[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60005-60007]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98216; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules in Connection With the Number of Legs of a Complex Order That
May Be Entered on a Single Order Ticket at the Time of Systemization

August 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 17, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Rules in connection with the number of legs of a complex
order that may be entered on a single order ticket at the time of
systemization. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules in connection with the
number of legs of a complex order that may be entered on a single order
ticket at the time of systemization, for certain complex order types.
    Specifically, Rule 5.7(f) currently provides that each order,
cancellation of, or change to an order transmitted to the Exchange must
be ``systematized'' in a format approved by the Exchange, either before
it is sent to the Exchange or upon receipt on the Exchange's trading
floor. An order is systematized if (1) the order is sent electronically
to the Exchange or (2) the order that is sent to the Exchange non-
electronically (e.g., telephone orders) is input electronically into
the Exchange's systems contemporaneously upon receipt on the Exchange,
and prior to representation of the order. Any proprietary system
approved by the Exchange on the Exchange's trading floor that receives
orders is considered an Exchange system for purposes of this Rule.\5\
Regarding the systemization of complex orders, Rule 5.7(f)(4)
particularly provides that complex orders of 16 legs or less (one leg
of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as
applicable) must be entered on a single order ticket at time of
systemization. If permitted by the Exchange, complex orders of more
than 16 legs (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or
security future, as applicable) may be split across multiple order
tickets, if the Trading Permit Holder representing the complex order
uses the fewest order tickets necessary to systematize the order and
identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same
complex order (in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 5.7.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it adopted the 16-leg maximum per order
ticket in 2021 as a result of Exchange system limitations.\6\ At that
time, the Exchange could only support the processing of up to 16 legs
on a single order ticket for representation and execution in open
outcry as a complex order. Prior to that, in 2015, the Exchange had
adopted a 12-leg maximum per order ticket.\7\ The Exchange understands
from Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that some orders they receive do
have more than 16 legs, and many order entry and execution systems
Floor Broker TPHs use on the trading floor, including Silexx,\8\ can
support up to 100 legs. If a Floor Broker TPH receives a complex order
for more than 16 legs for execution on the trading floor, it currently
must break up the order into multiple tickets in accordance with Rule
5.7(f)(4). The Exchange has enhanced its System to be able to support a
greater number of legs per order ticket on the trading floor. As such,
the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.7(f)(4) to increase the 16 leg
maximum per single order ticket to a maximum of 100 legs per single
order ticket at time of systemization, except for those complex orders
designated as Electronic Only, which will continue to be subject to the
current 16 leg limitation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-92116 (June 7,
2021), 86 FR 31361 (June 11, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-036), which
implemented the 16 leg per order requirement in current Rule
5.7(f)(4).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74169 (January 29,
2015), 80 FR 6145 (February 4, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-011), which
implemented the previous 12 leg per order requirement.
    \8\ Each Floor Broker TPH has a Silexx workstation, which can be
used to systematize orders. Therefore, each Floor Broker TPH will be
able to immediately comply with the proposed rule change. The Silexx
platform consists of a ``front-end'' order entry and management
trading platform (also referred to as the ``Silexx terminal'') for
listed stocks and options that supports both simple and complex
orders, and a ``back-end'' platform which provides a connection to
the infrastructure network. From the Silexx platform (i.e., the
collective front-end and back-end platform), a Silexx user has the
capability to, among other things, send option orders to U.S.
options exchanges and send stock orders to U.S. stock exchanges (and
other trading centers). The Silexx platform is designed so that a
user may enter orders into the platform to send to an executing
broker (including TPHs) of its choice with connectivity to the
platform, which broker will then send the orders to Cboe Options (if
the broker is a TPH) or other U.S. exchanges (and trading centers)
in accordance with the user's instructions.
    \9\ See proposed Rule 5.7(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 5.7(f)(4), complex orders of 100 legs or
less (one

leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as
applicable), except for those complex orders designated as Electronic
Only, must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization
and orders of more than 100 legs may be split across multiple order
tickets.\10\ The TPH representing the complex order must continue to
use the fewest order tickets necessary to systematize the order and to
identify for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same
complex order.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To the extent a TPH wants to represent and execute a
complex order (including SPX Combo Orders) in open outcry, the order
must be entered (i.e. systematized) on a single order ticket and
cannot, as proposed, exceed 100 legs or, if for more than 100 legs,
entered on fewest order tickets necessary (linked in a form and
manner prescribed by the Exchange). As similarly noted in the 2021
filing that implemented the 16 leg per order requirement currently
reflected in Rule 5.7(f)(4), TPHs will not be required to make
changes to their own or third-party vendor's order entry and
execution systems. The Exchange is aware that each Floor Broker TPH
currently has a Silexx terminal, which supports up to 100 legs on a
single order ticket for purposes of systemization. The Exchange
notes that Floor Broker TPHs may voluntarily choose to use other
order entry and execution systems for systematization, some of which
the Exchange understands already support systemization of up to 100
legs on a single order ticket. If the TPH intends to represent and
execute complex orders with more than 16 legs (i.e., complex orders
with 17 to 100 legs) on another order entry and execution system
that cannot presently support up to 100 legs, then the TPH will need
to enhance its existing system or utilize another order entry and
execution system that supports the open outcry processing of such
orders on a single order ticket. See also supra note 6. However,
because all Floor Broker TPHs currently have Silexx terminals (in
addition to potentially third-party terminals) on which they can
systematize orders they receive via phone, IM or a system that
supports fewer legs, all Floor Broker TPHs have immediate access to
an order entry and execution system on the trading floor to
systematize up to 100 legs on a single ticket for representation on
the trading floor in compliance with the proposed rule change,
making significant advanced notice of the proposed rule change
unnecessary.
    \11\ The Exchange proposes to make a corresponding change to
paragraph (3) under the definition of SPX Combo Order in Rule
5.6(c), which currently reflects the same 16 leg maximum per single
order ticket at time of systemization, to increase the permissible
number of legs on the same order ticket to 100. An ``SPX Combo
Order'' is an order to purchase or sell one or more SPX option
series and the offsetting number of SPX combinations defined by the
delta. See Rule 5.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to Exchange system limitations that may prevent a complex order
with more than a certain number of legs from being entered on a single
order ticket for representation and execution in open outcry,
inefficiencies exist in the processing and tracking of such orders, as
they currently must be entered on multiple tickets. The single order
ticket leg increase to 100 legs for floor orders is intended to provide
consistency in processing and enhance the Exchange's audit trail by
reducing the number of tickets required for larger complex orders.
Notwithstanding the necessity of order ticket leg maximums given
Exchange system limitations, the Exchange notes that splitting an order
across multiple order tickets takes additional time, can leave room for
error, and requires additional TPH and Exchange regulatory surveillance
administrative resources, as a TPH must identify for the Exchange the
order tickets that are part of the same complex order (in a form and
manner prescribed by the Exchange). The Exchange notes that complex
orders with more than 16 legs may be sent to Floor Brokers on the
Exchange's trading floor non-electronically (e.g., via telephone or
instant message) or electronically through order entry and routing
systems that may support fewer than 16 legs (some as few as 4 legs) on
a single order ticket. As the proposed rule change only applies to the
systemization of orders prior to representation of the order on the
trading floor, the Floor Broker (which is a TPH) will be required to
enter these multi-legged orders on a single order ticket. As noted
above, each Floor Broker TPH has a Silexx workstation, which already
supports up to 100 legs on a single ticket, thus permitting each Floor
Broker TPH to immediately comply with the proposed rule change.\12\
Therefore, only alternative systems Floor Brokers may use on the
Exchange's trading floor for systemization would need to be updated to
allow for the input of orders with up to 100 legs on a single order
ticket (if they are not already capable of allowing up to 100 legs on a
single order ticket). The proposed rule change is designed to reduce
the number of complex orders that TPHs need to break up into multiple
order tickets, and ultimately allows TPHs to more effectively and
efficiently systematize complex orders for execution in open outcry,
and improves regulatory surveillance and tracking of such orders.
Complex orders that are submitted for electronic processing will
continue to be subject to the current 16 legs requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
allow TPHs to submit order tickets for their open outcry complex orders
(including SPX Combo Orders) in a manner that is more compatible with
the processing capacity that the Exchange and available order entry
systems are able to support, thus reducing the number of complex orders
that need to be broken up into multiple order tickets. By allowing TPHs
to more effectively and efficiently systematize complex orders with a
large amount of legs for execution in open outcry within the processing
capacity limits of the order entry systems they use, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system. The
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not impact the
current manner in which TPHs may represent a complex order in open
outcry, nor does it impact the permissible ratios of complex orders.
Further, those complex orders designated as Electronic Only will
continue to be subject to the current 16 legs requirement.\16\ The
proposed rule change merely increases the leg limit per single order
ticket for non-Electronic Only complex orders, which may increase
trading efficiencies for TPHs by allowing TPHs to reduce the number of
order tickets submitted for their larger complex orders,\17\ while
continuing to provide consistency in processing and further enhancing
the Exchange's audit trail (as fewer orders will require multiple
tickets). This, in turn, serves to

