[Federal Register: April 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18330-18336]
[DOCID:fr22ap09-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8405-3]
RIN 2070-AJ48

Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two minor revisions to the final Lead
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that published in
the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. First, EPA is proposing to
require accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling technician
training to submit post-course notifications, including digital
photographs of each successful trainee, to EPA. The 2008 rule
establishes accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping
requirements as well as work practice standards on persons performing
renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-
occupied facilities. The post-course notification requirement, designed
to supply important information for EPA's compliance monitoring
efforts, was inadvertently omitted from the final RRP rule's regulatory
text, although it was discussed in the preamble of the final rule. In
addition, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement for accredited
lead-based paint activities training providers--those who provide
inspector, risk assessor, project designer, and abatement supervisor
and worker training--to submit to EPA a digital photograph of each
successful trainee along with their post-course notifications. That
requirement, inadvertently imposed as part of the final RRP rule, is
unnecessary because EPA already receives photographs of these
individuals through other means.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049, by one of the following methods:
      Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

      Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     For technical information contact: Cindy Wheeler, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address: wheeler.cindy @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you provide or
plan to provide training in lead-safe building renovation work
practices or training for dust sampling technicians. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
e.g., training providers.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

A. Introduction

    In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under the
authority of sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1).
The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q,
addresses lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and
painting activities that disturb lead-based paint

in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
    ``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing
constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to
reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The final RRP rule
defines a child-occupied facility as a building, or a portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same
child, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any
week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit
lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6
hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-
occupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or
in target housing.
    The final RRP rule establishes requirements for training
renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians;
for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation
firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling
technician training; for renovation work practices; and for
recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may
apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of
the elements of the new renovation requirements. More information on
the final RRP rule may be found in the Federal Register document
announcing the final RRP rule (Ref. 1) or on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm.
    Many provisions of the final RRP rule were derived from the
existing lead-based paint activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart L (Ref. 2). These existing regulations were promulgated in 1996
under TSCA section 402(a), which defines lead-based paint activities in
target housing as inspections, risk assessments, and abatements. The
1996 regulations cover lead-based paint activities in target housing
and child-occupied facilities, along with limited screening activities
called lead hazard screens. These regulations established an
accreditation program for training providers and a certification
program for individuals and firms performing these activities. Training
course accreditation and individual certification was made available in
five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement
supervisor, and abatement worker. In addition, these lead-based paint
activities regulations established work practice standards and
recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint activities in target
housing and child-occupied facilities.
    A 2004 amendment to the lead-based paint activities regulations
established notification procedures for certified professionals
conducting lead-based paint abatement activities, and accredited
training programs providing lead-based paint activities courses (Ref.
3). Since the effective date of the 2004 amendment, accredited training
programs have been required to notify EPA before providing initial or
refresher lead-based paint activities training courses and again
following completion of these training courses. Both notifications must
include information about the course, while the post-course
notification also must include identifying information on the
successful trainees. These notification requirements were designed to
facilitate compliance monitoring by EPA.
     The final RRP rule created two new training disciplines in the
field of lead-based paint: Renovator and dust sampling technician.
Persons who successfully complete renovator training from an accredited
training provider are certified renovators, who are responsible for
ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are performed in
compliance with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR
745.85. Persons who successfully complete dust sampling technician
training from an accredited training provider are certified dust
sampling technicians, who may be called upon to collect optional dust
samples after renovations have been completed.
    While the training disciplines, the work practice standards, and
the recordkeeping requirements of the final RRP rule differ from those
established in the lead-based paint activities regulations, EPA
determined that the accreditation requirements imposed on persons
providing lead-based paint activities training would also be effective
for persons providing renovation training. Therefore, the final RRP
rule amended 40 CFR 745.225 to cover persons who provide or wish to
provide renovation training for the purposes of the final RRP rule.
    As amended, 40 CFR 745.225 requires training providers who wish to
provide lead-based paint activities or renovation training for the
purposes of the EPA's lead-based paint programs to be accredited by
EPA. The requirements for each course of study are described in detail
at 40 CFR 745.225 as are the operational requirements for training
programs and the process for obtaining accreditation.

B. Post-Course Notifications

    While the final RRP rule amended 40 CFR 745.225(c)(13) to require
pre-course notifications from accredited renovation training providers,
a similar amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14), the post-course
notification requirement, was inadvertently omitted. EPA, therefore, is
proposing to amend 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require post-course
notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling
technician training. These include conforming changes to 40 CFR
745.225(c)(14)(iii) to make it clear that all methods of post-course
notification are available to both renovation training providers and
lead-based paint activities training providers.
    The post-course notification requirement is particularly critical
for implementation of the final RRP rule, because EPA determined that
it was not necessary for renovators or dust sampling technicians to
apply to EPA to obtain their certifications. A successful trainee's
course completion certificate serves as his or her certification. In
contrast, lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project
designers, and abatement supervisors and workers must all apply to EPA
for certification before they can perform lead-based paint activities
such as inspections or abatements in target housing and child-occupied
facilities. The individual application process and requirements are
described in 40 CFR 745.226(a). In promulgating the final RRP rule, EPA
decided not to require renovators and dust sampling technicians to
apply to EPA for certification for several reasons. The final RRP rule
did not require any additional education or work experience for
renovators or dust sampling technicians, so there would be no
additional information necessitating EPA review in connection with an
application. In addition, the final RRP rule did not impose a third-
party examination similar to that required for inspector, risk
assessor, or supervisor certification candidates, so there would be no
need for EPA to provide letters admitting candidates to testing.
Finally, EPA stated specifically in the preamble to both the RRP
proposed rule and final rule that EPA would receive course completion
information from accredited renovation training course providers (Ref.
1 at 21723 and Ref. 4 at 1608). Both preambles note that with this
information, EPA will have a complete list of certified renovators and
will be able to check to see if a particular course completion
certificate holder appeared on a course completion list submitted by
the training course provider identified on the certificate. When EPA

