[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29342-29344]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026]

Curtis-Straus LLC: Application for Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Curtis-
Straus LLC for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding
to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before June 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2009-0026). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before June 5, 2015 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support
and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that

Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL) is applying for expansion of its current
recognition as an NRTL. CSL requests the addition of nine test
standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL,
including CSL, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    CSL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at:
Curtis-Straus LLC, One Distribution Center Circle, Suite #1, Littleton,
Massachusetts 01460. A complete list of CSL's scope of recognition is
available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/csl.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    CSL submitted two applications, one dated August 9, 2014, and one
dated February 25, 2015 (CSL Exhibit 1--Expansion Application for Eight
Standards and CSL Exhibit 2--Expansion Application for One Standard),
to expand its recognition to include nine additional test standards.
These two applications were combined. OSHA staff performed a
comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA
performed an on-site review in relation to these applications on
January 27, 2015 to January 28, 2015.
    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in CSL's
applications for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in CSL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1012...........................  Power Supplies.
UL 1310...........................  Direct Plug-In Transformer Units.
UL 60065..........................  Audio, Video and Similar Electronic
                                     Apparatus.
UL 60950-21.......................  Information Technology Equipment--
                                     Safety--Part 21: Remote Power
                                     Feeding.
UL 60950-22.......................  Information Technology Equipment--
                                     Safety--Part 22: Equipment to be
                                     Installed Outdoors.
UL 60950-23.......................  Information Technology Equipment--
                                     Safety--Part 23: Large Data Storage
                                     Equipment.
UL 62368-1........................  Audio/video, information and
                                     communication technology equipment--
                                     Part 1: Safety requirements.
UL 61010-2-030....................  Safety requirements for electrical
                                     equipment for measurement, control,
                                     and laboratory use--Part 2-030:
                                     Particular requirements for testing
                                     and measuring circuits.
UL 61010B-2-031...................  Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control, and
                                     Laboratory Use; Part 2: Particular
                                     Requirements for Hand-Held Probe
                                     Assemblies for Electrical
                                     Measurement and Test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    CSL submitted acceptable applications for expansion of its scope of
recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and on-site review,
indicates that CSL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR
1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of the
test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This
preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of CSL's applications.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health whether to grant CSL's application for expansion of
its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 15, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-12287 Filed 5-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66837-66838]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0287]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its plan
to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval
and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR
titled, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration.'' This
ICR is necessary for ELD vendors to register their ELDs with the
Agency.

DATES: Please send your comments by January 28, 2019. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0287. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0062.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Respondents: ELD vendors.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 224.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Expiration Date: December 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 336 hours [224 respondents x 2
devices per respondent x 3 updates per device x 15 minutes per
response].

Background

    On December 16, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule titled
``Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents,'' (80 FR 78292) that established minimum performance and
design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) ELDs; requirements for the
mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare
HOS records of duty status (RODS); requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and measures to address concerns about harassment
resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.
    To ensure consistency among ELD vendors and devices, detailed
functional specifications were published as part of the December 2015
final rule. Each ELD vendor developing an ELD technology must register
online at a secure FMCSA website where the ELD provider can securely
certify that its ELD is compliant with the functional specifications.
Each ELD vendor must certify that each ELD model and version has been
sufficiently tested to meet the functional requirements in the rule
under the conditions in which the ELD would be used.
    ELD vendors must self-certify and register their devices with FMCSA
online via Form MCSA-5893, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration and Certification.'' FMCSA expects 100% of respondents to
submit their information electronically. Once completed, FMCSA issues a
unique identification number that the ELD vendor will embed in their
device(s). FMCSA maintains a list on its website of the current ELD
vendors and devices that have been certified (by the vendors) to meet
the functional specifications. The information is necessary for fleets
and drivers to easily find a compliant ELD for their use in complying
with the FMCSA regulation requiring the use of ELDs.
    On September 17, 2018, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal
Register with a 60-day public comment period to announce this request
to renew the information collection (83 FR 46997). The Agency received
two comments in response to the notice.
    One commenter noted general support for the ELD registration
requirements. The second commenter, Garmin International, Inc.,
requested that FMCSA: (1) Include the data transfer methods supported
by each ELD in the Agency's online list of current ELD vendors and
devices that have been certified (by the vendors) to meet the
functional specifications; and (2) refer inspectors to the Agency's
online list for information regarding data transfer methods supported
by ELDs and the latest compliant software versions. While neither of
these impact the information collection, FMCSA notes that: (1) The
Agency is in the process of updating the list of certified ELDs on its
website to include supported data transfer methods; and (2) the Agency
provides extensive training and outreach to its enforcement partners
regarding the online list of current ELD vendors and devices that have
been certified to meet the functional specifications, including the
compliant software version of each device.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: December
20, 2018.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-28172 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55796-55798]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No.34-98106; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee

August 10, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 1, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') from $0.0017 per contract to $0.0030 per contract, effective
August 1, 2023.
    The ORF is assessed by Cboe Options to each Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared
by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range,
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.\3\ In other
words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions
cleared by a TPH, even if the transactions do not take place on the
Exchange. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from
the Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') or non-CTPH that
ultimately clears the transaction. With respect to linkage
transactions, Cboe Options reimburses its routing broker providing
Routing Services pursuant to Cboe Options Rule 5.36 for options
regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it
provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes ORF also applies to customer-range
transactions executed during Global Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory
expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of
the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and
third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory
work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The
indirect expenses include support from such areas as human resources,
legal, compliance, information technology, facilities and accounting.
These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 30% of Cboe
Options' total regulatory costs for 2023. Thus, direct expenses are
estimated to be approximately 70% of total regulatory costs for 2023.
In addition, it is Cboe Options' practice that revenue generated from
ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. These
expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. There can be no
assurance that our final costs for 2023 will not differ materially from
these expectations and prior practice; however, the Exchange believes
that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
    The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory
revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by
submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange also
notifies TPHs of adjustments to the ORF via an Exchange Notice,
including for the

change being proposed herein.\4\ Based on the Exchange's most recent
semi-annual review, the Exchange is proposing to increase the amount of
ORF that will be collected by the Exchange from $0.0017 per contract
side to $0.0030 per contract side. The proposed increase is based on
the Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory costs, which
have increased, coupled with a projected decrease in the Exchange's
other non-ORF regulatory fees.\5\ Particularly, based on the Exchange's
estimated projections for its regulatory costs, the revenue being
generated by ORF using the current rate, would result in projected
revenue that is insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs (i.e., less than 75% of total annual regulatory
costs). Further, when combined with the Exchange's projected other non-
ORF regulatory fees and fines, the revenue being generated by ORF using
the current rate results is projected to result in combined revenue
that is less than 100% of the Exchange's estimated regulatory costs for
the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Notice, C2023071301 ``Cboe Options Exchanges
Regulatory Fee Update Effective August 1, 2023.''
    \5\ The Exchange notes that in connection with proposed ORF rate
changes, it provides the Commission confidential details regarding
the Exchange's projected regulatory revenue, including projected
revenue from ORF, along with a breakout of its projected regulatory
expenses, including both direct and indirect allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its TPHs and other persons using its facilities.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would help offset,
but not exceed, the Exchange's total regulatory costs. As discussed,
the Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that would be
less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is
consistent with the practice across the options industry and the view
of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes
and not to support the Exchange's business side. The Exchange
determined to increase ORF after its semi-annual review of its
regulatory costs and regulatory revenues, which includes revenues from
ORF and other regulatory fees and fines. The Exchange notes that
although recent options volumes have increased, it has not increased
its ORF rate in four years. In fact, since 2019, the Exchange has
reduced its ORF rates twice.\9\ Accordingly, when taking into account
recent options volume, coupled with the anticipated regulatory fees and
anticipated reductions in other regulatory fees, the Exchange believes
it's reasonable to increase the ORF. Particularly, the proposed change
is reasonable as it would offset the anticipated increased regulatory
costs, while still not exceeding 75% of the Exchange's total regulatory
costs. Moreover, the proposed amount is still lower than the amount of
ORF assessed on other exchanges \10\ and significantly lower than the
Exchange has assessed previously.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89469 (August 4,
2020), 85 FR 48306 (August 10, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-069) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92597 (August 6, 2021), 86 FR
44454 (August 12, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-044).
    \10\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') and NYSE American Options Fees Schedule,
Section VII(A), which provide that ORF is assessed at a rate of
$0.0055 per contract for each respective exchange. See also Nasdaq
PHLX, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 6(D), which provides for
an ORF rate of $0.0034 per contract.
    \11\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71007
(December 6, 2013), 78 FR 75653 (December 12, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
117) (filing to increase ORF to $0.0095 per contract). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76993 (January 28, 2016), 81 FR
5800 (February 3, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-004) (filing to increase ORF
to $0.0081 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at
least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF,
even as amended, to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues would
exceed its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will reduce
the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consistent with Rule 2.2 (Regulatory Revenue), the Exchange
notes that should excess ORF revenue be collected prior to any
reduction in an ORF rate, such excess revenue will not be used for
nonregulatory purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all TPHs on all
their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC. The
Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to
those TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the
amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer
trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater
expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-
customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main
office and branch office examinations (e.g., staff and travel
expenses), as well as investigations into customer complaints and the
terminations of Registered persons. As a result, the costs associated
with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., TPH proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.\13\ Moreover, the Exchange
notes that it has broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to its
TPHs' activities, irrespective of where their transactions take place.
Many of the Exchange's surveillance programs for customer trading
activity may require the Exchange to look at activity across all
markets, such as reviews related to position limit violations and
manipulation. Indeed, the Exchange cannot effectively review for such
conduct without looking at and evaluating activity regardless of where
it transpires. In addition to its own surveillance programs, the
Exchange also works with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket
surveillance related issues. Through its participation in the
Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') \14\ the Exchange shares