protect investors by promoting transparency, assisting in surveillance,
and providing the Exchange the ability to better enforce compliance by
its TPHs with the Act and the Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth in Rule 5.33(g), the Exchange's System may
only electronically execute complex orders with up to 16 legs, and
firms interested in electronic processing of their orders are not
impacted by this change.
    \17\ See also supra note 9. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because a maximum
number of legs per single order ticket will continue to apply equally
to all market participants that systematize complex orders (including
SPX Combo Orders) for execution in open outcry. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
is not competitive in nature nor does it relate to trading on the
Exchange. Rather, it relates solely to the manner in which market
participants systematize complex orders for trading on the Exchange's
trading floor.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
file number SR-CBOE-2023-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-041. 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 website (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 website 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 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-041 and should be submitted on or
before September 20, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18675 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11384-11385]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03421]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-259, OMB Control No. 3235-0269]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-5.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-5 (17 CFR 270.17f-5) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the ``Act'') governs the custody of the assets of
registered management investment companies (``funds'') with custodians
outside the United States. Under rule 17f-5, a fund or its foreign
custody manager (as delegated by the fund's board) may maintain the
fund's foreign assets in the care of an eligible fund custodian under
certain conditions. If the fund's board delegates to a foreign custody
manager authority to place foreign assets, the fund's board must find
that it is reasonable to rely on each delegate the board selects to act
as the fund's foreign custody manager. The delegate must agree to
provide written reports that notify the board when the fund's assets
are placed with a foreign custodian and when any material change occurs
in the fund's custody arrangements. The delegate must agree to exercise
reasonable care, prudence, and diligence, or to adhere to a higher
standard of care. When the foreign custody manager selects an eligible
foreign custodian, it must determine that the fund's assets will be
subject to reasonable care if maintained with that custodian, and that
the written contract that governs each custody arrangement will provide
reasonable care for fund assets. The contract must contain certain
specified provisions or others that provide at least equivalent care.
The foreign custody manager must establish a system to monitor the
performance of the contract and the appropriateness of continuing to
maintain assets with the eligible foreign custodian.
    The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-5 are
intended to provide protection for fund assets maintained with a
foreign bank custodian whose use is not authorized by statutory
provisions that govern fund custody arrangements,\1\ and that is not
subject to regulation and examination by U.S. regulators. The
requirement that the fund board determine that it is reasonable to rely
on each delegate is intended to ensure that the board carefully
considers each delegate's qualifications to perform its
responsibilities. The requirement that the delegate provide written
reports to the board is intended to ensure that the delegate notifies
the board of important developments concerning custody arrangements so
that the board may exercise effective oversight. The requirement that
the delegate agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide
assurances to the fund that the delegate will properly perform its
duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See section 17(f) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements that the foreign custody manager determine that
fund assets will be subject to reasonable care with the eligible
foreign custodian and under the custody contract, and that each
contract contain specified provisions or equivalent provisions, are
intended to ensure that the delegate has evaluated the level of care
provided by the custodian, that it weighs the adequacy of contractual
provisions, and that fund assets are protected by minimal contractual
safeguards. The requirement that the foreign custody manager establish
a monitoring system is intended to ensure that the manager periodically
reviews each custody arrangement and takes appropriate action if
developing custody risks may threaten fund assets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The staff believes that subcustodian monitoring does not
involve ``collection of information'' within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (``Paperwork
Reduction Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates that each year, approximately 97
registrants \3\ could be required to make an average of one response
per registrant under rule 17f-5, requiring approximately 2.5 hours of
board of director time per response, to make the necessary findings
concerning foreign custody managers. The total annual burden associated
with these requirements of the rule is up to approximately 243 hours
(97 registrants x 2.5 hours per registrant). The staff further
estimates that during each year, approximately 15 global custodians \4\
are required to make an average of 4 responses per custodian concerning
the use of foreign custodians other than depositories. The staff
estimates that each response will take approximately 270 hours,
requiring approximately 1080 total hours annually per custodian (270
hours x 4 responses per custodian). The total annual burden associated
with these requirements of the rule is approximately 16,200 hours (15
global custodians x 1080 hours per custodian). Therefore, the total
annual burden of all collection of information requirements of rule
17f-5 is estimated to be up to 16,443 hours (243 + 16,200). The total
annual cost of burden hours is estimated to be $4,522,392 ((243 hours x
$4,144/hour for board of director's time) + (16,200 hours x $217/hour
for a trust administrator's time)).\5\ Compliance with the collection
of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the
benefit of relying on the

rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign
custodians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This figure is an estimate of the number of new funds each
year, based on data reported by funds for 2014, 2015, and 2016. In
practice, not all funds will use foreign custody managers. The
actual figure therefore may be smaller.
    \4\ This estimate is based on staff research.
    \5\ Based on fund industry representations, the staff estimated
in 2014 that the average cost of board of director time, for the
board as a whole, was $4,000 per hour. Adjusting for inflation, the
staff estimates that the current average cost of board of director
time is approximately $4,144 per hour. The $217/hour figure for a
trust administrator is from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 15, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03421 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64857-64858]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73440; File No. SR-ISE-2014-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change to Amend the Schedule of Fees

October 27, 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 October 15, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt a
limited waiver of PrecISE fees. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees to adopt a limited waiver of PrecISE Trade[supreg] (``PrecISE'')
fees for Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') and sponsored customers
that execute a high volume of Crossing Orders in a given month.\3\ The
Exchange designates this filing to become effective on October 16,
2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Crossing Orders include Qualified Contingent Cross orders
and orders executed in the Facilitation, Solicitation, Price
Improvement, or Block Order Mechanisms.
    \4\ PrecISE fees are billed based on a billing period that
begins on the 16th of the month and ends on the 15th of the
following month. The first billing period subject to the proposed
fee waiver would begin on October 16, 2014 and end on November 15,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PrecISE is the Exchange's proprietary front-end order routing
terminal used by EAMs and/or their sponsored customers to send order
flow to ISE.\5\ The Exchange charges EAMs and sponsored customers that
use PrecISE a monthly fee of $350 per user for the first 10 users, and
$100 per user for each subsequent user. To give new users time to
become familiar and fully acclimated with all of the functionality that
PrecISE offers, and as an incentive to encourage firms to use PrecISE,
the Exchange currently waives these PrecISE fees for the first two
months for all new users.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to introduce a
further incentive for firms to try PrecISE that is tied to Crossing
Order volume, which comprises a significant portion of volume traded
via PrecISE. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to waive the PrecISE
fees described above for an EAM or sponsored customer's first five (5)
users if that EAM or sponsored customer executes a minimum of 1.5
million crossing contracts during the prior calendar month.\7\ For the
first billing cycle that this waiver is effective only,\8\ the Exchange
proposes to waive these fees based on a prorated volume threshold of
750,000 crossing contracts executed in the period beginning on the
effective date of this filing and ending on October 31, 2014. For firms
that find the PrecISE functionality useful, and choose to purchase
additional terminals above the free ones offered here, the free
terminals will count towards the first 10 users otherwise subject to
the higher $350 per user fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``sponsored customer'' is a non-member that trades under a
sponsoring member's execution and clearing identity. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55586 (April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18701 (April
13, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-19). Market Makers must connect to the
Exchange via API and are therefore not eligible to use PrecISE.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62053 (May 6, 2010),
75 FR 27033 (May 13, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-35).
    \7\ For example, PrecISE fees will be waived based on the full
November crossing volume for the November 16, 2014 to December 15,
2014 billing cycle.
    \8\ See note 4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable and
equitable as it will give firms with a high volume of Crossing Orders
the opportunity to properly evaluate PrecISE over an indefinite period.
While PrecISE is not limited to Crossing Orders, this volume accounts
for a significant portion of PrecISE use today. As such, the Exchange
believes that providing free terminals to firms that submit a
substantial volume of Crossing Order flow will encourage those firms to
purchase additional paid terminals to support their trading needs. The
proposed fee waiver will also act as an inducement for firms that wish
to use PrecISE to bring additional Crossing Order volume to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the free terminals. The Exchange notes
that it is adopting a prorated crossing volume threshold for the first
billing cycle, as the proposed fee change would become effective during
the middle of a calendar month, and would therefore only include volume
from half of that month. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory as all firms that
meet the crossing volume threshold, including EAMs and sponsored
customers that already use PrecISE for trading and those who are trying
PrecISE for the first time, will be eligible to receive the free
PrecISE terminals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fee change offers a competitive
incentive for firms to bring Crossing Order flow to the ISE and migrate
to the Exchange's front-end order routing terminal. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market

