JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR

AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection:  APPLICATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL
USE PERMIT (EUP) TO SHIP AND USE A PESTICIDE FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES
ONLY

OMB NO.: 2070-0040

EPA NO.: 0276.13

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is a proposed renewal of an
existing ICR that is currently approved by OMB and is due to expire May
31, 2007.  This information collection provides the EPA with the data
necessary to determine whether to issue an experimental use permit under
section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended. FIFRA requires that before a pesticide product may
be distributed or sold in the U.S. it must be registered by EPA.
However, section 5 authorizes EPA to issue experimental use permits
which allow pesticide companies to temporarily ship pesticide products
for experimental use for the purpose of gathering data necessary to
support the application for registration of a pesticide product.  In
general, EUP's are issued either for a pesticide not registered with the
Agency or for a registered pesticide for a use not registered with the
Agency.

The information collected and reported under an EUP is a summary of that
which is routinely submitted in connection with registration.  The EUP
allows for large scale field testing, if necessary, in order to collect
sufficient data to support registration.  An EUP is not required if the
person conducting the tests does not expect to receive benefits in pest
control.

EPA Form 8570-17, Application for An Experimental Use Permit to Ship and
Use a Pesticide for Experimental Purposes Only, is filed by the
prospective registrant for a permit to generate information or data
necessary to register a pesticide under Section 3 of FIFRA, (see
Attachment A).  This information from the applicant is necessary in
order to grant and effectively monitor the EUP.  The applicant must also
provide the Agency with a final report on the results of the
experimental program which includes information such as: amount of the
product applied; the crops or sites treated; any observed adverse
effects; any adverse weather conditions which may have inhibited the
program; the goals achieved; and the disposition of containers, unused
pesticide material, and affected food/feed commodities.

If the food/feed treated under the terms of an experimental use
permitted are to be shipped in commerce, the applicant must also submit
a petition for temporary tolerance pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  This program is more fully described in ICR
No. 2070-0024 “Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides and Inert
Ingredients on Food/Feed,” EPA No. 0597.

Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a).  Need/Authority for the Collection

As required by section 5 of FIFRA, (see Attachment B), and Part 172 of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 172), the
information collected and reported is necessary to evaluate the
potential hazard of the product and to make certain that the permit was
issued for genuine experimental purposes rather than as a form of
temporary registration.  To ensure compliance, the final report is
compared with the objectives of the testing program.  The information
also enables EPA to identify whether the treated food or feed crops will
be used in a commercial market which would require issuance of a
temporary tolerance or destroyed because the use was for research
purposes only.  Since it is common for applicants to request extensions
of EUP's, it is imperative that the Agency has reports in hand in order
to judge the need for such extensions.

Exemptions from EUP requirements:

Under the existing EUP regulations, small-scale experimental uses of
pesticides are presumed exempt from the EUP requirements.  EPA will not
require an EUP for a substance or mixture of substances being put
through laboratory or greenhouse tests, or fewer than one surface acre
per pest for terrestrial tests or fewer than ten acres per pest for
aquatic tests, in which the sole purpose under the following small scale
field testing scenarios:

Land-Pesticide testing on plots of land ten acres or less in size:

Test plots may be as large as ten acres per pest if the effect of each
pesticide on several pests is being investigated at a different time for
each pest.  However, if pesticide effects on more than one pest are
being investigated all at the same time, the test plot may not exceed
ten acres in size.  Furthermore, any food or feed crops involved in or
affected by the tests must be destroyed or consumed only by experimental
animals unless a tolerance or exemption from a tolerance has been
established.

Aquatic Uses-Pesticide testing on water bodies one surface acre or less
in size:

 Water bodies may be as large as one acre per pest if the effect of
each pesticide on several pests is being investigated at a different
time for each pest.  However, if pesticide effects on more than one pest
are being investigated all at the same time, the water body may not
exceed one acre in size.  Bodies of water involved in or affected by the
tests may not be used for irrigation, drinking water supplies, or body
contact through recreational activities.  In addition, pesticides may
not be tested in waters that contain or which affect any fish, shellfish
or other plants or animals which may be taken for food or feed unless a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance exists for the test product.

Animal Treatment Uses:

Tests may be conducted only in cases where experimental animals will not
be used for food or feed unless a tolerance or exemption from tolerance
exists for the test product.

Other Uses:

In instances where testing operations do not accurately reflect whether
the testing is to be considered small-or large-scale acreage limits, the
Agency will determine on a case-by-case basis whether an exemption from
the requirement from an EUP is appropriate.

The exemptions described above are not definitive, but 40 CFR 172.3
gives EPA discretionary authority to exempt particular testing
operations from the EUP requirements under other conditions.  40 CFR
172.3 also allows EPA discretionary authority to require EUP’s for
testing operations even when the exemption conditions of 40 CFR 172.3(b)
and (c) are met.

EUP for Small-scale Field Testing of Microbial Pesticides:

The Agency may require an EUP for small scale field testing of certain
unique microbial pesticides (i.e., genetically-altered and
non-indigenous microbial pest control agents) because of the potential
concern for microorganisms to reproduce and multiply in the environment
and the potential for these microbials to cause unforseen adverse
impacts.  Prior to the initiation of any small scale field testing
involving genetically-altered or non-indigenous microbial pest control
agents, the research organization, company, or individual must submit a
notification to the Agency so that a determination can be made as to
whether an EUP is required.  The requirements for a EUP for field
testing of microbial pesticides are found in 40 CFR 172.43-59.  These
requirements differ significantly from the EUP requirements for testing
other pesticides.

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

The information collected and reported under an EUP will enable the
Agency to:

Determine whether a renewal, extension or amendment of the EUP, if
requested, is justified;

allow for adequate monitoring of the EUP program; and

ascertain the cause/effect relationship when a pesticide is registered
and later found to have adverse effects (as in the case of
phytotoxicity); and

allow the Agency to review efficacy data which may contain important
health data.

3.	Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a).  Non duplication

The respondent is not required to submit EUP-related information or data
to any other Federal agency or to any other EPA program offices.  FIFRA
section 7 (Attachment C), however, does require annual pesticide
production reports from all persons who produce pesticides.  The
pesticide material produced in conjunction with an EUP would be included
in these annual production reports; however, annual production
information is not required as a condition of the EUP, only total
production in the final report.