information and coordinates inquiries and investigations with other
exchanges designed to address potential intermarket manipulation and
trading abuses. Accordingly, there is a strong nexus between the ORF
and the Exchange's regulatory activities with respect to its TPHs'
customer trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on TPH
proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems it advisable.
    \14\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange
notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because
it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the
amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory
costs.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 (https://www.sec19b-4/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec19b-4. Please include
file number SR-CBOE-2023-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-038. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec19b-4/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2023-038 and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17530 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62449-62452]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25149]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0343; FRL-9739-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama;
Disapproval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Infrastructure Requirement for the 1997
and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to disapprove a portion of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of
Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM), on July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, which were intended
to meet the requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). The CAA
requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. Alabama certified
that the Alabama SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are implemented, enforced and
maintained in the State. Specifically, EPA is disapproving the State's
submissions that requires the

State to comply with the CAA. EPA is taking a separate action to
address the other applicable infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective November 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0343. All documents in the docket
are listed on the  www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to make a SIP submission to address basic
SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA promulgated a new annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On July 20, 2012, EPA proposed to
disapprove Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009,
infrastructure submissions related to the requirements respecting state
boards for the for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 77 FR 42682. A summary of the background for today's final
action is provided below. See EPA's July 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking
at 77 FR 42682 for more detail.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous PM NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. Among the elements that states
must address is section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which in turn refers to the
specific requirements of section 128. Section 128 explicitly provides
that state SIPs ``shall contain requirements'' as described in sections
128(a)(1) and (2). In addition, states may adopt any additional
requirements that are ``more stringent'' than those explicitly required
in section 128. EPA issued guidance to states making recommendations
concerning compliance with section 128.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest
Requirements of section 128'' from David O. Bickert, Deputy General
Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, dated March 2, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is only addressing sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In taking final action on the proposed disapproval,
EPA is responding to an adverse comment received on EPA's July 20,
2012, proposed disapproval of Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September
23, 2009, infrastructure submissions for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
EPA is taking a separate action to address the other applicable
infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g., 77 FR 34288.

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The following is EPA's response to the adverse comment received on
EPA's July 20, 2012, proposed disapproval of Alabama's July 25, 2008,
and September 23, 2009, infrastructure submissions as they relate to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA.
    Comment: On August 20, 2012, ADEM commented on EPA's proposed
action and requested that EPA withdraw its proposed disapproval of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). ADEM suggested in their comment that EPA
approve a conflict of interest protocol submitted for inclusion in the
SIP in connection with the State's 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure
submission. ADEM submitted this conflict of interest protocol as an
attachment to its adverse comment on the proposal action. ADEM asserted
that with the inclusion of this protocol in the SIP, EPA would be able
to approve Alabama's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
infrastructure SIP for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Response: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each
implementation plan provide that states comply with the requirements
respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. Section 128
requires that: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body
which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public
interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and
(2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the
head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.
    In its July 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking (77 FR 42682), EPA
preliminarily determined that the State's implementation plan did not
contain provisions to comply with section 128 of the Act, and thus,
Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions do not
meet the requirements of the Act with respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).\2\ Alabama's