in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 No. SR-ISE-2014-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-48. 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2014-48 and should be
submitted by November 21, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25881 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29959-29964]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12351]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0422; FRL-9927-90-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revisions to the Attainment Plans for the Commonwealth of
Virginia Portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour and 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas and the Maintenance Plan for the
Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area To Remove the Stage
II Vapor Recovery Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia
(Virginia) State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions remove the
Stage II vapor recovery program (Stage II) from the attainment plans
for the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour and
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Nonattainment Areas (Northern Virginia Areas), as well as from the
maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Maintenance Area (Fredericksburg Area) (the three areas are
collectively referred to as the Virginia Areas or Areas). These
revisions also include an analysis that addresses the impact of the
removal of Stage II from subject gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs)
in the Virginia Areas. The analysis submitted by the Commonwealth
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving
these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 27, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 25, 2015. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0422 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0422, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0422. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 18, 2014, Virginia submitted formal revisions to its SIP
through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). These
SIP revisions consist of the removal of Stage II from the attainment
and maintenance plans for the Virginia Areas. The SIP revisions also
consists of an analysis demonstrating that the removal of Stage II from
the Virginia Areas' attainment and maintenance plans will not cause any
increase in emissions. This analysis satisfies the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA because it demonstrates the SIP revision will
not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress (RFP) of the NAAQS nor interfere with any
other CAA applicable requirement. Virginia's analysis shows that the
removal of Stage II from these Areas will not worsen air quality nor
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in the Areas. The
analysis also satisfies the requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2) for
comparability of control measures with the emissions reductions from
Stage II for the portion of the Areas in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR).
    Stage II is a means of capturing gasoline vapors displaced during
transfer of gasoline from the gasoline dispensing unit to the motor
vehicle fuel tank during vehicle refueling at a GDF. Stage II involves
the use of special refueling nozzles and coaxial hoses for vapor
collection at each gasoline pump at a subject GDF. Gasoline vapors
belong to a class of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). These compounds along with nitrogen oxides (NOX) are
precursors to the formation of ozone. Stage II gasoline vapor recovery
systems have been a required emission control measure in areas
classified as serious, severe, and extreme for the ozone NAAQS.
    The amendment of the CAA in 1990 required, under CAA section
182(b)(3), Stage II controls for moderate ozone nonattainment areas and
Stage II or comparable controls in the OTR. See CAA section 184(a) and
(b)(2). However, under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, the requirements
of section 182(b)(3) would no longer apply in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas upon EPA promulgation of standards for onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) as part of new motor vehicles' emission
control systems, and would no longer apply in serious or above ozone
areas after EPA's determination that ORVR technology is in widespread
use. ORVR is a mechanism employed by vehicles to re-use the vapors in
their gas tanks instead of allowing them to escape. Over time, non-ORVR
vehicles continued to be replaced by ORVR-equipped vehicles. On May 16,
2012, EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use
throughout the U.S. vehicle fleet and waived the requirement for states
to implement Stage II vapor recovery at GDFs in nonattainment areas
classified as Serious or above for the ozone NAAQS. In that rulemaking,
EPA determined that emission reductions