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

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA is publishing a Federal Register (FR)
notice soliciting comment on this information collection activity and
the Agency’s intent to renew the OMB approval of this ICR.  The FR
notice and the proposed renewal ICR as well as any public comment are
located in the docket for this action, which can be accessed at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov
using the docket indentifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632.

3(c). Consultations

Consultation and/or dialogue between the respondent and EPA occurs on an
informal, ongoing "as needed" basis, primarily during the submission and
review of the application for an experimental use permit. Historically,
when technical, administrative, or other problems arises, 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.

During the preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff contacted several
representatives of pesticide registrants by e-mail to seek feedback on
the EUP information reporting requirements and process.  A copy of the
ICR questionnaire is provided in Attachment D.   The Agency received no
comments from the representatives listed below during the consultation
period.

Russell Schneider

Monsanto

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Greg Watson

Syngenta

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Don Carlson

FMC Corporation

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Jim Barron

Bayer

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

3(d).  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

There is only one submission required in conjunction with each request
for EPA approval to conduct testing on certain pesticides.  Therefore,
the frequency of the collection cannot be reduced, except to eliminate
the collection altogether.  The Agency then would have no means by which
to evaluate the potential human health risks and environmental hazard
presented by a proposed test.

3(e).  General Guidelines

The only guideline under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that is
exceeded in this collection is the time period for retaining records.
EPA requirements in 40 CFR 169.2(k) state that records containing
research data relating to registered pesticides be retained as long as
the registration is valid and the manufacturer remains in business.
Pesticide registrations are valid until they are either voluntarily
canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until EPA has cause to
suspend or cancel the registration.  Since the average period of
marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15 to 30 years, the PRA
guidelines specifying that data other than health, medical, or tax
records not be required to be retained for more than three years will be
exceeded in this program.

3(f).  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

(i)   Confidentiality

When trade secret information or Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is provided to the Agency, such information is protected from disclosure
under FIFRA Section 10, as amended and EPA's confidentiality regulation,
Title 40 CFR, Subpart B.  Data submitted to the Agency are handled
strictly in accordance with the FIFRA CBI Security Manual.  This manual
contains instructions relative to all contact with confidential
documents, including responsibility of EPA employees; physical security
measures; CBI materials within EPA, such as CBI typing procedures
(documents typed internally or on contract); and division internal
procedures.  The manual dictates that: (1) all CBI must be marked or
flagged as such , (2) all CBI must be kept in secure, double-locked
areas, and (3) all CBI for destruction must be cleared by a document
control officer and placed in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances paper shredder.

(ii)  Sensitive questions

No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in
conjunction with this information collection activity.  Further, this
information collection activity complies with the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a).  Respondents/NAICS Codes

 The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for
respondents participating in this data collection is 325320 (Pesticide
and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

4(b).  Information Requested

(i)	Data Items

Form 8570-17 must be submitted to EPA with each EUP application. The
type of information to be submitted with the application depends on
whether the product is already registered and whether a tolerance is
required for the testing covered under the EUP.  40 CFR 172.4 lists the
information that is required.

An application for an EUP may be submitted by any company or person
wishing to generate the information necessary as required by section 3
of FIFRA in accordance with the regulations found in 40 CFR 172.2(a).
The applicant may be a potential registrant, an independent researcher
or testing laboratory, or any similar agent or consultant of a
manufacturer.  Applications must be submitted to the following address:

Document Processing Desk (EUP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Information Required in All EUP Applications

Each EUP application must contain the following information together
with a completed copy of 8570-17:

Applicant’s name and address;

The registration number of the product, if it has been registered
(information requirements for unregistered products are listed below in
a separate section);

Purpose or objectives of the proposed testing;

Detailed description of the proposed testing program including the
following test parameters:

·	Pest organism(s) involved;

·	Amount of pesticide proposed to be used;

·	Crops, fauna, and flora involved;

·	Sites and modes of pesticide applications;

·	Pesticide dosage rates;

·	Location of test site, including States;

·	Number of acres in test site;

·	Number of structural sites or number of animals by State to be
included in the testing;

·	Proposed dates of the testing; and

·	How the testing will be supervised.

Name, street address, telephone number and qualifications of program
participants, including those not employed by the applicant;

Names and street addresses of cooperators (persons owning or controlling
application sites and granting permission to permittees to use these
sites);

Results of prior testing of product by applicant to determine:

·	toxicity and effects in or on target organisms;

toxicity and effects in or on nontarget plants, animals and insects at
or near the application site; and

·	adverse effects to the environment from application of this  product;
and

how the applicant intends to store and dispose of unused pesticide and
containers from the proposed experimental use.

Information Required When the Product to be Tested is Not Already
Registered

In addition to the information listed immediately above, when the
product to be tested has not been registered, the applicant must provide
the following information:

A complete confidential statement of composition giving the composition
of the formulation to be tested as a tabulation of the names and
percentage by weight of each ingredient, both active and inert;

Chemical and physical properties of each active ingredient of the
formulation being tested including the analytical methods to be used to
determine these;

available data on the rate of decline of residues on the treated crop or
site together with other information relevant to determining when
workers can safely re-enter treated areas; and

Available toxicity and exposure data, including human epidemiological
data, relevant to assessing the potential of the product to cause injury
to users and other people who may be exposed.

When Testing May Result in Pesticide Residue on Food

When the product to be tested is to be used in such a manner to leave
residue on food or feed, the applicant has three options for determining
that treated crops are not used for food or feed use without a
tolerance:

The applicant may submit evidence that a tolerance or a tolerance
requirement exemption has been established under Section 408 of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;

The applicant may submit a petition for a new tolerance or for an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance established under Section
408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) ( Chapter 7 of
this document, Tolerance Petitions, describes this process in detail);
and

The applicant may certify that the food or feed derived from the
experimental program will be destroyed or will be fed only to
experimental animals which will be destroyed. Alternatively, the
applicant may certify that the food or feed derived from the
experimental program will be disposed of in another manner which does
not endanger man or the environment; the permit application shall
specify the means of such disposal.

EUP applications should be submitted to EPA as far in advance as
possible of the first shipping date, at least six months in advance.
FIFRA section 5(a) requires EPA to complete EUP reviews within 120 days,
and failure to provide the appropriate information or data may delay
processing of the EUP beyond this date.