inspects a renovation job for compliance with these regulations, EPA
will have the ability to verify, to the same extent, the validity of a
course completion certificate held by a renovator at that job, because
the final RRP rule requires certified renovators and dust sampling
technicians to have copies of their course completion certificates at
any job sites where they are working. In fact, two commenters supported
EPA's approach and specifically mentioned post-course notifications
from training providers as a way to monitor compliance with the
training and certification requirements (Refs. 5 and 6). One thought
that it would also reduce paperwork for both renovators and the Agency
(Ref. 5). EPA requests comment on the feasibility and appropriateness
of these post-course notification requirements for accredited providers
of renovator or dust sampling technician training.

C. Digital Photographs of Successful Trainees

    EPA's proposed amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require post-
course notifications from accredited renovator or dust sampling
technician training providers would also include the requirement to
submit digital photographs of each successful trainee as part of each
post-course notification. Some commenters on the proposed RRP rule
expressed reservations about EPA's ability to monitor compliance with
the renovation training and certification requirements absent a formal
certification application process. A number of commenters suggested a
photographic identification card be issued to successful renovator and
dust sampling technician trainees as a way to improve the Agency's
ability to monitor compliance. EPA intended to adopt the alternative
suggested by one commenter, that of requiring training providers to
include a photograph of the trainee on each course completion
certificate and to submit those photographs to EPA (Ref. 7). EPA noted
that this would assist compliance inspectors in determining whether a
particular individual at a work site had in fact successfully completed
accredited training (Ref. 1 at 21723, 21726). The final RRP rule did
amend 40 CFR 745.225(c)(8) to require renovator and dust sampling
technician course completion certificates to bear a photograph of the
trainee.
    The final RRP rule also amended 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require
training providers to submit digital photographs of each successful
trainee as part of their post-course notifications. However, language
limiting the requirement to accredited providers of renovator or dust
sampling technician training courses was inadvertently omitted from the
final RRP rule. EPA did not intend for the requirement to apply to
accredited providers of lead-based paint activities (inspector, risk
assessor, project designer, and abatement supervisor and worker)
training because, as part of the individual certification application
process, EPA already receives photographs from individual certification
candidates at or about the time that the individuals complete their
training. These photographs are then incorporated into the
certification documents that EPA issues to successful candidates and
maintained in EPA's Federal Lead-based Paint Program database. This
provides an independent verification of certification documents
encountered by compliance inspectors in the field. Therefore, because
an additional photograph submission is unnecessary, EPA is proposing to
eliminate the requirement that accredited providers of lead-based paint
activities training submit a digital photograph of each successful
trainee along with their post-course notifications. EPA requests
comment on the feasibility and appropriateness of requiring accredited
training providers, whether they provide renovation or lead-based paint
activities training, to submit digital photographs of successful
trainees along with post-course notifications.

D. Effective Date

    EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the
30-day delay in the effective date of the final rule that EPA intends
to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. It is critically important
to establish a post-course notification requirement for renovation
training providers before the first accredited training courses are
offered. Renovation training course providers may begin submitting
their applications for accreditation on April 22, 2009. While it is
likely to take some time for EPA to process these applications and
issue accreditations, training providers may begin providing training
as soon as they receive their accreditation. As discussed, this
information is essential to EPA's ability to monitor compliance with
the training and certification requirements of the final RRP rule. If
accredited training courses are offered before the notification
requirement is made effective, EPA will not receive a record of the
persons who have become certified renovators or dust sampling
technicians through those courses and EPA will be unable to
independently verify the validity of course completion certificates
held by these individuals when one is encountered during a compliance
inspection. In addition, delaying the effective date could mean that
these individuals would not be part of EPA's database of certified
renovators and dust sampling technicians unless and until they take a
refresher course. Indeed, given the way the program is structured, it
would be contrary to the public interest to not impose this requirement
before training providers are accredited and begin training renovators
and dust sampling technicians. The public has been on notice of EPA's
intentions regarding the post-course notification requirement since EPA
published the RRP proposed rule. In addition, the final RRP rule
already requires that renovation and dust sampling technician training
providers produce training certificates with the student's photograph.
Thus, training providers must already have the capability to take and
reproduce pictures of students. Accordingly, this is not a circumstance
where fairness requires that the regulated community be given time
beyond promulgation to prepare before a regulatory requirement becomes
effective. EPA therefore proposes to find that there is good cause for
a final rule making this change to be effective immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register.
    Finally, EPA also believes that it is not in the public interest to
impose unnecessary burdens such as the inadvertently created
requirement for accredited lead-based paint activities training
providers to submit digital photographs of successful trainees along
with their post-course notifications to EPA. As discussed, EPA already
receives photographs of these individuals at or about the time that
these individuals complete their training. Requiring accredited
training providers to also provide photographs of these individuals is
redundant and unnecessary. EPA, therefore, proposes to find that there
is good cause for a final rule making this change to be effective
immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. EPA requests
comment on whether an immediately effective final rule should be
issued.

III. References

    1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7).
    2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final
Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9).

