts will settle into the
underlying futures contract. All of the Energy Futures contracts are
``look-alike'' products to futures products already traded on U.S.
futures exchanges and cleared by other Derivatives Clearing
Organizations (``DCOs'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition to trading in the regular session, Energy
Futures and options on Energy Futures will also trade during
overnight trading sessions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
74241 (February 10, 2015), 80 FR 8383 (February 17, 2015) SR-OCC-
2014-812.
    \9\ More specifically, Energy Futures contracts are look-alike
products to futures products that are currently traded on the New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and ICE Futures, U.S., and cleared by
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and ICE Clear U.S., Inc.,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petrol and Natural Gas Futures Products
    NFX will list petrol and natural gas Energy Futures contracts and
options on petrol Energy Futures. These Energy Futures contracts are
based on a variety of refined oil fuels and natural gasses that are
commonly used for hedging market participants' portfolios.
Specifically, NFX will list the following cash-settled petrol and
natural gas Energy Futures contracts: NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures
(BFQ), NFX Gasoil Financial Futures (GOQ), NFX Heating Oil Financial
Futures (HOQ), NFX WTI Crude Oil Financial Futures (CLQ), NFX RBOB
Gasoline Financial Futures (RBQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Financial
Futures--10,000 (HHQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Financial Futures--
2,500 (NNQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Penultimate Financial Futures--
2,500 (NPQ) and NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Penultimate Financial
Futures--10,000 (HUQ). Further, NFX will list options on NFX WTI Crude
Financial Futures (LOQ), NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures (BCQ) and
the NFX Henry Hub Penultimate Financial Futures (LNQ) that settle
directly into the referenced futures contract.
Electricity Futures Products
    NFX will also list electricity Energy Futures contracts, which are
based on electricity prices at different hubs and smaller nodes from
across the United States reflecting different power distribution grids
and circuits and are look-alike products to products traded on ICE
Futures, U.S. and cleared by ICE Clear U.S., Inc. For each of these
nodes, there is a ``peak'' and ``off-peak'' future representing prices
at time periods in the day when electricity usage is high compared to
when the demand on the grid is lower. The electricity Energy Futures
contracts NFX selected for listing are the most popular nodes and hubs
within the electricity futures market. More specifically, NFX will list
the following electricity contracts, to be settled on final settlement
prices based on an average regional transmission organization,
independent system operator (``ISO'') published real-time or day-ahead
locational marginal prices (``LMPs'') \10\ for a pre-determined set of
peak or off-peak hours for a contract month:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Locational marginal pricing reflects the value of the
energy at the specific location and time it is delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NFX ISO-NE Massachusetts Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial
Future (NOPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average
day-ahead hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the
Massachusetts Hub.
     NFX ISO-NE Massachusetts Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial
Futures (NEPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average
day-ahead hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Massachusetts
Hub.
     NFX MISO Indiana Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Futures
(CINQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time
hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Indiana Hub as
published by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
(``MISO'').
     NFX MISO Indiana Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial Futures
(CPOQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time
hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Indiana Hub as
published by MISO.
     NFX PJM AEP Dayton Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Futures
(MSOQ), settling on final settlement prices based

on average real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the
AEP Dayton Hub.
     NFX PJM AEP Dayton Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial
Futures (AODQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average
real-time hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the AEP
Dayton Hub.
     NFX PJM Northern Illinois Hub Real-Time Peak Financial
Futures (PNLQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average
real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Northern
Illinois Hub.
     NFX PJM Northern Illinois Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial
Futures (NIOQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average
real-time hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Northern
Illinois Hub.
     NFX PJM Western Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures
(PJDQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
     NFX PJM Western Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures
(PJCQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
     NFX PJM Western Hub Real-Time Off- Peak Financial Futures
(OPJQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time
hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
     NFX PJM Western Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Future
(PJMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time
hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
     NFX CAISO NP-15 Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures
(ONPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the NP-15 Hub.
     NFX CAISO NP-15 Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures
(NPMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the NP-15 Hub.
     NFX CAISO SP-15 Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures
(OFPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the SP-15 Hub.
     NFX CAISO SP-15 Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures
(SPMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead
hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the SP-15 Hub.