comment on that proposal, which contends that EPA should not finalize
the proposed disapproval based upon a conflict of interest disclosure
protocol included with the comment for incorporation into the SIP, does
not address the underlying basis for the proposed disapproval of
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The basis for EPA's disapproval, as discussed
in the proposed rule for today's action, is that the SIP presently
fails to include any requirements to address the applicable
requirements of section 128 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prior to EPA's proposed disapproval for this sub-element,
ADEM and EPA engaged in a numerous communications regarding this
infrastructure SIP deficiency (see, e.g., EPA's comment to ADEM's
proposed SIP submittal addressing infrastructure requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS which was attached to ADEM's adverse comment
and is available in the docket for today's action.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA considered the State's comment and has determined the comments
do not adequately address the requirements for the following procedural
and substantive reasons. With respect to procedural issues, an adverse
comment letter on a proposed action does not meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements for a SIP submission. Section 110(a)(1),
section 110(a)(2), and section 110(l), all provide that a state's
implementation plan submission must undergo reasonable notice and
opportunity for comment. In addition, EPA regulations at Part 51,
Appendix V, set forth additional criteria for a SIP submission. EPA has
determined that the conflict of interest disclosure protocol attached
to the State's adverse comment letter does not constitute such a SIP
submission for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the
fact that the State has not provided information that the submission
has undergone the requisite public notice or a demonstration that the
protocol has been adopted and is in final form as submitted. In
addition, the protocol was not signed, stamped and dated by an
appropriate official to indicate that it is fully enforceable by the
State.
    Substantively, were it an official submission, it would not be
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 128 necessary for EPA
to approve Alabama's infrastructure submissions as they relate to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). As noted in the proposed rule for today's
action, section 128 requires that: (1) The majority of members of the
state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion
of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement
orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by
such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar
powers be adequately disclosed.
    Alabama provides no explanation as to how its conflict of interest
disclosure protocol would satisfy the public interest and significant
portion of income requirements applicable to the majority of a state
board or body subject to section 128(a)(1). Alabama's response to EPA's
comments on the State's draft 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure
submission (included with Alabama's comment on today's rulemaking)
notes that certain ADEM officials are charged with responsibilities for
issuing permits or enforcement orders. EPA has interpreted the ``board
or body'' requirements of section 128(a)(1) as not applying to
individuals tasked with authority to approve permits or enforcement
orders. However, where appeals of such permits or enforcement orders
are resolved by boards or bodies, those entities are subject to the
majority requirements of section 128(a)(1). Alabama's comment does not
describe how appeals of permits or enforcement order are handled in the
State. In order for EPA to determine that the requirements of section
128(a)(1) are not applicable in Alabama, the State must provide this
information. If a board or body does review appeals of permit or
enforcement orders, the SIP must require that such board or board be
subject to the 128(a)(1) majority requirements in order for EPA to
approve Alabama's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure submittals.
Based upon the information protocol described by Alabama, the State's
approach fails to address the majority requirements of section 128.
    In addition to the issues noted above regarding the section
128(a)(1) requirements, the question of whether a board or body handles
appeals of permits or enforcement orders is also relevant to
sufficiency of the State's protocol with respect to the section
128(a)(2) requirements. To the extent a board or body decides appeals
of permits or enforcement orders, the SIP must require that members of
such board or body be subject to the section 128(a)(2) conflict of
interest disclosure requirements. The State's conflict of interest
disclosure protocol, as submitted, would appear to only apply to three
specified officials within ADEM. Alabama has failed to demonstrate how
the submitted protocol would provide adequate disclosure consistent
with the requirements section 128(a)(2).
    EPA also notes that Alabama's conflict of interest disclosure
protocol, at footnote 3, asserts that ``EPA defines `significant
portion of income' as 50% or more of gross personal income for a
calendar year if the recipient is over 60 years of age and is receiving
that portion under retirement, pension, or similar arrangement. This
information need only be provided if the recipient falls in this
category.'' This statement is incomplete. The complete suggested
definition for ``Significant Portion of Income'' recommended in EPA's
1978 Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements
of Section 128 is ``10 percent or more of gross personal income for a
calendar year, including retirement benefits, consultation fees, and
stock dividends, except that it shall mean 50 percent [or more] of
gross personal income for a calendar year if the recipient is over 60
years of age and is receiving such portion pursuant to retirement,
pension, or similar arrangement.'' Alabama's protocol omits the
generally applicable 10 percent standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA notes that this suggested definition is provided in a
guidance document as an example to states of how to define
significant portions of income, therefore, states may propose a
different standard as constituting a ``significant portion of
income.'' However, as noted in the guidance, EPA views the substance
of the suggested definitions as representing the minimum level of
stringency necessary to meet the requirements of section 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is finalizing disapproval of Alabama's infrastructure
submissions as they relate to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because, as
described above, the SIP presently does not contain provisions to
address the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. Consistent with the
obligations under the CAA, EPA intends to continue working with the
State to resolve this SIP deficiency.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of Alabama's
July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions which was intended
to meet the requirement to address element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made the
determination that Alabama's SIP does not satisfy the requirement for
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In today's action, EPA is not taking any action
on the remaining elements of the submission, including other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C. 7501-7515) or
is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as
described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock.
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being disapproved
in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D,
and

therefore, no sanctions will be triggered. This final action triggers
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the
Administrator promulgates such FIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.62 is amended by adding paragraph (e), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.62  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (e) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving portions of Alabama's
Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS addressing section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that
requires the State to comply with section 128 of the CAA.