    3. EPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Activities and Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR
18489, April 8, 2004) (FRL-7341-5).
    4. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-7755-5).
    5. National Association of Homebuilders. May 25, 2006.
    6. State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection. May 17,
2006.
    7. State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Family Services.
May 23, 2006.
    8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR); final rule addendum
to an existing EPA ICR, entitled TSCA Sections 402/404 Training and
Certification, Accreditation, and Standards for Lead-Based Paint
Activities. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0925. March 2008.
    9. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic
Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. March
2008.
    10. EPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis for the TSCA Section 402 Lead-
Based Paint Program Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule. March
2009.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) it has been determined that this
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). However, the costs of the
requirement that accredited renovator and dust sampling technician
training providers submit post-course notifications were accounted for
in the ICR addendum prepared for the final RRP rule (Ref. 8). Those
costs were estimated to be $347,720 in the first year that the post-
course notification requirement is in effect, $67,896 in the second
year, and $67,489 in the third year. The costs for these providers to
take a digital photograph of each trainee, include it in the trainee's
course completion certificate, and forward it to EPA were estimated to
be $2 per trainee in the economic analysis for the final RRP rule (Ref.
9). The economic analysis also estimated that there would be 235,916
trainees in the first year that the accreditation and training
requirements are in effect, 78,316 in the second year, and 77,995 in
the third year. This results in an estimated cost for the digital
photograph requirement of $471,832 in the first year, $156,632 in the
second year, and $155,990 in the third year. The costs for accredited
lead-based paint activities training providers to take digital
photographs of successful trainees and submit them to EPA were not
directly estimated, because EPA did not intend to impose this
requirement. However, these costs can be calculated using the $2 per
trainee figure along with the annual number of lead-based paint
activities certification and re-certification applications received by
EPA that was estimated for an economic analysis prepared for a separate
rulemaking (Ref. 10). That economic analysis estimated that EPA would
receive, on an annual basis, 1,534 certification applications and 626
re-certification applications. This results in an estimated annual cost
for the digital photograph requirement for accredited lead-based paint
activities training providers of $4,320. Because this proposed rule
eliminates the digital photograph requirement for accredited lead-based
paint activities training providers, this amount represents a cost
savings.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulatory action does not contain any information collection
requirements that require additional approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection referenced in this proposed rule (i.e., the post-course
notification requirement in 40 CFR 745.225) has already been approved
by OMB under control number 2070-0155 (EPA ICR  1715.10) (Ref.
8). EPA does not believe that this proposed rule has any impact on the
existing burden estimate or collection description, such that
additional approval by OMB is necessary.
    Burden under PRA means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter I, after appearing in the
preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with section 601
of RFA as:
    1. A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
    2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000.
    3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    The impacts of the post-course notification requirement on small
entities who become accredited to provide renovator or dust sampling
technician training courses were specifically addressed and accounted
for during the development of the final RRP rule. As provided for in
section 605 of RFA, the post-course notification requirements being
proposed are so closely related to the final RRP rule that EPA
considers them and the analysis prepared and the other actions taken by
EPA in connection with the final RRP rule to be one rule for the
purposes of sections 603 and 604 of RFA. Accordingly, in order to avoid
duplicative action, EPA is relying on the analysis EPA prepared for the
final RRP rule as well as the other actions that EPA took in developing
the final RRP rule to satisfy its obligations under RFA for this
proposed rule. A description of the Agency's activities pursuant to RFA
is found in the preamble to the final RRP rule (Ref. 1 at 21752).
Specifically, pursuant to section 603 of RFA, EPA

prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the
proposed RRP rule and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the
regulated small entities on a range of issues, including training
provider accreditation. As required by section 604 of RFA, the Agency
also prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for the
final RRP rule. The post-course notification requirements being
proposed were included in costs analyzed in the IRFA and the FRFA for
the final RRP rule. The FRFA also addressed the issues raised by public
comments on the IRFA. As part of that analysis, EPA determined that
including a digital photograph in the notification would not be an
added cost to training providers because the cost would be recouped as
part of the fee charged for the course. Thus, this requirement would
not have a significant impact on any training providers. Accordingly,
the impacts of the post-course notification requirements on small
entities that become accredited to provide renovator or dust sampling
technician training courses have been adequately addressed for purposes
of RFA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of
UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not have ``federalism implications,'' because it will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this proposed rule. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the
objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between the Agency and State and local
governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local
governments during the rulemaking process for the RRP rule. These
consultations are as described in the preamble to the 2006 RRP proposed
rule (Ref. 4).

F. Executive Order 13175

    As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9,
2000), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in the Executive Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and
others by discussing potential renovation regulatory options at several
national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested
Federal agencies.

G. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) does not apply to this proposed rule because it is not an
``economically significant regulatory action'' as defined by Executive
Order 12866. While the environmental health or safety risk addressed by
the RRP rule does have a disproportionate effect on children, this
proposed rule merely covers administrative requirements for accredited
training providers and does not directly address environmental health
or safety risks.
    EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of
renovation, repair, and painting projects on children. Various aspects
of this evaluation are discussed in the preamble to the proposed RRP
rule (Ref. 4). The primary purpose of the final RRP rule is to minimize
exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair,
and painting activities in housing where children under age 6 reside
and in housing or other buildings frequented by children under age 6.
In the absence of the final RRP rule, adequate work practices are not
likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and painting
activities. EPA's analysis indicates that there will be approximately
1.4 million children under age 6 affected by the final RRP rule. These
children are projected to receive considerable benefits due to the
final RRP rule.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of

voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    While EPA has not assessed the potential impact of this proposed
rule on minority and low-income populations, EPA did assess the
potential impact of the final RRP rule as a whole. As a result of the
final RRP rule assessment, contained in the economic analysis for the
final RRP rule, EPA has determined that the final RRP rule will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population (Ref. 9).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Child-occupied facility, Housing
renovation, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
     Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