Labeling Requirements

All pesticides shipped or used under an experimental use permit must be
labeled with directions and conditions for use including the following:

The prominent statement “For Experimental Use Only”;

The Experimental Use Permit Number;

The statement “Not for sale to any person other than a participant or
cooperator of the EPA-approved Experimental Use Program”;

The name, brand or trademark;

The name and address of the permittee, producer, or registrant;

The net contents;

An ingredient statement;

Warning or caution statements;

Any limitations on entry of persons into treated areas;

The establishment registration number, except in those cases where
application of the pesticide is made solely by the producer; and

The directions for trial use.

Extensions or renewal of Experimental Use Permits

EUPs and associated temporary tolerances are usually issued for a period
of one or two years. The permit and any associated temporary tolerances,
may be extended, renewed, or amended upon written request to the Agency,
if circumstances warrant.

Fee Requirements

If an application for an EUP is accompanied by a petition for a
tolerance, temporary tolerance, an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, or a temporary tolerance exemption, the petition is subject
to fee requirements.  An extension or renewal request for a temporary
tolerance is also subject to a fee requirement.  In March 2004, the
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 became effective.
The goal of this Act is to create a more predictable evaluation process
for affected pesticide decisions, and couple the collection of
individual fees with specific decision review periods. The legislation
also promotes shorter decision review periods for applications including
reduced-risk.  Certain submitted EUP actions are included under PRIA and
the burden hours and costs associated with these activities are
estimated in the Pesticide Registration Fee Waivers

ICR, (OMB Control No.: 2070-0167, EPA ICR No.: 2147.02).

Use of an EUP Product on Food or Feed Crops

A product may only be used on food or feed crops if the Agency has
issued tolerances or exemptions from requirements for tolerances for all
inert ingredients, metabolites, and degradation products, as well as
active ingredients. If the proposed labeling bears instructions for use
of the product on food or feed crops, or if the intended use of the
product results or may be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in
pesticide residues in or on food or feed, applicants must submit a
statement indicating whether a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance has been issued by the Agency under section
408 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

If a tolerance, exemption from the requirement of a tolerance has not
been issued for such residues, applicants must include with the
application a petition for establishment of appropriate tolerances,
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, or food additive
regulation in accordance with 40 CFR 180. Alternatively, applicants may
certify that the food or feed derived from the experimental program will
be destroyed or fed only to experimental animals for testing purposes,
or otherwise disposed of in a manner which will not endanger man or the
environment.

Suggested Format for an Experimental Use Permit Application

The following format is an example of an acceptable EUP application.
Not all of the items are necessary in every case. Depending on whether
the product being tested is already registered with EPA, and whether a
tolerance is necessary because treated crops will be used as food or
feed, several of these entries may not be necessary.

Section A

This section should include a data sheet detailing the chemical and
physical properties of the test chemical along with a complete statement
of the names and percentages by weight of each active and inert
ingredient in the formulation to be shipped.

Section B

This section should include a copy of the proposed experimental label.
The minimum labeling requirements are set forth in 40 CFR 172.6.

Section C

This section should include toxicity data, including LD ADVANCE \d3 50
ADVANCE \u3  values, eye and skin irritation data for the formulated
product, and subacute, teratology (one species), mutagenicity, and
possibly chronic and reproduction data on the active ingredient. Data on
the product’s toxicity to fish and wildlife may also be included in
Section C as appropriate.

Section D

This section should include residue data, including when appropriate,
data on: (1) food or feed commodities; (2) non-food crops such as
tobacco; or (3) foliage or other sites where the product may be used and
on which remaining residues of the product may pose a risk to man or the
environment. Section D also includes a description of the analytical
methods used, a summary of the residue data acquired, and when
appropriate, environmental fate data.

Section E

This section should include product performance information
demonstrating that the product is useful for the purposes proposed.
Because EPA has waived the requirement for submitting efficacy data for
all products except those with public health uses, Section E need not
contain actual efficacy data, but should include a summary of the
results of all efficacy testing performed on the product.

Section F

This section should include a statement explaining whether a tolerance
exists or is being requested, especially if the product is to be tested
in a manner that may result in residues in food or feed. If a tolerance
is being requested, the temporary tolerance petition must be provided
with the EUP application.  Given the occurrence whenever all food or
feed derived from the experimental program is to be destroyed or fed to
experimental animals, a statement of explanation must be included.

Section G

The section should include details concerning the proposed experimental
program, including:

qualifications, names, addresses and telephone numbers of all EUP
participants, including cooperators, i.e., persons who grant permission
for an experimental use pesticide to be used on application sites which
they own or control;

names of states in which the product will be used, along with the amount
of active ingredient and acreage (or other appropriate measures) to be
used in each state, and the names of states in which the pesticide may
be shipped for further distribution;

details of the proposed EUP program, including types of pests or
organisms targeted; the crops, animals, surface, or sites to be treated;
the geographical areas where the material is to be used; the use
patterns, intended plot sizes, number of plots, number of replicates,
and other test parameters to be used;

information on prior testing, including a description and the specific
results of any appropriate prior testing of the product conducted by the
applicant to determine, toxicity and effects in or on any target
organisms at the site of application; phytotoxicity and other forms of
toxicity or effects on nontarget plants, animals and insects, at or near
the site of application ; or any adverse effects on the environment;

objectives of the EUP program, including a statement specifying the type
of data to be collected and the intended gain from conducting the
program;

justification for the quantity (volume) of active ingredient proposed to
be used under the EUP, including a statement specifying the various
parameters used to determine the quantity of active ingredient;

a statement proposing a suitable duration for the EUP commensurate with
the program objectives; and

details concerning the method of disposing of unused materials at the
conclusion of the testing program.

Program Surveillance and Data Reporting Requirements for an Experimental
Use Permit

Once the permit is issued and the pesticide testing is underway, the
applicant is required to track the results at each test site and submit
a final report to EPA which shall include (40 CFR 172.8):

All data gathered during the testing program. Although field notes need
not be included in this report, they must be kept available for EPA
review upon request.

A report of how pesticide containers and unused pesticides were disposed
of, including the quantity disposed of, disposal sites and disposal
methods.

