ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OAR 2003 0214, FRL ]

Petition to Amend Fuel Economy Testing and Calculation Procedures; Request for Comments.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has received a petition from Bluewater Network requesting rulemaking to " revise the test procedures,

calculation methods and/ or correction factors employed in the calculations used to determine the fuel economy information relayed to consumers and policy makers so that they more accurately reflect the actual, real world fuel economy that vehicles are achieving on the road". Bluewater Network contends that EPA's fuel economy estimates do not accurately reflect results achieved in actual on road operation; more accurate estimates would benefit both consumers and those involved in setting national energy policy. Before acting on the petition, EPA would like to solicit information and comments from other interested parties.

DATES: In order to receive full consideration, comments should be submitted by [ Insert date 120 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. 2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, 2000 Traverwood DR, Ann Arbor MI 48105. ( 734) 214 4288;

pugliese. holly@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies Of Related Information ?

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0214. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566

1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1744.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,

EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the appropriate docket identification number. 3 Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. 4 Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical,

physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked " late." EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 5 difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,

and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system,

select " search," and then key in Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0214 The system is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to aand r docket@ epamail. epa. gov , Attention Docket ID No. OAR

2003 0214 In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket,

EPA's e mail system is not an " anonymous access" system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail 6 addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460],

Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0214 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center,

( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC., Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0214 Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified above.

C. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI.

If you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 7 within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.

Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 8 6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. History of EPA's Fuel Economy Program The Federal Government began regulating vehicle exhaust emissions in the late 1960' s. At that time, fuel economy was not considered an area of concern. However, the fuel shortage crisis in 1973 placed an urgent focus on fuel efficiency, and created a new demand for accurate and comparable fuel economy information.

In evaluating how to accomplish this, it was determined that the data collected during EPA's vehicle emission test could be used to calculate a " city" fuel economy estimate.

The same methods for calculating vehicle emission, involving determining the volume and composition of various components in the exhaust, could be used to calculate the quantity of fuel consumed. At the time of the 1973 fuel shortage crisis,

the emission test data from 1974 models had already been collected by EPA. Thus, it was relatively simple to use that data to calculate the fuel economy for those vehicles and compile that information into the first " Fuel Economy 9 Guide". Because the data was collected under tightly controlled laboratory conditions, it allowed for comparisons amongst the different vehicle models. Moreover, it was an efficient method for vehicle manufacturers, since a single test could serve two purposes  emission and fuel economy measurements.

The downside of using the data collected for regulation of exhaust emissions was that it encompassed only one type of driving: urban stop and go at lower average speeds.

Higher speed highway driving was not simulated for the emissions test. EPA responded to this concern by establishing a separate " highway" driving test that simulated sustained moderate speed operation typical of an urban highway.

In 1975 Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ( EPCA), P. L. 94 163. EPCA established fuel economy labeling information requirements and Corporate Average Fuel Economy ( CAFÉ) standards, and was based on EPA's voluntary program. It also codified the use of the " highway" driving cycle. For vehicle labeling, it required that EPA's fuel economy test results be posted on a label affixed to all new cars and light trucks, and that the label values for those vehicles be published in an annual consumer booklet, which is known as the Fuel Economy Guide. ( Fuel Economy Guides for the present and past model years are available at www. fueleconomy. gov; the fuel economy estimates 10 are also included in EPA's Green Vehicle Guide,

www. epa. gov/ greenvehicles.)

Shortly after the fuel economy labeling program was established, EPA began receiving consumer complaints that they were not achieving their " city" and " highway" fuel economy label values during actual on road operation. EPA determined that the label values allowed relative comparisons from one vehicle to another but were less effective at estimating the actual mileage of in use vehicles. This was due to the differences between the strictly controlled laboratory conditions and the real world conditions that could impact individual experiences with fuel economy ( e. g. extreme climate conditions, driving habits, lack of proper maintenance, higher driving speeds,

severe traffic congestion, etc). Many of these factors tend to lower fuel economy compared to the laboratory test conditions used by EPA when measuring vehicle fuel economy.

In response to this concern, EPA evaluated the data available at the time on in use fuel economy and established adjustment factors which reduced the " city" estimate by 10 percent and the " highway" estimate by 22 percent. ( 49 FR13832, April 6, 1984). The number of consumer complaints declined significantly after the adjustment factors became effective. These adjusted results are currently used for the fuel economy values posted on vehicle labels and in the Fuel Economy Guide. 11 III. Bluewater Network's Petition The petition submitted to EPA from Bluewater Network,

San Francisco CA, concerns the accuracy of fuel economy label values. Bluewater Network believes that despite the adjustments made to the city and highway fuel economy values, EPA's fuel economy label values still overstate what consumers actually achieve. Bluewater Network contends that the primary causes for this discrepancy are increased highway speeds, a higher proportion of urban driving and greater city traffic congestion which have occurred since EPA's procedures and adjustment factors were established.