     1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

     2. Section 745.225 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(14)
introductory text, (c)(14)(i), (c)(14)(ii)(D)(6), and (c)(14)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and
child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
     (c) * * *
     (14) The training manager must provide notification following
completion of renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint
activities courses.
     (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the
completion of any renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based
paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later
than 10 business days following course completion.
     (ii) * * *
     (D) * * *
     (6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses only, a
digital photograph of the student.
* * * * *
     (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following
methods: Written notification, or electronically using the Agency's
Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written notification following training
courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form, entitled
Training Course Follow-up or a similar form containing the information
required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) of this section. All written
notifications must be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial
delivery service, or hand delivery (persons submitting notification by
U.S. Postal Service are reminded that they should allow 3 additional
business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the
notification by the required date). Instructions and sample forms can
be obtained from the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323), or on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/lead.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-9227 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71573-71574]
[DOCID:fr29no05-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52799; File No. SR-NASD-2005-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos.
1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Amendments to the Rule Regarding
Supervisory Control Systems, Rule 3012, To Require Notification of
Reliance on ``Limited Size and Resources'' Exception

November 18, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On June 23, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change amending the rule regarding
supervisory control systems, Rule 3012, to require members relying on
the ``limited size and resources'' exception to Rule 3012's general
supervisory requirement for conducting producing managers' supervisory
reviews to report electronically to NASD their reliance on the
exception. On July 8, 2005, NASD submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ On July 27, 2005, NASD submitted Amendment No.
2.\4\ The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment
in the Federal Register on August 9, 2005.\5\ The Commission received
one comment on the proposal. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 clarified the rule's text.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2 further clarified the rule's text.
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 52195 (Aug. 3, 2005), 70 FR
46242 (Aug. 9, 2005) (the ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Description of the Proposal

    Rule 3012 (Supervisory Control System) requires members to have a
system of supervisory control policies and procedures that tests and
verifies that a member's supervisory procedures are reasonably designed
with respect to the activities of the member and its registered
representatives and associated persons to achieve compliance with
applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable NASD
rules, and to amend those supervisory procedures when the testing and
verification demonstrate a need to do so. Rule 3012 also requires that
a member's supervisory control policies and procedures include, among
other things, procedures that are reasonably designed to review and
supervise the customer account activity conducted by a member's
producing managers.
    Generally, only a person senior to or ``otherwise independent'' of
a producing manager may conduct the producing manager's reviews.
However, Rule 3012 provides a limited exception for any member firm
that is so limited in size and resources (the ``limited size and
resources'' exception) that the member does not have independent
associated persons who can conduct the required supervisory reviews. In
such situations, a principal who is sufficiently knowledgeable of the
member's supervisory control procedures may conduct the required
supervisory reviews.
    In its Order approving Rule 3012, the SEC specified that NASD must
notify the SEC of those members that elect to rely on Rule 3012's
``limited size and resources'' exception.\6\ To fulfill this
obligation, NASD will need to identify those members relying on the
exception. Accordingly, NASD is filing this rule change requiring firms
that rely on the ``limited size and resources'' exception to notify
NASD of their reliance on the exception. In Notice to Members 04-71
(October 2004), the Notice announcing the SEC's approval of the
Supervisory Control Amendments, NASD advised its members of its intent
to file this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50477 (Sept. 30, 2004), 69 FR
59972 (Oct. 6, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-116).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will require a member that has determined
that it must rely on the ``limited size and resources'' exception to
Rule 3012 to conduct any of its producing managers' supervisory
reviews, to notify NASD electronically (or through any other process
prescribed by NASD) within thirty (30) days of the date on which the
member first relies on the exception.\7\

Afterwards, the member will need to notify NASD of its continued
reliance on the exception on an annual basis. Members must ensure that
each ensuing annual notification is effected no later than on the
anniversary date of the previous year's notification. If a member
determines that it no longer needs to rely on the ``limited size and
resources'' exception to Rule 3012 to conduct any of its producing
managers' supervisory reviews, the member must notify NASD
electronically (or through any other process prescribed by NASD) within
thirty (30) days of ceasing to rely on the exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because the ``limited size and resources'' exception became
effective on January 31, 2005, a member may already be relying on
the exception prior to the effective date of the proposed rule
change and, consequently, will be unable to comply with the rule
change's requirement that NASD be notified within thirty (30) days
of the date on which the member first relies on the exception. In
such instance, the proposed rule change would require the member to
notify NASD within thirty (30) days of the rule change's effective
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD has recently designed an electronic reporting system that will
enable members to notify NASD of their reliance on the exception.
Members will be able to access this reporting system on the effective
date of this proposed rule change.
    NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following
publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission approval.

B. Comment Summary

    The proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 9, 2005.\8\ We received one comment on the proposal. The
commenter, Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. (``Lincoln''), expressed
concern that the proposed annual notification requirement for members
that rely on Rule 3012's ``Limited Size and Resources'' exception would
impose an undue burden on members to remember the anniversary date of
the initial notification.\9\ Instead, Lincoln stated that this burden
could be reduced by requiring members relying on this exception to only
provide an initial notification of their reliance and a second
notification when they cease to rely on it. Alternatively, Lincoln also
suggested that NASD consider making the notification requirement a part
of the quarterly updated NASD Control System.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \9\ See e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from Deidre B. Koerick,
Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc., dated Aug. 30, 2005.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Lincoln letter, NASD stated that ``[t]he annual
notification requirement helps NASD to provide the SEC with the most
accurate information possible. To aid members in completing their
annual notification requirement, the electronic reporting system that
NASD has designed for members to use, records and displays the date of
the member's previous notification.'' \11\ Furthermore, to mitigate any
concerns regarding a member's obligation to remember the anniversary
date of its reliance of the exception, NASD stated that it ``expects to
provide members with reminders, electronic or otherwise, in advance of
the members' anniversary date for notification of continued reliance on
the exception.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See letter from Patricia M. Albrecht, Assistant General
Counsel, NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division
of Market Regulation, Commission, dated Oct. 4, 2005.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) \13\ of the Act, which require, among other things, NASD's
rules to be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3012 requires independent supervisory reviews of producing
managers. It is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
practices and to protect investors. In approving the rule, the
Commission said it expected that Rule 3012

will reduce potential conflicts of interests in situations where the
producing branch manager is responsible for generating substantial
revenues for the benefit of his supervisor. The Commission believes
that such heightened supervisory procedures should help address the
potential conflicts of interest with sufficient flexibility so as
not to create undue burdens and costs on members.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Act Release No 49883 (June 17, 2004).