In the case where meat-producing animals or birds are treated by or
exposed to an experimental use pesticide, the applicant must report the
name and location where the animals will be processed to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Washington, DC, 20250.

The applicant must also report any adverse effects from use of or from
exposure to the pesticide being tested.

EPA may require advance notice from the applicant of the intended test
dates, sites and times. The applicant must also allow EPA access to the
testing site to determine whether the testing complies with the terms
and conditions of the permit.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

The following are the activities to be conducted by a respondent
(applicant) in order to comply with the provisions of EPA Form 8570-17.

	Activity

	Explanation

read FIFRA Section 5

and 40 CFR 172.8(b)

become familiar with the legislation and regulations and determine the
requirements as they pertain to a   proposed experimental use of a
pesticide

plan activities

plan the actions necessary to comply with the legislation and
regulations

create information

develop information required for notification

gather information

gather information required for the notification or containment records

process, compile, and  review information

check information for accuracy and completeness

complete paperwork

prepare notification document or containment record

record, disclose, and

display information

submit notification to OPP

store, maintain, and

file information

retain copies of all submissions

5.	The Information Collected–Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a).  Agency Activities

The following are activities necessary to evaluate a submitted request
for an experimental use permit:

	Activity

	Explanation

review submitted application package

review application form and package for completeness and appropriateness

record submission

record submission in tracking system

analyze submission

conduct scientific reviews of data

file submission

store and maintain submission information in Agency’s file system

5(b).  Collection Methodology and Management

A submitted EUP package usually includes three parts: an EPA Application
Form 8570-17, the product label, and, in most cases, supporting data.
The application form and the product label are pin-punched by date by
the Front-End Application Processing Unit for initial screening.  If
everything is found to be complete, the proposed EUP is given a file
symbol, entered into the appropriate tracking system, and a registration
jacket is created identifying the document by the appropriate Product
Manager (PM) for the chemical being employed.  The accompanying data is
identified and processed for review.

The three-part EUP package is sent to the designated PM who is
responsible for managing the registration action.  The testing program
and labeling program are reviewed by the PM while the data portion is
routed for scientific review to the appropriate discipline.  On
completion of the scientific review, the PM receives a written analysis
of the data.  If the data is found to be acceptable, an EUP is issued.
If not, the EUP request is rejected and the PM then notifies the
applicant in writing of the deficiencies before the EUP request can be
resubmitted.  The file is then updated in the tracking system to reflect
the latest status and the registration jacket is stored in the file
room.

5(c).  Small Entity Flexibility

The Agency recognizes that many small businesses are involved in
research and development activities with pesticides.  In setting forth
the notification requirements, EPA has sought to minimize the regulatory
burden on research and development.  Toward this end, the Agency has
identified the minimum amount of data to be submitted to permit a
scientific assessment of the proposed research.  Much of this
information already would be available to the respondent as part of the
normal information developed during the research and development stage.
These data requirements are flexible and may be adjusted as appropriate
to the specific product under review.  As an alternative to submitting a
Notification, an applicant may apply for, and obtain an EUP before
conducting a field test with a pesticide.  Because the notification
requirements have been designed from the outset to minimize the burden
on respondents, as a result, there are no special measures taken for
small businesses since the burden is considered to be at a minimal
level.

5(d).  Collection Schedule

Not applicable.  This activity is conducted only when an EUP request is
made.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a). Estimating the Respondent Burden

For a period of some years when estimating labor rates for most OPP
program ICR renewals, the Agency adjusted the ICR renewal labor rates by
using the NASA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator Inflation
Calculator to index the labor cost for a particular year.  However, in
July 2006, Agency economists completely re-estimated wages, benefits,
and overhead for all labor categories for the pesticide industry, state
government and Agency employees.  The Agency analysis uses currently
available information on labor rates and other benefits from publicly
available websites.  A copy of the methodology used to re-estimate the
labor rates and formulas used to derive the fully loaded rates and
overhead costs are listed in attachment F.

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 $100.86,
$64.80, and $33.05 per hour, respectively.  These labor rates are fully
loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.   Based on the
respondent activities identified in section 4(b)(ii) above, the burden
hours exhibited on the Master Table in section 6(d) were developed to
represent a typical respondent to the notification and record-keeping
requirements of this ICR.  Respondent burden hours are estimated at
10.10 hours per respondent with a cost of $644.35 per response. Based on
the approximate number of applications received in fiscal years 2003,
2004 and 2005, the anticipated number of respondents for each of the
next three fiscal years is 75. The total respondent burden is estimated
to be 757.5 hours.

6(b).  Estimating Respondent Costs

As stated above, the number of annual estimated respondents
(applicants) is 75, with each spending approximately 10.10 hours
responding.  This total burden is estimated to cost $48,327.45

The overall annual respondent cost associated with this information
collection, based on an estimate of 75 applications per year, is
estimated to be $64,950.  For respondents, the value of labor per hour
for management, technical, and clerical is $100.56, $64.80, and $33.05,
respectively, indexed to 2006 dollars.  Using the Agency’s burden
estimate and the fully-loaded labor rates, the Agency estimates the
applicant costs to be approximately $644.35 per response.

	ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

Burden Hours (per year)

TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

 ADVANCE \d3

Mgt.

$100.86/hr. ADVANCE \u3

Tech.

$64.80/hr.

Cler. $33.05/hr.

Hours

Costs

Read regulations

0.5

0.5

0.0

1.00

$82.82

Plan activities

     0.0

1.0

0.0

1.00

$64.80

Create information

     0.0

2.0

0.0

2.00

$129.60

Gather information

     0.0

2.5

0.0

2.50

$162.00

Compile and review

     0.0

2.0

0.0

2.00

$129.60

Complete paperwork

     0.1

0.5

0.0

0.60

$42.48

Store/maintain data

     0.0

0.0

1.0

1.00

$33.05

TOTAL

0.60

8.50

1.00

10.10

$644.35

ANNUAL BURDEN:  10.10 Total Hours x 75 Respondents = 757.50 Hours

ANNUAL COSTS

(a) Management:  0.6 hours x $100.86 x 75 Respondents  	   $4538.70

(b) Technical:   8.50 hours x $64.80 x 75 Respondents 	$41,310.00

(c) Clerical:    1.00 hours x $33.05 x 75 respondents		  $2,478.75

 Total    							$48,327.45

6(c).  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

The Agency needs to process, review and document their evaluation of
EUP applications.  Each year, the Agency may spend 1,125 burden hours to
process the 75 applications EUP applications the Agency receives.
Estimates for the Agency's burden and the associated costs are provided
below.

	ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

Burden Hours (per year)

TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Mgt.

$93.07/hr.

Tech.

$66.34/hr

Cler.

$47.17/hr

Hours

Costs

Review submitted

application package

           0.0

2.0

0.0

2.00

$132.68

Record submission

           0.0

1.0

0.0

1.00

  $66.34

Analyze submission

           1.0

8.0

0.0

9.00

$623.79

File submission

        0.0

2.0

1.0

3.00	$179.85

TOTAL

        1.0

13.00

1.00

15.00

$1002.66

ANNUAL BURDEN:  15 Total Hours x 75 Applicants = 1,125  Hours

ANNUAL COSTS

(a) Management:   1.0  hours x $93.07 x 75 applicants		   $6980.25

(b) Technical:   13.0 hours x $66.34 x 75 applicants     		$64,681.50

(c) Clerical:    1.0  hours x $47.17 x 75 applicants			  $3,537.75

      Total								$75,199.50

6(d).  Bottom Line Hours And Costs / Master Table

	MASTER TABLE

TOTAL

Hours

Costs

Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates:

757.50

          $48,327.45

Agency Burden/Cost Estimates:

1,125

          $75,199.50

6(e).  Reasons For Changes In Burden

Labor rates for both respondents and Agency personnel in this ICR have
decreased.  The burden hour breakdown remains unchanged from the last
renewal period.  In previous renewal cycles, the Agency only adjusted
the labor rates to account for inflation.  However, for this renewal,
Agency economists have completely re-estimated labor rates, benefits and
overhead costs for both respondents Agency personnel.  This Agency
analysis was completed in July 2006, see attachment F.  The Agency
believes this is a more realistic estimate of the average respondent and
Agency costs.  As a result, there is a decrease of $18,909.55 in the
estimated total annual respondent cost (from $$67,237.00 to $48,327.45).
 This change is an adjustment.

6(f).  Burden Statement

The total annual “respondent” (applicant) burden for the proposed
renewal ICR entitled Application For Experimental Use Permit (EUP) To
Ship And Use A Pesticide For Experimental Purposes Only, is estimated to
be 757.50 with an average potential per respondent burden of 10.10
hours.  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, “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.  For this collection, it is the time reading the
regulations, planning the necessary data collection activities,
conducting tests, analyzing data, generating reports and completing
other required paperwork, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data.
 The 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 number for this information
collection appear at the beginning and the end of this document.  In
addition OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations, after initial
display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and appear on the
information collection instrument as applicable, i.e., form or
instructions.

Send comments regarding burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden
to: Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but
do not submit the requested information or forms to this address.  The
requested information should be submitted in accordance with the
instructions in the Federal Register Notice seeking comment on this ICR.
 Please reference this document by the OMB Control No. 2070-0040 in all
correspondence.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460; and 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.  Include the EPA
ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachment A - EPA Form 8570-17 - Application For An Experimental Use
Permit To Ship And Use A Pesticide For Experimental Purposes Only -
available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/"  http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/
 or in the docket at EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0002.

Attachment B - FIFRA Section 5 - available electronically at

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm   or in the docket at
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0003.

Attachment C - FIFRA Section 7 - available electronically at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm. or in the docket at
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0004.

Attachment D - 68 FR 8887 - Application for Experimental Use Permit to
Ship and Use a Pesticide for Experimental Purposes Only; Renewal of
Pesticide Information Collection Activities and Request for Comments
(published February 26, 2003) -  available electronically at

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/February/Day-26/p4523.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/February/Day-26/p4523.htm  or
in the docket at EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0005.

Attachment D – Sample Consultation Questionnaire – available only in
the  the docket at EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0006.

Attachment F – Methodology for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for
Industry, State and EPA Labor Costs; Memo From Richard Keigwin, Director
Biological and Economic Analysis Division, to OPP’s DD’s, July 2006.
 Available only in the docket at EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0632-0007.

 PAGE  14


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32335-32336]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1145]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2010, and June 13, 2014, FEMA published in the
Federal Register a proposed rule and a proposed rule correction,
respectively, that contained erroneous information. This notice
provides corrections to the table as amended by the proposed rule
correction, to be used in lieu of the information published at 75 FR
62062-62063 and 79 FR 33878-33879. The table provided here represents
the flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Clay County,
Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Cypress Creek Ditch and Sugar Creek and
Tributary 2.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1145, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 62062-62063, in the October
7, 2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under
the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. That table was amended by the proposed
rule correction published at 79 FR 33878-33879, in the June 13, 2014,
issue of the Federal Register. In this document, FEMA is publishing a
table containing the accurate information, to address previous
inaccuracies. The information provided below should be used in lieu of
that previously published.

Correction

    This proposed rule provides corrections to the table as amended by
the proposed rule correction, to be used in lieu of the information
previously published. Correct the Clay County, Arkansas table as
follows.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 21, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                               feet  (NAVD)  # Depth in
                                       Location of referenced      feet above ground
         Flooding source(s)                elevation * *         [caret] Elevation in      Communities affected
                                                                     meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Clay County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Creek Ditch.................  Approximately 150 feet          None         +281  City of Corning.
                                       east of Southwest 11th
                                       Street to
                                       approximately 400 feet
                                       east of Southwest 11th
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 120 feet          None         +281
                                       south of Lucien Avenue
                                       to approximately 580
                                       feet north of Lucien
                                       Avenue.
Cypress Creek Ditch.................  Approximately 100 feet          None         +281  City of Corning.
                                       north of Bryan Avenue
                                       to approximately 160
                                       feet south of Bryan
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 430 feet          None         +281
                                       west of Southwest 6th
                                       Street to
                                       approximately 600 feet
                                       west of Southwest 6th
                                       Street.
Sugar Creek.........................  Approximately 1,255             None         +282  Unincorporated areas of
                                       feet downstream of                                 Clay County.
                                       Pfeiffer Street.
                                      Approximately 0.57 mile         None         +317
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Club
                                       Drain.
Tributary 2.........................  Approximately 1,350             None         +329  Unincorporated areas of
                                       feet upstream of West                              Clay County.
                                       Jackson Street.
 National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
* * BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Corning
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 304 Southwest 2nd Street, Corning, AR 72422.