[FR Doc. 2012-25149 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 211 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60840-60842]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-1112]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate and Other
Records Related to Participation in the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
provisions of the Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate as well as
the collection of other records related to participation in the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before January 3, 2022. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of January 3, 2022. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to

the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be
posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social
Security number, or confidential business information, such as a
manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-1112 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealer's
Certificate and Other Records Related to Participation in the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate and Other Records Related to
Participation in the National Shellfish Sanitary Program

OMB Control Number 0910-0021--Extension

    Under section 243 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243),
FDA is required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities
in the enforcement of their health regulations and are authorized to
assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable
diseases. Under this authority, FDA participates with State regulatory
agencies, some foreign nations, and the U.S. molluscan shellfish
industry in the NSSP.
    The NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety
of molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol
of shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of
shellfish dealers. Each participating State and foreign nation monitors
its molluscan shellfish production and issues certificates for those
dealers that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's
criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of
its certified shellfish dealers to FDA on Form FDA 3038, ``Interstate
Shellfish Dealer's Certificate'' (available at https://www.fda.gov/media/72094/download). FDA uses this information to publish the
``Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL),'' a monthly
comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish dealers certified
under the cooperative program (available at https://www.fda.gov/food/federalstate-food-programs/interstate-certified-shellfish-shippers-list). If FDA did not collect the information necessary to compile this
list, participating States would not be able to identify and prevent
the distribution in the United States of shellfish processed by
uncertified dealers. Consequently, the NSSP would not be able to
control

the distribution of uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in
interstate commerce. Without the ICSSL, the effectiveness of the NSSP
would be nullified. The ICSSL is also used to identify U.S. shellfish
dealers eligible to obtain health certificates and export to certain
countries or regions.
    FDA has been collecting information to construct the ICSSL since
2001. FDA is seeking to add one new data field to the Form FDA 3038,
the ``FDA Establishment Identifier'' (FEI number). The FEI number is a
unique number assigned by FDA to identify FDA-regulated facilities. FDA
will explore whether the FEI can be used to retrieve data on shellfish
dealers from existing FDA systems, which could reduce the number of
required data elements that firms have to submit on Form FDA 3038.
    The information collection also includes providing certain
documents demonstrating compliance with the NSSP. When a competent
authority in another country conducts an evaluation to determine
whether the U.S. food safety control measures for molluscan shellfish
are equivalent to their system of controls, the competent authority may
require FDA to provide information and records demonstrating compliance
with the provisions of the NSSP. Only those firms that comply with the
NSSP would be permitted to export molluscan shellfish to a country
whose competent authority determined that the U.S. system of controls
is equivalent to their own controls. If approved, FDA will use this
information to support the export of U.S. shellfish to countries whose
competent authorities have determined the U.S. system of food safety
controls to be equivalent to their own system of controls by
demonstrating that the exporter is in compliance with the U.S. system
of controls specified in the NSSP.
    For example, to implement the European Commission's (EC)
determination that the U.S. system of food safety controls for raw
bivalve molluscan shellfish is equivalent to the European Union's (EU)
system of controls, the EC is requiring FDA to provide documentation
collected from NSSP-participating shellfish control authorities with
firms seeking to export raw molluscan shellfish to the EU. This
documentation includes, but is not limited to:
     A list of growing areas with an Approved classification;
     the most recent sanitary survey for each growing area with
an Approved classification; and
     the most recent inspection report for each firm seeking to
export shellfish to the EU.
    The examples above are illustrative. Some competent authorities may
require additional information to conduct an equivalence assessment or
to implement an equivalence determination, or both. We plan to provide
respondents with information about the specific documentation that is
required for each equivalence assessment. For those competent
authorities that recognize the U.S. system as equivalent, additional
documentation may be needed to implement that determination.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection are
participating State and local regulatory agencies and foreign nations.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Number of
                                                 Form FDA    Number of    responses      Total
                   Activity                        No.      respondents      per         annual          Average  burden per  response       Total hours
                                                                          respondent   responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Interstate Shellfish Dealer's           3038           40           57        2,280  0.10 (6 minutes)........................          228
 Certificate.
Submission of Other Records Related to                 N/A           13            1           13  0.25 (15 minutes).......................         3.25
 Participation in the NSSP.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ........................................       231.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate. This estimate is based on our experience with this
information collection and the number of certificates received in the
past 3 years, which has remained constant.

    Dated: October 28, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-24063 Filed 11-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P