    The rule recognizes, however, that certain firms may conduct their
business with significant limitation in size and resources, and
accounted for this limitation by approving a ``Limited Size and
Resources'' exception. The Commission concluded that the ``Limited Size
and Resources'' exception was consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) because
it accommodated the smallest NASD members that lack the resources to
implement a full scale program to conduct supervisory reviews.\15\
However, in approving this exception, the Commission expected NASD to
monitor closely the use of this exception to prevent its abuse or use
by members other than those for which it was intended.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50477 (Sept. 30, 2004).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD proposed this amendment to Rule 3012 to provide an efficient
measure for monitoring the use of the exception. The Commission
believes that this proposed rule change, as amended, accomplishes the
goals of Section 15(A)(b)(6) by enabling NASD and the Commission to
efficiently monitor members that rely on the ``Limited Size and
Resources'' exception in Rule 3012.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\17\ that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NASD-2005-084), be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6627 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Mary Dominiak 08/ 08/ 2003 12: 18 PM To: Mary dominiak cc: ( bcc: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US) Subject: Revised Materials for August PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Subgroup Meetings You are receiving this message because you have expressed an interest in receiving information concerning the Agency's enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) process on perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and the fluorinated telomers, OPPT 2003 0012. If you no longer wish to receive this information, please reply to dominiak. mary@ epa. gov requesting that you be removed from this notification list.

****************************************************************************** ********** TO: PFOA ECA Technical Workgroup and Plenary Meeting Attendees Attached please find revised attendance and agenda materials for the upcoming PFOA ECA Telomer Technical Subgroup meetings. Revised materials for the Fluoropolymer meetings will be circulated next week. The attached files include: Revised Telomer Technical Subgroup Materials: Draft agendas and

anticipated attendee lists, all three meetings. EPA has revised the meeting attendance lists to reflect changes in and additions to attendees, and to indicate which parties are expected to attend specific sessions via teleconference rather than in person. PFOA ECA limited distribution files of OECD Test Guidelines 303 A,

307, 308, and Draft 311: Telomer Biodegradation Subgroup. Please note that EPA obtained permission from OECD for limited copying and distribution of these copyright protected documents exclusively for use in this PFOA ECA process. These files must not be further copied, published, or distributed, and will not be electronically accessible in the online docket, although they will be included in the paper copy of the docket in the Public Reading Room at EPA Headquarters. These documents are provided only for use by the PFOA ECA Technical Subgroups in the design of test methods suitable for the perfluorinated chemicals under consideration in this process. You can print the files, but you will not otherwise be able to access them to copy text, make changes to the documents, or add or change comments or notes.

No comments were received on the original draft meeting agendas and statements of goals and objectives for the Telomer Subgroup meetings.

In addition to the documents attached to this message, EPA directs the attention of all parties to documents available on the EPA's Quality website  www. epa. gov/ QUALITY/ qa_ docs. html  which describe data quality elements that will be common to the work of all ECA groups, particularly reports 2 and 5.

If you have any questions or comments on these materials, or any difficulty in accessing the attached files, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Mary F. Dominiak U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Chemical Control Division ( 7405M)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202 564 8104 Strawman Telomer Subgroup Materials 8 03 revis PFOA OECD TG303 A, 307, 308, Draft 31 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Technical Subgroup on Incineration Test Methods for Telomers Introduction The PFOA ECA Plenary session held on July 10, 2003, approved an action plan for the Telomer Workgroup to form a Technical Subgroup on Incineration test methods. This subgroup will assess the adequacy of available incineration test methods to provide data on telomer degradation and the concurrent formation of by products that may result during the process on incineration. Where needed, specific approaches to address the unique characteristics of telomers and telomer based polymers will be incorporated into the test protocol( s).

Goals / Objectives The goals of this Technical Subgroup on Incineration Test Methods for Telomers are:

1) Identify scope and goals of proposed incineration testing 2) Develop a testing protocol, supporting: a. Thermogravimetric analysis to define gasification temperature per ASTM E1641. b. Laboratory Scale Thermal Degradation Test: per the 3M protocol [ OPPT 2003 0012 0151] as developed by the University of Dayton 3) Identify intermediate temperatures at which to run the test, so as to satisfy other incineration regimes ( e. g., across a variety of incinerator types; sub optimal operating scenarios).

4) Develop methods that will yield the temperature needed to provide 99.99% destruction of each telomer test substance at a residence time of 2 seconds in the high temperature zone.

5) Identify a list of representative telomers and/ or other telomer treated materials for incineration testing.

6) Report back to the Telomer Workgroup regarding incineration testing details that could be incorporated into an Enforceable Consent Agreement ( ECA) for testing specific telomer chemicals and/ or other telomer treated materials.