Unincorporated Areas of Clay County
Maps are available for inspection at the Clay County Courthouse, 168 East Main Street, Piggott, AR 72454.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-13863 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Minimize Emissions       compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        During SSM.              your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for OM&M
                                                                 relevant compliance      requirements.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii).........  Recordkeeping for CMS..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Records for Relative     No.....................
                                        Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records for              Yes....................
                                        Notification.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Applicability            Yes....................
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  See Sec.   63.7132.
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................
                                        Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Opacity or VE            Yes....................  For the periodic
                                        Observations.                                     monitoring
                                                                                requirements in Table
                                                                                7 to subpart AAAAA,
                                                                                report according to
                                                                                Sec.   63.10(d)(3)
                                                                                only if VE observed
                                                                                and subsequent visual
                                                                                opacity test is
                                                                                required.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)................  Periodic Startup,        Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        Reports.                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7131 for
                                                                 relevant compliance      malfunction reporting
                                                                 date for your source     requirements.
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...............  Immediate Startup,       Yes before the relevant
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for
                                        Reports.                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(e)......................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  See specific
                                                                                requirements in
                                                                                subpart AAAAA, see
                                                                                Sec.   63.7131.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Waiver for               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)..................  Control Device and Work  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
                                        Practice Requirements.
Sec.   63.12(a)-(c)..................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a)-(c)..................  State/Regional           Yes....................
                                        Addresses.
Sec.   63.14(a)-(b)..................  Incorporation by         No.....................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15(a)-(b)..................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.

Sec.   63.16.........................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  63.7831  [AMENDED]

0
30. In Sec.  63.7831(f)(4), add the phrase ``(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14)'' immediately following the words
``September 1997''.
[FR Doc. 2020-12588 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 10747]
[DOCID:fr12mr09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 27, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, and
C, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: James Swink, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (HFZ-450), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote
on a premarket approval application, sponsored by VisionCare
Technologies, Inc., for an implantable miniature telescope (IMT\TM\).
The IMT\TM\ is indicated for monocular implant in patients greater than
65 years of age with stable moderate to profound central vision
impairment, i.e., distance BCVA of 20/80 to 20/800, due to bilateral
central scotomas associated with end-stage macular degeneration,
defined as retinal findings of geographic atrophy or disciform scar,
with foveal involvement as determined by fluorescein angiography and
evidence of cataract.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 20, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m., and between approximately
3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
March 18, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 19, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 3, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-5303 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: May 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27867-27868]
[DOCID:fr17my07-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55744; File No. 4-429]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Joint Amendment No. 22 to
the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket
Option Linkage Relating to Response Time for Certain Orders Sent
Through the Linkage

May 11, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On February 2, 2007, February 15, 2007, February 5, 2007, February
7, 2007, January 30, 2007, and February 13, 2007, the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'')
(collectively, ``Participants''), respectively, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section
11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608
thereunder \2\ an amendment (``Joint Amendment No. 22'') to the Plan
for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage
(``Linkage Plan'').\3\ In Joint Amendment No. 22, the Participants
propose to reduce (i) the amount of time a member must wait after
sending a Linkage Order \4\ to a market before the member \5\ can trade
through that market and (ii) the timeframe within which a Participant
must respond to a Linkage Order after receipt of that Order. On March
8, 2007, the Commission summarily put into effect Joint Amendment No.
22 on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days and solicited comment on
Joint Amendment No. 22 from interested persons.\6\ The Commission
received no comments on Joint Amendment No. 22. This order approves
Joint Amendment No. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a national market
system plan for the purpose of creating and operating an intermarket
options market linkage (``Linkage'') proposed by Amex, CBOE, and
ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000),
65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Phlx, Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), and BSE joined the Linkage Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65
FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850
(November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029
(February 12, 2004).
    \4\ See Section 2(16) of the Linkage Plan. For the purposes of
this Joint Amendment No. 22 only, references to ``Linkage Orders''
herein pertain to P/A Orders and Principal Orders. For definitions
of ``P/A Order'' and ``Principal Order,'' see Section 2(16)(a) and
(b) of the Linkage Plan, respectively.
    \5\ The term ``member,'' as used herein, includes NYSE Arca OTP
Holders and OTP Firms and Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') Options
Participants. See NYSE Arca Rules 1.1(q) and 1.1(r) and Chapter I,
Sec. 1(a)(40) of BOX Rules, respectively.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55436, 72 FR 12639
(March 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    In Joint Amendment No. 22, the Participants proposed to reduce the
amount of time a member must wait after sending a Linkage Order to a
market before the member can trade through that market. The
Participants proposed to decrease this time period

from 20 seconds to 5 seconds. The Participants also proposed to reduce
the time frame in which a Participant must respond to a Linkage Order
from 15 to 5 seconds after receipt of that Order.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission previously determined, pursuant to Rule 608 under
the Act,\7\ to put into effect summarily on a temporary basis not to
exceed 120 days, the changes to the Linkage Plan detailed above in
Joint Amendment No. 22.\8\ After careful consideration of Joint
Amendment No. 22, the Commission finds that approving Joint Amendment
No. 22 is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that Joint
Amendment No. 22 is consistent with Section 11A of the Act \9\ and Rule
608 thereunder \10\ in that it is appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets. The Commission believes that reducing the time required by a
Participant to respond to a Linkage Order and the amount of time a
member sending a Linkage Order must wait before trading through a
nonresponsive Participant should facilitate the more timely execution
of orders across the options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ See supra note 6.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \11\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\12\ that Joint Amendment No. 22 is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9437 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 43763-43764]
[DOCID:fr02au06-75]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006; FRL-8078-7]