They have requested that EPA issue a rulemaking to revise its test procedures to more accurately reflect what the average consumer will achieve.

The Bluewater Network petition was addressed to both EPA and the Department of Transportation ( DOT). Both EPA and the DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) have specific statutorily defined roles regarding vehicle fuel economy. ( See Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 49 USC 32901 et seq.) By this Notice, EPA is soliciting comment on the petition, specifically on the accuracy of fuel economy label values.

Bluewater Network's complete petition is available from their web site, the docket or from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. 12 Request for Comments EPA is soliciting comments on Bluewater Network's petition regarding fuel economy information in order to assist EPA in determining whether to grant or deny the petition. Comments from all interested parties are requested concerning EPA regulations implementing the fuel economy program as discussed in the petition and other related fuel economy information issues.

EPA is specifically requesting comments on whether current national driving patterns have changed in a manner that directionally impacts fuel economy. We also request the submission of any recent data that compares in use fuel economy with the EPA city and highway label values,

including data from vehicles operated on gasoline, diesel,

and alternative fuels ( such as CNG and LPG), and hybrid electric vehicles. Diesel and alternative fuel passenger cars and light trucks were not common in the early 1980' s and therefore were not represented in the data used to determine the existing adjustment factors. Similarly,

hybrid vehicles did not exist at that time. Also requested is information and/ or data about how any specific conditions that may have an impact on fuel economy, such as air conditioning usage, road conditions, driving patters,

driving habits, etc may have changed over time. Finally, we request information on why any changes in those conditions could have an impact on fuel economy. Please send all 13 comments to the address indicated above under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above.

Dated:

Jeffrey R. Holmstead,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 April 20, 2004 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL 7000 1670 0013 9148 0258 Thomas J. Parshley Sr. Regulatory Product Manager Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. PO Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419 8300 Re: Ametryn Use Closure Memorandum Dear Mr. Parshley:

Enclosed please find the Use Closure Memorandum for Ametryn, completed in February 2004. This memo serves primarily to clarify use information that will be used in the preliminary risk assessments of Ametryn. It includes information on all registered products, agricultural uses, overall use patterns, and the status of the existing database. The memo was reviewed by US EPA RED team members, the US Department of Agriculture, and Syngenta, and comments were included as appropriate.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at the address below or call me at 703 308 8172.

Mr. Mark T Howard, Chemical Review Manager Special Review & Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7508C) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 0001 Sincerely,

Mark Howard Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division cc: Richard L. Conn 7000 1670 0013 9148 0319 Enclosure


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69685-69688]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28176]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68232; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Non-Penny Pilot and Penny Pilot Options