Meetings Meetings will be held at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC. The initial meeting will be from 9: 00 to noon on Thursday, August 14, 2003. Attendance may be via conference call or in person. Meeting materials will be distributed one week in advance of the meeting. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Technical Subgroup on Incineration Test Methods for Telomers Tentative Agenda   First Meeting Thursday, August 14, 2003 9: 00 AM to Noon EPA East, Room 4225 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460   Discussion of Goals / Objectives   Comments on Adequacy of Existing Incineration Test Protocol   Key Protocol Elements ° Test Temperatures ° Residence time ° Other S Proposed Methods Modifications S Polymers/ chemicals to be tested & criteria for choosing selected materials S Data Quality Considerations   Next Steps U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Anticipated Attendees for Telomer Incineration Subgroup Meeting John Heinze, Environmental Health Research Foundation ( by phone) Erin Russell, Clariant ( by phone) Hiroyuki Iwai, Daikin Satoshi Komatsu, Daikin Ed Lampert, Daikin Yukiko Nishiyama, Daikin Randy Roussel, Daikin Maggie Martin, Daikin Robert Giraud, DuPont Bob Buck, DuPont Steve Korzeniowski, DuPont W. Michael McCabe ( DuPont) Lisa Walton, W. L. Gore Lisa Campbell, Bergeson & Campbell ( Gore) John Blouin, EPA/ EETD Eric Stewart, EPA/ ORD Greg Fritz, EPA/ EETD Ward Penberthy, EPA/ CCD Ed Heithmar, EPA/ ORD Rich Leukroth, EPA/ CCD Wendy Hoffman, EPA/ EETD Nhan Nguyen, EPA/ EETD ( Observer: Julie Eble, CPS [ TRP]) ( Observer: Katie Smythe, RAND [ TRP]) ( Observer: David Menotti, Shaw Pittman [ Asahi]) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Technical Subgroup on Biodegradation Test Methods for Telomers Introduction The PFOA ECA Plenary session held on July 10, 2003, approved an action plan for the Telomer Workgroup to form a Technical Subgroup on Biodegradation Test Methods. This subgroup will assess the adequacy of available biodegradation test methods to inform telomer degradation and to develop, where needed, new test methods or approaches to address the unique characteristics of telomers and telomer based polymers.

Goals / Objectives The goals of this Technical Subgroup on Biodegradation Test Methods for Telomers are:

1) Develop an approach for testing to determine the rate and extent of biodegradation of representative telomers and telomer based polymers to PFOA and other degradation products.

( 2) Modify existing, or develop new protocol( s) for biodegradation testing of telomers and telomer based polymers in:

( a) aerobic and anaerobic soils, ( b) aerobic and anaerobic aquatic sediment systems, ( c) activated sludge wastewater treatment systems, and ( d) anaerobic sludge digestors ( 3) Report back to the Telomers Workgroup regarding the details of testing standards for incorporation into an Enforceable Consent Agreement ( ECA) for testing representative telomers and telomer based polymers of interest.

Meetings The first meeting of the Subgroup will be held at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC on Thursday, August 14, 2003, from 1: 00 to 4: 00 PM. Attendance may be via conference call or in person. Meeting materials will be distributed one week in advance of the meeting U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Technical Subgroup on Biodegradation Test Methods for Telomers Tentative Agenda  First Meeting Thursday, August 14, 2003 1: 00 PM to 4: 00 PM EPA East, Room 4225 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460   Review of Subgroup Goals / Objectives   Discussion of Utility of Existing Biodegradation Test Protocols for Evaluation of Telomers and Telomer Based Polymers   Consideration of Key Protocol Elements ° Test Conditions/ Procedures ° Test Duration ° Mass Balance ° Analytical Procedures ° Other   Identification of Test Methods Modification Needs   Data Quality Considerations   Test Method Development Schedule   Next Steps U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Anticipated Attendees for Telomer Biodegradation Subgroup Meeting Rich Purdy Treye Thomas, CPSC John Heinze, Environmental Health Research Foundation ( by phone) Volker Koch, Clariant Hiroyuki Iwai, Daikin Satoshi Komatsu, Daikin Ed Lampert, Daikin Yukiko Nishiyama, Daikin Randy Roussel, Daikin Maggie Martin, Daikin Bob Buck, DuPont Bill Berti, DuPont John Gannon, DuPont Steve Korzeniowski, DuPont W. Michael McCabe ( DuPont) Bill Hardie, W. L. Gore Richard Baillie, W. L. Gore Erin Russell, Clariant ( by phone) David Lynch, EPA/ EETD Bob Boethling, EPA/ EETD Andy Mamantov, EPA/ EETD Greg Fritz, EPA/ EETD Laurence Libelo, EPA/ EETD Ward Penberthy, EPA/ CCD Eric Weber, EPA/ ORD Tim Collette. EPA/ ORD Ed Heithmar, EPA/ ORD Rich Leukroth, EPA/ CCD Wendy Hoffman, EPA/ EETD ( Observer: Barbara Smyser, CPS [ TRP]) ( by phone) ( Observer: Katie Smythe, RAND [ TRP]) ( Observer: David Menotti, Shaw Pittman [ Asahi]) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Environmental Monitoring Technical Telomer and Fluoropolymer Subgroups Introduction At the Technical Workgroup meeting on July 9, 2003 and the Plenary session held on July 10, 2003, the group agreed in principle that additional work is needed to define the goals and scope of PFOA and PFOA precursor monitoring efforts. EPA committed to developing a straw schedule for telomer and fluoropolymer monitoring subgroup( s) to meet to discuss environmental sampling and monitoring for PFOA and PFOA precursors.

Goals The goals of the Telomer and Fluoropolymer Monitoring Subgroup( s) are:

1) Develop an understanding of how environmental sampling and monitoring fit into the overall objective of understanding how PFOA and PFOA precursors are released into the environment, their fate and transport once released, and routes of human and environmental exposure.

2) Identify specific questions that can be addressed by environmental sampling and monitoring.

3) Assess how current LOI environmental sampling and monitoring complements ( 2) above, and whether additional sampling/ monitoring may be necessary.

4) Report back to the PFOA ECA Monitoring Technical Workgroup in September 2003.