TSCA Chemical Testing; Receipt of Test Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of test data on In Vitro
Dermal Absorption Rate Testing of certain chemicals of interest to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). EPA received data
on the following chemicals: Dipropylene glycol methyl ether (DPGME)
(CAS No. 34590-94-8); naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3); diphenylamine
(DPA) (CAS No. 122-39-4); 1-nitropropane (CAS No. 108-03-2); 2-
nitropropane (CAS No. 79-46-9); isophorone (CAS No. 78-59-1); p-
nitrochlorobenzene (CAS No. 100-00-5); and benzyl chloride (CAS No.
100-44-7). These data were submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by
EPA under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are concerned about data
on health and/or environmental effects and other characteristics of
this chemical. Since other entities may also 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. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Test Data Submissions

    Section 4(d) of TSCA requires EPA to publish a notice in the
Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data submitted pursuant
to test rules promulgated under section 4(a) within 15 days after these
data are received by EPA.
    1. Test data for DPGME were submitted by the DPGME Dermal
Absorption Task Group of the American Chemistry Council's Ethylene and
Propylene Glycol Ethers Panel and received by EPA on February 22, 2006.
The submission includes a final report titled ``Dipropylene Glycol
Methyl Ether: In Vitro Dermal Absorption Rate Testing''. (See Document
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-0325).
    2. Test data for naphthalene were submitted on behalf of the
American Chemistry Council Naphthalene Panel's In Vitro Dermal
Absorption Rate Testing Consortium and received by EPA on March 20,
2006. The submission includes a final report titled ``Naphthalene: In
Vitro Dermal Absorption Rate Testing.'' (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2003-0006-0328).
    3. Test data for DPA were submitted by Chemtura Corporation and
received by EPA on March 29, 2006. The submission includes a final
report titled ``Determination of the In Vitro Absorption Rate of
Diphenylamine.'' (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-0330).
    4. Test data for 1-nitropropane were submitted by the Angus
Chemical Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical
Company, and received by EPA on October 13, 2005. The submission
includes a final report titled ``1-Nitropropane: In Vitro Dermal
Absorption Rate Testing.'' (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-
0343).
    5. Test data for 2-nitropropane were submitted by the Angus
Chemical Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical
Company, and received by EPA on October 13, 2005. The submission
includes a final report titled ``2-Nitropropane: In Vitro Dermal
Absorption Rate Testing.'' (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-
0344).
    6. Test data for isophorone were submitted by the Isophorone Dermal
Absorption Task Group of the American Chemistry Council and received by
EPA on February 14, 2006. An amended report was also received by EPA on
April 17, 2006. The submissions include an original and amended final
study report titled: ``Percutaneous Absorption and Cutaneous
Disposition of [14C]-Isophorone In Vitro in Human Skin.''
(See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-0346).
     7. Test data for p-nitrochlorobenzene were submitted by ATK
Thiokol and received by EPA on May 25, 2006. The submission includes a
final study report titled: ``p-Nitrochlorobenzene: In Vitro Dermal
Absorption Rate Testing.`` (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0006-
0351).
    8. Test data for benzyl chloride were submitted by LANXESS
Corporation and Ferro Corporation and received by EPA on May 30, 2006.
The submission includes a final study report titled: ``Benzyl Chloride:
In Vitro Dermal Absorption Rate Testing.'' (See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2003-0006-0352).
    These chemical substances are used in a wide variety of
applications as industrial solvents, which may result in exposures of a
substantial number of workers as described in the support document for
the proposed rule (64 FR 31074, June 9, 1999, Table 3-Exposure
Information for Chemical Substances).
    EPA has initiated its review and evaluation process for these
submissions. At this time, the Agency is unable to provide any
determination as to the completeness of these submissions.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: July 20, 2006.
 James Willis,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. E6-12340 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59541-59544]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23479]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73236; File No. SR-BYX-2014-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.24 To Permit Members To Designate Their Retail Orders To Be
Identified as Retail on the Exchange's Proprietary Data Feeds