Risk Model Changes

    As noted above, the Energy Futures contracts that OCC will clear
are look-alike products to energy futures traded on other futures
exchanges and cleared by other DCOs. According to OCC, there is a
significant amount of historical data and academic literature
concerning risk models for energy futures, and OCC has used such data
and literature in the development of its risk models for Energy Futures
contracts. Based on its analysis of that information, OCC stated that
it has identified two characteristics specific to Energy Futures
contracts (compared to futures contracts already cleared, settled and
risk managed by OCC) for which new risk models needed to be added to
the STANS methodology: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In developing its risk models for Energy Futures, OCC
stated in its proposed rule change that it had also considered a
third characteristic, namely that electricity markets are known to
be geographically segmented, which can cause abrupt and
unanticipated changes in spot prices. However, after reviewing
relevant academic literature and performing internal testing, OCC
determined that adjusting its futures risk models to account for
changes in the spot price of electricity was not appropriate.
Securities Exchange Release No. 74511 (March 16, 2015), 80 FR 15042
(March 20, 2015). See Kholopova, M. (2006) ``Estimating a two-factor
model for the forward curve of electricity,'' Ph.D. dissertation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Energy Futures prices are known to be more volatile as
contracts approach delivery because of the convergence with cash-market
prices and the potential for real-life trading and delivery
complications of the underlying commodity. This phenomenon is known as
the ``Samuelson effect,'' \12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Samuelson, Paul A., ``Proof that Properly Anticipated
Prices Fluctuate Randomly,'' Industrial Management Review, Vol. 6
(1965). OCC stated that no other futures contracts for which it
provides clearance and settlement services exhibit the Samuelson
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The price volatility of certain energy futures display a
seasonal pattern (a/k/a ``seasonality'').
    To address these characteristics, OCC designed multi-factor risk
modeling capabilities that can risk model based on up to three factors:
a short-run factor, a seasonal factor and a long-run factor. The short-
run factor is designed to account for the Samuelson effect, which
becomes more pronounced the closer the contract is to maturity (i.e.,
delivery). The seasonal factor accounts for Energy Futures contracts
that display volatility in a seasonal pattern, and the long-run factor
accounts for the risk of a given Energy Future contract not addressed
by either the short-run factor or the seasonal factor. Pursuant to its
rule change as proposed, OCC's multi-factor models can be further
categorized as either a two-factor model or three-factor model, with
the two factor model consisting of a short-run and long-run factor,
while the three-factor model consists of a short-run factor, a long-run
factor, and a seasonality factor.
Two-Factor Model
    OCC will use a two-factor risk model to compute theoretical prices
for NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures contracts and NFX WTI Crude Oil
Financial Futures contracts because such futures do not exhibit
seasonality.\13\ The two-factor risk model will derive a given Energy
Future contract's price based on a long-run factor and a short-run
factor. The long-run factor component captures changes to the
equilibrium price (i.e., the prevailing market price at a point in
time) of a given Energy Future contract based on factors such as
expectations of the exhaustion of existing supply, improving technology
for production, the discovery of additional supply of the commodity,
inflation and political and regulatory effects. Using historical data,
OCC assumed that such long-run factors cause the equilibrium price for
a given Energy Future contract to evolve according to a stochastic
process that accounts for asymmetric skewness and excess kurtosis.\14\
The short-run component captures short-run changes in demand or supply
due to real-life factors such as variation in the weather or
intermittent supply disruptions as well as increased volatility (i.e.,
the Samuelson effect).\15\ The short-run component of the model is mean
reverting; therefore, in the absence of such short-term changes in
demand or supply the long-run factor should determine the price for a
given Energy Future contract. Additionally, the short-run factor is
less noticeable as the tenor of the Energy Futures contract increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Schwartz, E. and J. Smith (2000) ``Short-term
variations and long-term dynamics in commodity prices,'' Management
Science, vol. 46, pp. 893-911. OCC provided that the supply of Brent
Crude Oil and WTI Crude Oil is not affected by seasonal variation in
demand because there are low-cost transportation methods for Brent
Crude Oil and WTI Crude Oil as well as the ability to store Brent
Crude Oil and WTI Crude Oil.
    \14\ The model assumes that past price information is already
incorporated into the current price and the next price movement is
conditionally independent of past price movements. Additionally, the
long-run factor accounts for ``fat tail'' events.
    \15\ This is often observed as shorter dated futures contracts
exhibit greater volatility than longer dated futures contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three-Factor Model
    OCC will use a three-factor risk model in order to compute
theoretical prices for the remainder of the Energy Futures
contracts.\16\ The three-factor model uses

the same long-run and short-fun factor components as the two-factor
model and adds a seasonality factor. Using historical data, OCC asserts
that Energy Futures contracts, except for Energy Futures contracts on
Brent Crude Oil and WTI Crude Oil, experience seasonality.\17\ To
address seasonality, OCC will employ a trigonometric function,\18\
which it states will capture price dynamics in different seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OCC's proposed model is based upon recent academic
literature on energy futures. See Mirantes, A., J. Poblacion and G.
Serna (2012) ``The stochastic seasonal behavior of natural gas
prices,'' European Financial Management, vol. 18, pp. 410-443.
    \17\ OCC provides that this is due to the lack of low-cost
transportation and limited, or no ability to store the commodity.
    \18\ See note 14 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC stated its belief that the proposed enhancements to STANS are
appropriately designed to support the clearance and settlement of
Energy Futures contracts, based on model back testing results.
Moreover, OCC asserts that the Energy Futures contracts are not new or
novel contracts, and that the clearance and settlement of Energy
Futures contracts will not present material risk to OCC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ OCC provides that cleared futures contracts account for
less than two percent of its total overall volume and, in 2011, OCC
cleared 1,388 contracts traded on NFX. In 2012, OCC cleared 518,360
contracts traded on NFX (NFX did not have any cleared futures
contract volume in 2013 and 2014). By way of reference, OCC's
average daily cleared contract volume in through February 19, 2015,
is 17 million contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement

    Pursuant to approved rule change 2015-OCC-03, OCC added a Schedule
C to the Clearing Agreement to support the clearance and settlement of
Energy Futures contracts and options on Energy Futures. Pursuant to the
Clearing Agreement between OCC and NFX, OCC has agreed to clear the
specifically enumerated contracts and may agree to clear and settle
additional types of contracts should both parties execute a new
Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement. This was necessary because Energy
Futures contracts and options on Energy Futures were not enumerated in
either the Previous Agreement, or in any existing Schedule C to the
Previous Agreement. The approved rule change adds this new Schedule C
to allow OCC to provide for the clearance and settlement of Energy
Futures contracts and options on Energy Futures.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \20\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \21\ because it assures
the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody and control of
OCC and permits OCC to risk manage Energy Futures contracts and options
on Energy Futures through appropriate risk models as described above.
Such risk models should reduce the risk that clearing members' margin
assets will be insufficient in the event that OCC needs such assets to
close-out the positions of a defaulted clearing member and, in turn
also help protect investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the
proposed rule change is also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under
the Act,\22\ because it will allow OCC to implement risk-based models
and parameters to set margin requirements for clearing members who
trade Energy Futures contracts and Energy Futures Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \23\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2015-006) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10504 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 40377]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78078; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares
of the First Trust Strategic Mortgage REIT ETF of First Trust Exchange-
Traded Fund VIII

June 15, 2016.
    On May 3, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the First Trust Strategic Mortgage REIT ETF of First Trust
Exchange-Traded Fund VIII under Nasdaq Rule 5735. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 12,
2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77781 (May 6, 2016),
81 FR 29590 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 26, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates August 10, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NASDAQ-2016-064).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14558 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30517-30519]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12828]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75022; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-049]

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

May 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 11, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://

www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective May 11,
2015. On January 2, 2015, the Exchange established an FBW fee for an
updated version of FBW (``FBW2''), which the Exchange had anticipated
making available shortly thereafter to all TPHs.\3\ The Exchange at
that time also proposed adopting a fee waiver for the months of January
and February 2015, as well as provide that, after March 1, 2015, the
monthly fee for FBW2 login IDs would be waived for the first month. The
launch of FBW2 however, was delayed and as such the Exchange extended
the fee waiver for the months of March and April 2015. Additionally,
the Exchange provided that after May 1, 2015 (instead of March 1, 2015)
the monthly fee for FBW2 login IDs would be waived for the first month.
The Exchange notes that to date, FBW2 has not launched. The Exchange
anticipates launching FBW2 on May 11, 2015. In light of this delay, the
Exchange proposes to delete the now outdated language and extend the
fee waiver for the months of May and June 2015. Additionally, the
Exchange will provide that after July 1, 2015 (instead of May 1, 2015)
the monthly fee for FBW2 login IDs will be waived for the first
month.\4\ The purpose of the proposed fee waivers is to give new users
time to become familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW
workstation functionality. The Exchange notes that after July 2015 (and
absent an applicable fee waiver noted above), TPHs will be charged each
of $400 for FBW and FBW2 (i.e., total of $800) if such users continue
to use both FBW and FBW2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74134 (January 26,
2015), 80 FR 20 [sic] (January 30, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-005). The
adopted fee for FBW2 is the same as the existing FBW fee (i.e., $400
per month (per login ID).
    \4\ For example, if a user adds a new login ID in July 2015, the
user would receive a fee waiver for that login ID for July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of FBW2 fees for the months of May and June 2015 because it
allows new users time to become familiar with and fully acclimated to
the new FBW functionality and incentivizes the users to begin this
process as soon as the new functionality becomes available. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a waiver for the first
month for a new login ID beginning July 1, 2015, because it allows a
new user after June 2015 to fully acclimate to the new FBW
functionality. Additionally, the Exchange notes it is merely extending
existing waivers to correspond with the delayed launch of FBW2.