from ORVR-equipped vehicles were essentially equal to and would soon
surpass the emission reductions achieved by Stage II alone, and that a
state previously required to implement a Stage II vapor recovery
program may take appropriate action to remove the measure from its SIP.
See 77 FR 28772 (further providing that states could address CAA
section 110(l) for removal of Stage II by showing removal would not
result in an emissions increase).
    The Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area was
designated as a serious nonattainment area under the 1990 1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS. The Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment
Area was designated as moderate under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. The
Fredericksburg Area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area.
    On December 19, 1997, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia (the three States) submitted an attainment plan for the
Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area. On
April 17, 2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA conditionally approved the attainment
plan. However, on November 13, 2002 (67 FR 68805), EPA reclassified the
Area as severe nonattainment. To meet the requirements of the severe
classification, the three States submitted an attainment plan on
February 24, 2004. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), this attainment plan
was approved.
    On June 12, 2007, the three States submitted an attainment plan for
the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area,
which EPA proposed to approve on March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17161).
Subsequently on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA published a clean
data determination as well as a determination of attainment that the
Area met the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS by its mandated attainment date,
which was based on the 2008 to 2010 monitored air quality data. While
the clean data determination suspended the requirement to submit
certain planning-related SIPs for the Area, including the attainment
demonstration, EPA was not precluded from acting on an attainment
demonstration submitted for the Area. On April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19206),
EPA approved the attainment plan. On September 28, 2005, a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg Area
were submitted by Virginia. On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165), EPA
approved the Fredericksburg Area redesignation request and maintenance
plan.
    The 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was revoked on June 15, 2005. However,
EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS retained the
Stage II-related requirements under CAA section 182(b)(3), for certain
areas under the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f)). Therefore,
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-
VA Area was required to contain provisions for the implementation of
Stage II.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA Analysis

    The March 18, 2014 SIP revision submitted by VADEQ seeks removal of
Stage II from the attainment and maintenance plans for the Virginia
Areas. The analysis submitted by VADEQ for the SIP revision addresses
the effects of removing Stage II from the Virginia Areas. In accordance
with section 110(l) of the CAA, the analysis demonstrates that the
removal of Stage II from the Virginia Areas will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The analysis also meets the
requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2), which the Northern Virginia Area
is subject to because it is a part of the OTR. For this analysis, VADEQ
followed EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures. The guidance document provides a method in which
states could provide certain calculations showing that increased
emissions from non-ORVR compatible Stage II would eventually negate
benefits from the implementation of Stage II. Also, the guidance gives
the states flexibility to provide additional or alternate analyses to
EPA for consideration.
    As recommended by the guidance, VADEQ calculated the area-wide (the
Virginia Areas) VOC inventory emissions benefits from Stage II. These
calculations show the point at which the emissions increases from non-
ORVR compatible Stage II would overtake emissions benefits from Stage
II. The VOC inventory calculation results from year 2008 to 2020 are
provided in Table 1, Stage II Emissions Reductions in the Virginia
Areas-Wide VOC Inventory. The results provided in Table 1 demonstrate
that in 2013 there would no longer be a VOC emissions benefit from
Stage II, or that the emissions benefit is negative, and Virginia
removed the Stage II requirement from its regulations on January 1,
2014. VADEQ also provided additional data and analyses demonstrating
that Stage II has very little impact on VOC emissions in the Virginia
Areas and that modeling indicates that the formation of ozone in the
Area is much more dependent on NOX emissions than VOC
emissions. EPA finds removal of Stage II from the attainment and
maintenance plans will not increase emissions of VOC or increase ozone.
EPA also finds removal will not interfere with attainment, maintenance,
or RFP for the NAAQS, nor interfere with any other CAA requirement. The
SIP revision also addresses CAA section 184(b)(2) comparability
requirements. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for
proposing to approve these SIP revisions including analysis of CAA
sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2) may be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action and is
available on line at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-
OAR-2014-0422.

  Table 1--Stage II Emissions Reductions in the Virginia Areas-Wide VOC
                                Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Emissions
                                                              reductions
                            Year                              (tons per
                                                               day VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.......................................................         0.58
2009.......................................................         0.46
2010.......................................................         0.31
2011.......................................................         0.19
2012.......................................................         0.08
2013.......................................................        -0.01
2014.......................................................        -0.07
2015.......................................................        -0.13
2016.......................................................        -0.17
2017.......................................................        -0.20
2018.......................................................        -0.22
2020.......................................................        -0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the

violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from
disclosure documents and information about the content of those
documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment.
The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1)
Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary
environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211, or 213,
to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia to remove Stage II from the attainment plans for the Northern
Virginia Areas and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg Area. EPA is
approving these revisions because it was demonstrated that the removal
of the Stage II requirement on January 1, 2014 will not cause any
emissions increases that could interfere with the Virginia Areas'
attainment or maintenance of the 1990 1-Hour and/or 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA is also approving
these revisions because they meet the requirements of the comparability
clause in CAA section 184(b)(2). EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment
and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions
if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 27,
2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June
25, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
    This action approving the removal of Stage II from the Virginia
Areas' attainment and maintenance plans may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 7, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entries for ``1-Hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and
Attainment Plan,'' ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the
Fredericksburg Area,'' and ``8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of
Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Material
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Applicable geographic        State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP revision              area            submittal date        EPA approval date                Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
1-Hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of    Washington 1-hour ozone          8/19/03  5/16/05, 70 FR 25688.........  2005 motor vehicle emissions budgets
 Attainment and Attainment Plan.          nonattainment area.             2/25/04                                  of 97.4 tons per day (tpy) for VOC
                                                                                and 234.7 tpy of NOX.
                                                                          3/18/14  5/26/15 [Insert Federal        Removal of Stage II vapor recovery
                                                                                Register Citation].            program. See section 52.2428.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the    City of Fredericksburg,           5/4/05  12/23/05, 70 FR 76165.         ......................................
 Fredericksburg Area.                     Spotsylvania County,            9/26/11  12/20/12, 77 FR 75386........  Revised 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle
                                          and Stafford County.                                                     emission budgets for NOX.
                                                                          3/18/14  5/26/15 [Insert Federal        Removal of Stage II vapor recovery
                                                                                Register Citation].            program. See section 52.2428.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of    Washington, DC-MD-VA             6/12/07  4/10/15, 80 FR 19206.........  2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets
 Attainment and Attainment Plan for the   1997 8-Hour Ozone                                                        of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC
 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air          Nonattainment Area.                                                      and 146.1 tpd of NOX.
 Quality Standards.
                                                                          3/18/14  5/26/15 [Insert Federal        Removal of Stage II vapor recovery
                                                                                Register Citation].            program. See section 52.2428.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2428, is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2428  Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone.

* * * * *
    (l) As of May 26, 2015, EPA approves the removal of the Stage II
vapor recovery program from the attainment

plans for the Virginia portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA 1990 1-hour
and 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas and from the
maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Area.

[FR Doc. 2015-12351 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69635-69636]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-26-000.
    Applicants: Parkway Generation Essex, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Parkway Generation Essex, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2429-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company submits responses to the
requests set forth in the September 15, 2021 deficiency letter.
    Filed Date: 11/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20211108-5188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-254-001.
    Applicants: Harmony Florida Solar, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Harmony Florida Solar, LLC Supplement
to Refund Report of Sellers to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-255-001.
    Applicants: Taylor Creek Solar, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Taylor Creek Solar, LLC Supplement to
Refund Report of Sellers to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2624-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Refund Report: PSE Refund Report for Morgan Stanley to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20211201-5260.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2637-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Refund Report: PSE Refund Report for Powerex to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20211201-5261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-517-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Holly Frontier Transmission
Agreements to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20211201-5262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-518-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Shell Transmission Service Agreement
Cancellation to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20211201-5263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-519-000.
    Applicants: Indra Power Business DC LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tariffs and Agreements to be
effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-521-000.
    Applicants: Indra Power Business VA LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tariffs and Agreements to be
effective 2/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-522-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Texas-New Mexico Power
5th A&R Interconnection Agreement to be effective 11/19/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-523-000.
    Applicants: Indra Power Business TX LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tariffs and Agreements to be
effective 2/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-524-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3618R3 Little Blue Wind
Project, LLC GIA to be effective 11/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-525-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3867 Southwestern Power
Admin & OG&E Interconnection Agr to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-526-000.
    Applicants: Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 1/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-527-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Informational Filing of Fifth Transmission Owner Rate
of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20211201-5325.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-528-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Revisions to Reflect
CAISO EIM Participation to be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-529-000.
    Applicants: 299F2M WHAM8 SOLAR, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 12/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-54-001.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to WPC Sched B Rider I
and FRT Filing to be effective 2/1/2021.

    Filed Date: 12/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20211202-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 2, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26584 Filed 12-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58450-58452]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0057]

Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection Systems); Extension of
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Standard on Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection
Systems).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When

using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0057,
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3653, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express
mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Docket
Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0057) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the phone number below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
(202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.  1926.652 (``Requirements for
Protective Systems;'' the ``Standard'') contain paperwork requirements
that impose burden hours or costs on employers. These paragraphs
require employers to use protective systems to prevent cave-ins during
excavation work; these systems include sloping the side of the trench,
benching the soil away from the excavation, or using a support system
or shield (such as a trench box). The Standard specifies allowable
configurations and slopes for excavations, and provides appendices to
assist employers in designing protective systems. However, paragraphs
(b)(3) and (b)(4) of the Standard permit employers to design sloping or
benching systems based on tabulated data (Option 3), or to use a design
approved by a registered professional engineer (Option 4).
    Under Option 3, employers must provide the tabulated data in a
written form that also identifies the registered professional engineer
who approved the data and the parameters used to select the sloping or
benching system drawn from the data, as well as the limitations of the
data (including the magnitude and configuration of slopes determined to
be safe). The document must also provide any explanatory information
necessary to select the correct benching system based on the data.
Option 2 requires employers to develop a written design approved by a
registered professional engineer. The design information must include
the magnitude and configuration of the slopes determined to be safe,
and the identity of the registered professional engineer who approved
the design.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) allows employers to use manufacturer's
tabulated data or to deviate from the data provided. The manufacturer's
specification, recommendations, and limitations as well as the
manufacturer's approval to deviate from these items shall be in
writing. Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) allow employers to design support
systems, shield systems, and other protective systems based on
tabulated data provided by a system manufacturer (Option 3) or obtained
from other sources including a registered professional engineer and
approved by a registered professional engineer (Option 4).
    Each of these provisions requires employers to maintain a copy of
the documents described in these options at the jobsite during
construction. After construction is completed, employers may store the
documents off-site provided they make them available to an OSHA
compliance officer on request. These documents provide both the
employer and the compliance officer with information needed to
determine if the selection and design of a protective system are
appropriate to the excavation work, thereby assuring workers maximum
protection against cave-ins.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Standard on
Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection Systems). An increase in the
number of construction from 761,873 to 931,009 projects/sites has
resulted in an adjustment increase in burden hours from 14,266 to
17,262--a total increase of 2,996 burden hours. OSHA increased the
number of apartment and non-residential construction sites that would
use outside contractor engineering services for the required protective
system design approval from 2,038 to 2,466. There was an increase in
hourly wage for a civil engineer from $53.17 to $63.16, which increased
the overall cost from $216,721 to $311,505, a difference of $94,784.
    The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in

the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection
requirements contained in the Standard.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection Systems) (29 CFR
part 1926, subpart P).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0137.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 8,382.
    Number of Responses: 17,262.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 17,262 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0057) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 5, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-26675 Filed 12-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32645]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12965]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-4]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, General Information
(202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/20/2013
Through 05/24/2013 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130138, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Westbrook Project (SPK-2005-
00938), Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Kathy Norton 916-557-
5260
EIS No. 20130139, Second Final Supplement, USFWS, 00, Issuance of
Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds, Review
Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Robert Trost<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130140, Draft EIS, USFS, WY, Sherman Cattle and Horse
Allotment Grazing Authorization and Management, Comment Period Ends:
07/15/2013, Contact: Chad Hayward<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130141, Final EIS, USFS, SC, AP Loblolly Pine Removal and
Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Victor
Wyant<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130142, Draft EIS, HUD, NY, Hallets Point Rezoning, Comment
Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Robert Dobruskin<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130143, Revised Draft EIS, USAF, UT, United States Air Force
F-35A Operational Basing, Beddown at one or more Air Combat Command or
Air National Guard Bases, Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact:
Nicholas Germanos<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130144, Final EIS, NPS, CO, Grand Ditch Breach Restoration,
Review Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Ben Bobowski<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130145, Draft EIS, USAF, AK, Proposal to Relocate the 18th
Aggressor Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB), Alaska to Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska and to Right-Size the Remaining Wing
Overhead/Base Operating Support at EAFB, Alaska, Comment Period Ends:
07/30/2013, Contact: Allen Richmond<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130146, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Whisky Ridge Ecological
Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Dean A.
Gould<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130147, Final EIS, TVA, TN, Dam Safety Modifications at
Cherokee, Fort Loudoun, Tellico, and Watts Bar Dams, Review Period
Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Charles P. Nicholson<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20130148, Draft Supplement, USACE, FL, Jacksonville Harbor
Navigation, Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Samantha Borer
904-232-1066

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130133, Draft EIS, BLM, CO, Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area Draft Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends:
08/15/2013, Contact: Samantha Staley<PHONE_NUMBER>, Revision to FR
Notice Published 05/24/2013; Extending Comment Period from 8/15/2013 to
8/22/2013

    Dated: May 28, 2013
Cliff Rader
Director, NEPA Compliance Division Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-12965 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P