November 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on November 1, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled
``Options Pricing,'' at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members
using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for
executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
Specifically, NOM proposes to amend the Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees
for Removing Liquidity and the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity as well
as the Penny Pilot Options Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments related to fee increases
will be operative on November 2, 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The amendments related to the Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options would be operative on November 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. The Exchange is proposing to increase certain
Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Removing Liquidity in order to offer
increased Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options Customer Rebates to
Add Liquidity to attract additional order flow to the Exchange to the
benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options. Today Customers and NOM Market Makers are
assessed a $0.79 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny
Pilot Options and Professionals, Firms and Non-NOM Market Makers are
assessed an $0.85 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny
Pilot Options. The Exchange proposes to increase the Customer and NOM
Market Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options
from $0.79 to $0.82 per contract and also increase the Professional,
Firm and Non-NOM Market Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny
Pilot Options from $0.85 per to $0.89 per contract. The Exchange
proposes that these amendments will become operative on November 2,
2012.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Today, the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, including NDX, is $0.75 per
contract, unless a market participant adds Customer Liquidity in either
or both Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options (including NDX) of
115,000 contracts per day in a month, then the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options is $0.77 per contract.\4\ The
Exchange proposes to increase the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options, including NDX, from $0.75 to $0.80 per
contract and also to increase the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options when a market participant adds Customer
Liquidity in either or both Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options
(including NDX) of 115,000 contracts per day in a month from $0.77 to
$0.81 per contract. The Exchange proposes that these amendments become
immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOM Participants under common ownership may aggregate their
Customer volume to qualify for the increased Customer rebate. Common
ownership is defined as 75 percent common ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. Today, the Exchange pays Customer
Rebates to Add Liquidity on Penny Pilot Options as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate to add
                                   Monthly volume            liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...................  Participant adds Customer               $0.26
                            liquidity of up to 34,999
                            contracts per day in a month.
Tier 2...................  Participant adds Customer                0.43
                            liquidity of 35,000 to
                            74,999 contracts per day in
                            a month.
Tier 3...................  Participant adds Customer                0.44
                            liquidity of 75,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a month.
Tier 4 \a\...............  Participant adds (1) Customer            0.42
                            liquidity of 25,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a
                            month, (2) the Participant
                            has certified for the
                            Investor Support Program set
                            forth in Rule 7014; and (3)
                            the Participant executed at
                            least one order on NASDAQ's
                            equity market.
Tier 5 \b,c\.............  Participant has Total Volume             0.45
                            of 130,000 or more contracts
                            per day in a month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For purposes of Tier 4, the Exchange will allow a NOM Participant to
  qualify for the rebate if a NASDAQ member under common ownership with
  the NOM Participant has certified for the Investor Support Program and
  executed at least one order on NASDAQ's equity market. Common
  ownership is defined as 75 percent common ownership or control.
\b\ For purposes of Tier 5, ``Total Volume'' shall be defined as
  Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market
  Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options which
  either adds or removes liquidity.
\c\ For purposes of Tier 5, the Exchange will allow NOM Participants
  under common ownership to aggregate their volume to qualify for the
  rebate. Common ownership is defined as 75 percent common ownership or
  control.

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 5 rebate which pays a $0.45
per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity to NOM Options Participants that
have Total Volume of 130,000 or more contracts per day in a month.\5\
Total Volume is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market
Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny
Pilot Options which either adds or removes liquidity. The Exchange
proposes to amend the Tier 5 rebate from $0.45 to $0.46 per
contract.\6\ The Exchange proposes that this amendment become
immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of Tier 5, the Exchange allows NOM Participants
under common ownership to aggregate their volume to qualify for the
rebate. Common ownership is defined as 75 percent common ownership
or control.
    \6\ The Exchange is not proposing to otherwise amend Tier 5 or
any other Penny Pilot Options Customer rebate tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that they provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes increasing the Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options for all market participants is reasonable
because the increased fees permit the Exchange to offer increased
Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in both Penny Pilot and Non-Penny
Pilot Options. Also, the proposed Fees for Removing Liquidity are
similar to the non-Penny Pilot Options fees at BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BATS is amending pricing effective November 1, 2012 to
increase non-customer non-Penny pricing from $0.80 to $0.84 per
contract. See BATS alert titled ``BATS Options Exchange Pricing
Effective November 1, 2012.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Professional, Firm and
Non-NOM Market Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity from $0.85 to $0.89
per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
market participants would be assessed the same Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, except Customers and NOM Market
Makers. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to increase Customer and NOM Market Maker Non-Penny
Pilot Fees for Removing Liquidity from $0.79 to $0.82 per contract
because Customers and NOM Market Makers each bring benefits to the
market. The Exchange believes that Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the market which benefits all market participants through
increased liquidity. NOM Market Makers have obligations to the market
and regulatory requirements,\10\ which normally do not apply to other
market participants. A NOM Market Maker has the obligation to make
continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed differentiation as
between Customers and NOM Market Makers and other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and
trading environment on the Exchange by Customers and NOM Market Makers,
as well as the differing mix of orders entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, including NDX, from $0.75 to
$0.80 per contract and also increasing the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options when a market participant adds
Customer Liquidity in either or both Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot
Options (including NDX) of 115,000 contracts per day in a month from
$0.77 to $0.81 per contract is reasonable because these increased
rebates would continue to attract Customer order flow to the Exchange
in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Today, NOM Options Participants have the
ability to earn a $0.75 per contract Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Non-Penny Pilot Options and an increased rebate of $0.77 when a
market participant adds Customer Liquidity in either or both Penny
Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options (including NDX) of 115,000 contracts
per day in a month. By increasing both the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity to $0.80 per contract and the Customer Rebate for market
participants that add Customer in either or both Penny Pilot or Non-
Penny Pilot Options (including NDX) of 115,000 contracts per day in a
month to $0.81 per contract should encourage market participants to
send additional order flow to NOM to obtain an even greater Customer
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, including NDX, from $0.75 to
$0.80 per contract and also increasing the Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options when a market participant adds
Customer Liquidity in either or both Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot
Options (including NDX) of 115,000 contracts