September 26, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 17, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 11.24 to permit Users to
designate that their Retail Orders \5\ submitted under the Exchange's
Retail Price Improvement (``RPI Program'') be identified as Retail on
the Exchange's proprietary data feeds.\6\ The proposed rule change is
substantially similar to the existing functionality on EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Retail Order is defined as (i) an agency or riskless
principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that
originates from a natural person; (ii) is submitted to EDGX by a
Member, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order;
and (iii) the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology. See Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2).
    \6\ The Exchanges proprietary data feeds are set forth under
Exchange Rule 11.22.
    \7\ See Footnote 4 of the EDGX fee schedule available at https://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72292 (June 2, 2014), 79 FR
32798 (June 6, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-13) (Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change to Amend Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule to
Permit Members to Designate their Retail Orders to be Identified as
Retail on the EDGX Book Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of
the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct
Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'', and together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated
Exchanges'').\8\ In the context of the Merger, the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining
only intended differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus,
the proposal set forth below is intended to add certain system
functionality currently offered by EDGX in order to provide a
consistent technology offering for users of the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \9\ The Exchange anticipates that EDGA and BZX will submit
proposed rule changes in the future to add a definition for ``Retail
Order'' and to permit members to designate that their Retail Orders
be identified as Retail on their respective proprietary data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to EDGX,\10\ the Exchange established the RPI Program in an
attempt to attract retail order flow to the Exchange.\11\ Under the RPI
Program, all Exchange Users \12\ are permitted to submit Retail Price
Improvement Orders (``RPI Orders'') \13\ which are designed to provide
potential price improvement for Retail Orders in the form of non-
displayed interest that is better than the national best bid that is a
Protected Quotation (``Protected NBB'') or the national best offer that
is a Protected Quotation (``Protected NBO'', and together with the
Protected NBB, the ``Protected NBBO'').\14\ Exchange Rule 11.24 defines
a Retail Order \15\ and provides an attestation requirement \16\ that
Users must complete to send Retail Orders to the Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under the EDGX program, eligible EDGX members may qualify
for a rebate under the Retail Order Tier included in Footnote 4 of
the Exchange's fee schedule. Footnote 4 of the EDGX fee schedule
defines a Retail Order and provides an attestation requirement that
Users must complete to send Retail Orders to the Exchange. See
Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule available at http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx; Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 68310 (November 28, 2012), 77 FR 71860 (December 4,
2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-47) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and
(c)); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69378 (April 15, 2013), 78
FR 23617 (April 19, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-13) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Footnote 4
of the Exchange's Fee Schedule Regarding Retail Orders); supra note
7.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (``RPI Approval Order'') (SR-
BYX-2012-019). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71249
(January 7, 2014), 79 FR 2229 (January 13, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-001)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness [sic] to Extend the
Pilot Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program); and 72730
(July 31, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness [sic] to Amend Rule 11.24(a)(2) to Include Riskless
Principal Orders to the Types of Orders that May Qualify as Retail
Orders under the Retail Price Improvement Program).
    \12\ A ``User'' is defined ``as any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' BYX Rule 1.5(cc).
    \13\ A ``Retail Price Improvement Order'' is defined in Rule
11.24(a)(3) as an order that consists of non-displayed interest on
the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBB or
Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. See
Rule 11.24(a)(3).
    \14\ The term Protected Quotation is defined in BYX Rule 1.5(t)
and has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS Rule
600(b)(58). The terms Protected NBB and Protected NBO are defined in
BYX Rule 1.5(s). The Protected NBB is the best-priced protected bid
and the Protected NBO is the best-priced protected offer. Generally,
the Protected NBB and Protected NBO and the national best bid
(``NBB'') and national best offer (``NBO'', together with the NBB,
the ``NBBO'') will be the same. However, a market center is not
required to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is subject
to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBB
or NBO is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In
such case, the Protected NBB or Protected NBO would be the best-
priced protected bid or offer to which a market center must route
interest pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 611.
    \15\ See supra note 5.
    \16\ Users must submit a signed written attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that they have implemented policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that substantially
all orders designated by the Member as a ``Retail Order'' comply
with the above requirements. See Exchange Rule 11.24(b).
    \17\ The attestation requirements and definition of Retail Order
under Exchange Rule 11.24 are substantially similar to Footnote 4 of
the EDGX fee schedule. See Footnote 4 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule
available at http://www.directedge.com/Trading/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Users may elect that their display-eligible orders
entered into the Exchange utilize Attributable Orders \18\ to include
their market participant identifier (``MPID'') with their published
quotations on the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Under the EDGX
program, eligible members may designate that their Retail Orders be
identified as Retail on the EDGX book feed.\19\ To align functionality
with EDGX, the Exchange now proposes to add paragraph (i) to Rule 11.24
to permit Users to designate that their Retail Orders submitted under
the Exchange's RPI Program be identified as Retail on the Exchange's
proprietary data feeds, rather than by their MPID.\20\ Users will still
be permitted to designate their Retail Orders by their MPID if they do
not choose this optional functionality. The Exchange proposes to allow
Users to designate their orders as Retail on an order-by-order basis or
by establishing a port setting such that all orders submitted through a
specific order entry port are designated as Retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ An Attributable Order is defined as, ``[a]n order that is
designated for display (price and size) including the User's market
participant identifier (`MPID').'' See Rule 11.9(c)(14).
    \19\ See supra note 7.
    \20\ A Member's decision on whether to identify their Retail
Order as Retail under the proposed rule change will not impact that
Member's eligibility to qualify as a Retail Member Organization
under Rule 11.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal will benefit market
participants and help to promote transparency by providing additional
information regarding quotations displayed on the Exchange and
disseminated via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Specifically,
any Member who satisfies the requirement under Rule 11.24(b) that
wishes to disclose via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds that their
order is a Retail Order will be permitted to do so, and such
functionality is substantially similar to that currently offered by
EDGX.\23\ The proposal also promotes transparency by disseminating
additional order information from Users who may otherwise designate
their order as non-attributable, and thereby not include their MPID
with their published quote on the Exchange's proprietary data
feeds.\24\ As a result, the proposal will provide Users additional
visibility into the types of orders they may interact with when an
order is

identified as a Retail Order. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would encourage Users who wish to execute
against Retail Orders to send additional orders to the Exchange.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the increased liquidity would
potentially stimulate further price competition for Retail Orders,
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, and promoting market transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 7.
    \24\ The Exchange understands that, to date, EDGX has not
experienced members who attribute orders by their MPID electing to
instead attribute their Retail Orders as Retail on the EDGX book
feed. On the contrary, the Exchange understands that EDGX members
who previously did not attribute their order have chosen to do so as
Retail under the EDGX program. Therefore, the Exchange does not
anticipate its Members who currently utilize Attributable Orders to
now elect that their Retail Orders be attributed as Retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that allowing a User to designate orders as
Retail on either an order-by-order or on a port-by-port basis is
consistent with the Act for the same reasons as the proposal as a whole
is consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that either method of
designation results in the same message being received and processed by
the Exchange's systems, and thus, merely reflects a detail in
connection with the implementation of the optional designation.
    The proposed rule change is also generally intended to add certain
system functionality currently offered by EDGX in order to provide a
consistent technology offering for the Exchange and EDGX. A consistent
technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology
implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that
are also participants on EDGX. The proposed rule change would also
provide Users with access to functionality that may result in the
efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional
flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System
and its Users.

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendment will not burden intramarket competition because the
ability to designate Retail Orders to be identified as Retail on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds, rather than by their MPID, would be
open to all Users that wish to send Retail Orders to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would increase intermarket
competition by identifying orders as Retail via the Exchange's
proprietary data feeds would enable the Exchange to better compete with
other exchanges that offer similar retail order programs.\25\ The
Exchange believes that the amendment, by increasing the amount of
disseminated information regarding Retail Orders, will increase the
level of competition around retail executions resulting in better
prices for retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See New York Stock Exchange, Inc.'s (``NYSE'') Rule
107C(j). See also NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule 107C(j); NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 7.44(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange reiterates that the proposed rule change is being
proposed in the context of the technology integration of the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule
change is necessary to permit fair competition among national
securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will benefit Exchange participants in that it is one of
several changes necessary to achieve offering consistent functionality
by the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \28\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\29\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that waiver will provide market participants with additional
transparency by disseminating additional order information regarding
the types of orders they may interact with when an order is identified
as a Retail Order in a timelier manner. The Exchange further believes
that waiver will immediately encourage market participants to send
additional orders to the Exchange, thereby potentially stimulating
further price competition for Retail Orders, deepening the Exchange's
liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, and
promoting market transparency. The Commission believes that waiver of
the operative delay is consistent with investor protection and the
public interest. As a result, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \30\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 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-BYX-2014-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-024. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-024, and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23479 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P