Meetings Meetings will be held at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC. The first meeting of the subgroup is scheduled from 9: 00 to 4: 00 on August 15, 2003, to discuss telomer monitoring. The second subgroup is scheduled from 9: 00 to 4: 00 on August 21, 2003, to discuss fluoropolymer monitoring. All parties are encouraged to attend in person, if possible, but teleconference facilities will be arranged for those unable to travel. EPA requests that all interested parties submit any presentation or discussion material for general distribution one week prior to the meetings. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Environmental Monitoring Technical Subgroups Tentative Agenda   First Meetings Telomer Monitoring Subgroup Friday, August 15, 2003 9: 00 AM to 4: 00 PM Fluoropolymer Monitoring Subgroup Thursday, August 21, 2003 9: 00 AM to 4: 00 PM EPA East, Room 4225 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 1. Discussion of how environmental sampling and monitoring fit into the overall objective of understanding how PFOA and PFOA precursors are released into the environment, their fate and transport once released, and routes of human and environmental exposure.

2. Identification of specific questions that can be addressed by environmental sampling and monitoring.

3. Assessment of how current LOI activities complement the goals and questions identified by the parties in ( 1) and ( 2).

4. Identification of potential additional environmental sampling and monitoring activities that could achieve the goals and answer the questions identified by the parties in ( 1) and ( 2).

5. Identification of next steps. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft, August 7, 2003 Anticipated Attendees for Telomer Monitoring Subgroup Meeting Friday, August 15, 2003 Bob Griffin, Little Hocking Water Association Rich Purdy Treye Thomas, CPSC John Heinze, Environmental Health Research Foundation Rob Bilott, WV Plaintiffs ( by phone) David Menotti, Asahi Glass Takayuki Nakamura, Daikin Randy Roussel, Daikin Satoshi Komatsu, Daikin Ed Lampert, Daikin Yukiko Nishiyama, Daikin Maggie Martin, Daikin Bob Buck, DuPont John Gannon, DuPont Steve Korzeniowski, DuPont Tim Bingman, DuPont Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Linda Aller, Bennett & Williams Steve Williams, Ohio EPA Libretta Stennes, Steptoe & Johnson ( DuPont) W. Michael McCabe ( DuPont) Bill Hardie, W. L. Gore Richard Baillie, W. L. Gore Erin Russell, Clariant ( by phone) Phil Oshida, EPA/ CCD Laurence Libelo, EPA/ EETD Conrad ( Skip) Flessner, EPA/ EETD Ross Highsmith, EPA/ ORD John Blouin, EPA/ EETD Barbara Leczynski, EPA/ CCD Ward Penberthy, EPA/ CCD Linda Sheldon, EPA/ ORD Tim Collette, EPA/ ORD Ed Heithmar, EPA/ ORD Rich Leukroth, EPA/ CCD Wendy Hoffman, EPA/ EETD ( Observer: Katie Smythe, RAND [ TRP])


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 16355]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-637-001.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2018 Correction to Effective Date
for Sheet 5A.02 to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180405-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-686-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate
Agreement Filing (Apache May 18) to be effective 5/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180405-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-687-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Expired Agmts from
Tariff eff 4-6-2018 to be effective 4/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180406-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-688-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TETLP Apr2018 Negotiated Rates
Cleanup to be effective 5/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180406-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-689-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AGT Apr2018 Negotiated Rates
Cleanup to be effective 5/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180406-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-690-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Amendments--
Core to be effective 4/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180406-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: April 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07882 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17704-17706]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80386; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the SPXPM Pilot Program

April 6, 2017.
    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 March 28, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change 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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its SPXPM pilot
program through May 3, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
Rules
* * * * *
Rule 24.9. Terms of Index Option Contracts
    No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.13 No change.
    .14 The below provisions will remain in effect until a date
specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Circular, which date shall be
no later than July 31, 2017:
    In addition to A.M.-settled Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index
options approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 24.9, the
Exchange may also list options on the S&P 500 Index whose exercise
settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day
prior to expiration (``SPXPM''). The Exchange may also list options on
the Mini-SPX Index (``XSP'') whose exercise settlement value is derived
from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration
(``P.M.-settled''). SPXPM options and P.M.-settled XSP options will be
listed for trading for a pilot period ending May 3, 201[7]8.
    On the date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Circular,
which date shall be no later than July 31, 2017, the following
provisions shall be in effect:
    In addition to A.M.-settled Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index
options approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 24.9, the
Exchange may also list options on the S&P 500 Index whose exercise
settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day
prior to expiration (P.M.-settled third Friday-of-the-month SPX options
series). The Exchange may also list options on the Mini-SPX Index
(``XSP'') whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing
prices on the last trading day prior to expiration (``P.M.-settled'').
P.M.-settled third Friday-of-the-month SPX options series and P.M.-
settled XSP options will be listed for trading for a pilot period
ending May 3, 201[7]8.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On February 8, 2013, the Exchange received approval of a rule
change that established a Pilot Program that allows the Exchange to
list options on the S&P 500 Index whose exercise settlement value is
derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration
(``SPXPM'').\5\ On July 31, 2013, the Exchange received approval of a
rule change that amended the Pilot Program to allow the Exchange to
list options on the Mini-SPX Index (``XSP'') whose exercise settlement
value is derived