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, because it applies to all
Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes this proposal will not
cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the
proposal only affects trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed
changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE
market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-049 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-2015-049. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-049 and should be
submitted on or before June 18, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12828 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 51524-51525]
[DOCID:fr20au10-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0115; Notice 1]

Yokohama Tire Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC) \1\ has determined that certain
P215/60R15 93H AVID H4S passenger car replacement tires did not fully
comply with Paragraph S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. On
January 21, 2010, YTC filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC) is a corporation of the
State of California that manufactures replacement equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), YTC has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of YTC's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 6,254 \2\ P215/60R15 93H AVID H4S
passenger car replacement tires that were manufactured in YTC's Salem,
Virginia manufacturing plant during the period December 2, 2007 through
September 19, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ YTC's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requested an agency decision to exempt YTC as replacement equipment
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR Part 573 for 7,836 of the affected tires. Subsequent to filling
its petition, YTC notified NHTSA that the actual number of affected
tires is 6,254. We also note that the agency cannot relieve YTC
distributors of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce
of the noncompliant tires under their control after YTC recognized
that the subject noncompliance existed. Those tires must be brought
into conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraphs S5.5.1 Of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5.1 Tire identification number.
    (a) * * *
    (b) Tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Each tire
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. Except
for retreaded tires, either the tire identification number or a
partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the
tire identification number, except for the date code and, at the
discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, must be labeled
on the other sidewall of the tire. Except for retreaded tires, if a
tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be
labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part
574 on one sidewall and with either the tire identification number
or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters
in the tire identification number except for the date code and, at
the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other
sidewall.

    YTC stated that the noncompliance is that the subject tires do not
have full or partial Tire Identification Numbers (TIN) on one of their
sidewalls. YTC explained that the intended outboard sidewall did have
the complete TIN, but the opposite sidewall has no TIN or partial TIN.
    YTC stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:

    All of the subject tires have been tested and certified
compliant with all of the durability requirements of FMVSS No.139
for high speed, endurance and low inflation pressure performance.
The tires also meet all of the physical dimension, resistance to
bead unseating and strength requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
    Warranty and claim data for the subject tires reveals a very
small number of tire warranty returns, and no reports of claims
associated with accidents or tire failure incidents.
    The TIN becomes important in the event of a safety campaign and
enables the owners to properly identify tires included in a captive
action campaign. While the subject tires are noncompliant with the
current FMVSS No. 139 sidewall marking regulation the subject tires
do have a full TIN on one sidewall that can be used in case of a
safety campaign. These tires are marked in the same manner that was
the requirement for many years prior to FMVSS No. 139 that now
requires the application of the additional TIN identifier in a full
or partial form. The absence of one TIN identifier on one tire
sidewall does not prohibit the ability to identify the tire as part
of a safety campaign or tire recall when required.

    YTC indicated that they have implemented corrected procedures to
prevent this noncompliance from recurring in future production.
    Based on the above stated reasons, YTC believes that the described
noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov/. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be
faxed to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and

supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is
granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: September 20, 2010.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 16, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-20636 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 57649]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following information collection was published on September 8, 2017 [82
FR 42572]. The agency received no comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Fikentscher at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43-467,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Fikentscher's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Brake Hose Manufacturers Identification.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0052.
    Type of Review: Request for public comments on a previously
approved collection of information.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., as amended (``the Safety Act''),
authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs). The Safety Act mandates that in issuing any FMVSS, the agency
is to consider whether the standard is reasonable and appropriate for
the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
for which it is prescribed. Using this authority, FMVSS No. 106, Brake
Hoses, was issued. This standard specifies labeling and performance
requirements which apply to all manufacturers of brake hoses and brake
hose end fittings, and to those who assemble brake hoses (49 CFR
571.106).
    Prior to assembling or selling brake hoses, these entities must
register their identification marks with NHTSA to comply with the
labeling requirements of this standard. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the agency must obtain OMB approval to
continue collecting labeling information. Currently, there are 2,418
manufacturers of brake hoses and end fittings, and brake hose
assemblers, registered with NHTSA. However, about 60 respondents
annually (annual average from 2014-2016) request to have their
identification marks added to or removed from the NHTSA database. To
comply with this standard, each brake hose manufacturer or assembler
must contact NHTSA and state that they want to be added to or removed
from the NHTSA database of registered brake hose manufacturers. This
action is usually initiated by the manufacturer with a brief written
request via U.S. mail, facsimile, an email message, or a telephone
call. Since September 1, 2015, the request can be submitted via the
Manufacturer Portal: Online Web-based Submittal Center (https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov). Currently, about 90 percent of requests are
received electronically and 10 percent via mail. The estimated time for
complying with the labeling requirements of this regulation is 1.5
hours per manufacturer. The corresponding total annual burden is
estimated to be 90 hours (time burden of 1.5 hours per manufacturer x
60 manufacturers). The estimated manufacturer's cost for complying with
this regulation is $100 per hour. Therefore, the total annual cost is
estimated to be $9,000 (time burden of 90 hours x $100 cost per hour).
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    Number of Respondents: 60.
    Number of Responses: 60.
    Total Annual Burden: 90 hours.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Authority: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-26234 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P