from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration
(``P.M.-settled'') \6\ (together, SPXPM and P.M.-settled XSP to be
referred to herein as the ``Pilot Products'').\7\ In January 2014, the
Exchange filed a proposed rule change that extended the end date of the
pilot period from February 8, 2014 to November 3, 2014.\8\
Additionally, in October 2014, the Exchange filed a proposed rule
change that extended the end date of the pilot period from November 3,
2014 to May 3, 2016.\9\ The Exchange then filed a proposed rule change
that extended the end date of the pilot period from May 3, 2016 to May
3, 2017.\10\ The Exchange hereby proposes to further extend the end
date of the pilot period to May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68888 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-120) (the
``SPXPM Approval Order''). Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80060 (February 17, 2017), 82 FR 11673 (February 24,
2017) (SR-CBOE-2016-091), the Exchange will move third-Friday P.M.-
settled options into the Hybrid 3.0 S&P 500 Index options class and
as a result, the trading symbol for P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index
options that have standard third Friday-of-the-month expirations
will change from ``SPXPM'' to ``SPXW.'' This change will go into
effect on a date no later than July 31, 2017 and will be announced
in a Regulatory Circular by the Exchange.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70087 (July 31,
2013), 78 FR 47809 (August 6, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-055) (the ``P.M.-
settled XSP Approval Order'').
    \7\ For more information on the Pilot Products or the Pilot
Program, see the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP
Approval Order.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71424 (January 28,
2014), 79 FR 6249 (February 3, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-004).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73338 (October 10,
2014), 79 FR 62502 (October 17, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-076).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77573 (April 8,
2016), 81 FR 22148 (April 14, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of the Pilot Program and in support of the
extensions of the Pilot Program, the Exchange submits to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') reports regarding the
Pilot Program that detail the Exchange's experience with the Pilot
Program, pursuant to the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP
Approval Order. To date, the Exchange has submitted three annual Pilot
Program reports to the Commission, as well as various periodic interim
reports, as required by the Commission while the Pilot Program is in
effect. The annual reports contain an analysis of volume, open
interest, and trading patterns. The analysis examines trading in Pilot
Products as well as trading in the securities that comprise the
underlying index. Additionally, for series that exceed certain minimum
open interest parameters, the annual reports provide analysis of index
price volatility and share trading activity. The periodic interim
reports contain some, but not all, of the information contained in the
annual reports. In providing the annual and periodic interim reports
(the ``pilot reports'') to the Commission, the Exchange has requested
confidential treatment of the pilot reports under the Freedom of
Information Act (``FOIA'').\11\ The confidentiality of the pilot
reports is subject to the provisions of FOIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pilot reports both contain the following volume and open
interest data:
    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
    (2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
    (3) monthly volume for each individual series;
    (4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
    (5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration
date; and
    (6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
    The annual reports also contain the information noted in Items (1)
through (6) above for Expiration Friday, A.M.-settled, S&P 500 index
options traded on CBOE, as well as the following analysis of trading
patterns in the Pilot Products options series in the Pilot Program:
    (1) A time series analysis of open interest; and
    (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes.
    Finally, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the
annual reports contain the following analysis related to index price
changes and underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration
Fridays:
    (1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on
a given Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control
sample. The data includes a calculation of percentage price changes for
various time intervals and compare that information to the respective
control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage
price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as
measured by the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), is provided; and
    (2) a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component
securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be
attributable to expiring in-the-money series. The data includes a
comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample
set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a
sample period.
    The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time
intervals, method for randomly selecting the component securities, and
sample periods are determined by the Exchange and the Commission. In
proposing to extend the Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to
abide by the reporting requirements described herein, as well as in the
SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP Approval Order.\12\
Additionally, all such pilot reports provided by the Exchange will
continue to include a request for confidential treatment under
FOIA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75914
(September 14, 2015), 80 FR 56522 (September 18, 2015) (SR-CBOE-
2015-079), the Exchange added SPXPM and P.M.-settled XSP options to
the list of products approved for trading during Extended Trading
Hours (``ETH''). The Exchange will also include the applicable
information regarding SPXPM and P.M.-settled XSP options that trade
during ETH in its annual and interim reports.
    \13\ See supra note 6 [sic] and surrounding discussion. If the
Exchange seeks permanent approval of the pilot program, the Exchange
recognizes that certain information in the pilot reports may need to
be made available on a public basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the extension of the Pilot Program in order
to continue to give the Commission more time to consider the impact of
the Pilot Program. To this point, CBOE believes that the Pilot Program
has been well-received by its Trading Permit Holders and the investing
public, and the Exchange would like to continue to provide investors
with the ability to trade SPXPM and P.M.-settled XSP options. All terms
regarding the trading of the Pilot Products shall continue to operate
as described in the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP
Approval Order. The Exchange merely proposes herein to extend the term
of the Pilot Program to May 3, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') [sic] and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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)\16\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of
the Pilot Program will continue to provide greater opportunities for
investors. Further, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced
any adverse effects or meaningful regulatory concerns from the
operation of the Pilot Program. As such, the Exchange believes that the
extension of the Pilot Program does not raise any unique or prohibitive
regulatory concerns. Also, the Exchange believes that such trading has
not, and will not, adversely impact fair and orderly markets on
Expiration Fridays for the underlying stocks comprising the S&P 500
index. The extension of the Pilot Program will continue to provide
investors with the opportunity to trade the desirable products of SPXPM
and P.M.-settled XSP, while also providing the Commission further
opportunity to observe such trading of the Pilot Products.

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

    CBOE 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
the continuation of the Pilot Program will impose any unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on intramarket competition because it will
continue to apply equally to all CBOE market participants, and the
Pilot Products will be available to all CBOE market participants. The
Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in
the Pilot Program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that,
for the period that the Pilot Program has been in operation, it has
provided investors with desirable products with which to trade.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any
adverse market effects or regulatory concerns with respect to the Pilot
Program. The Exchange further does not believe that the proposed
extension of the Pilot Program will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it only applies to trading on CBOE. To the
extent that the continued trading of the Pilot Products may make CBOE a
more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants may elect to become CBOE market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
    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 \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-025 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-2017-025.This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-025 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07306 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P