per day in a month from $0.77 to $0.81 per contract is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the market which benefits all market participants. The
Exchange believes that its success at attracting Customer order flow
benefits all market participants by improving the quality of order
interaction and executions at the Exchange. These increased rebates are
available to all NOM Options Participants acting as agent for Customer
orders and in the case of the enhanced rebate of $0.81 per contract,
all NOM Options Participants that send 115,000 contracts per day in a
month in either or both Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options would be
entitled to receive the enhanced rebate.
    In the current U.S. options market, many of the contracts are
quoted in pennies. Under this pricing structure, the minimum penny tick
increment equates to a $1.00 economic value difference per contract,
given that a single standardized U.S. option contract covers 100 shares
of the underlying stock. Where contracts are quoted in $0.05 increments
(non-pennies), the value per tick is $5.00 in proceeds to the investor
transacting in these contracts. Liquidity rebate and access fee
structures on the make-take exchanges, including NOM, for securities
quoted in penny increments are commonly in the $0.30 to $0.45 per
contract range.\11\ A $0.30 per contract rebate in a penny quoted
security is a rebate equivalent to 30% of the value of the minimum
tick. A $0.45 per contract fee in a penny quoted security is a charge
equivalent to 45% of the value of that minimum tick. In other words, in
penny quoted securities, where the price is improved by one tick with
an access fee of $0.45 per contract, an investor paying to access that
quote is still $0.55 better off than trading at the wider spread, even
without the access fee ($1.00 of price improvement -$0.45 access fee =
$0.55 better economics). This computation is equally true for
securities quoted in wider increments. Rebates and access fees near the
$0.89 per contract level equate to only 17.8% of the value of the
minimum tick in Non-Penny Pilot Options, less than the experience today
in Penny Pilot Options. For example, a retail investor transacting a
single contract in a non-penny quoted security quoted a single tick
tighter than the rest of the market, and paying an access fee of $0.82
per contract, is receiving an economic benefit of $4.18 ($0.05 improved
tick = $5.00 in proceeds - $0.82 access fee = $4.18). The Exchange
believes that encouraging NOM Market Makers to quote more aggressively
by maintaining reducing transaction fees \12\ and incentivizing
Customer orders to post on NOM will narrow the spread in Non-Penny
Pilot Options to the benefit of investors and all market participants
by improving the overall economics of the resulting transactions that
occur on the Exchange, even if the access fee paid in connection with
such transactions is higher. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fees and rebates for Non-Penny Pilot Options are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NOM is proposing to only pay a Customer a Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Other market participants
would not be entitled to a rebate.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that the proposed $0.25 per contract NOM
Market Maker Fee for Adding in Non-Penny Pilot Options is
significantly less than transaction fees plus payment for order flow
fees assessed by other options exchanges. For example, on NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), the combined payment for order flow fee plus
the transaction fee is $0.92 per contract. See Phlx's Pricing
Schedule. Unlike Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange believes this
significant reduction in fees for adding liquidity will have the
same effect as a rebate in non-Penny Pilot Options in terms of a
narrower spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the Tier 5
Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable
because the increased rebate would encourage broker-dealers acting as
agent for Customer orders to select the Exchange as a venue to post
Customer orders. The Exchange believes the existing monthly volume
thresholds have incentivized firms to increase Customer order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange desires to continue to encourage firms to
route Customer orders to the Exchange by offering an increased Customer
rebate.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the Tier 5
Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is proposing to
offer an even higher Tier 5 Customer rebate in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.46 per contract to NOM Participants which will be based on Total
Volume. NOM Participants may total all Penny Pilot Option and Non-Penny
Pilot Option volume that either adds or removes liquidity to reach the
130,000 volume requirement and qualify to obtain this rebate. All NOM
Participants that transact Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options are
eligible for the Customer rebates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Tier 1 pays a rebate for NOM Participants that add Customer
liquidity of up to 14,999 contracts per day in a month of Penny
Pilot Options. There is no required minimum volume of Customer
orders to qualify for a Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
ten U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or
rebate opportunities to be inadequate. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rebate scheme and fees are competitive and similar to other
fees, rebates and tier opportunities in place on other exchanges. The
Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts
rebates and fees present on the Exchange today and substantially
influences the proposal set forth above.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
NASDAQ has designed its rebates and fees to compete effectively for the
execution and routing of options contracts and to reduce the overall
cost to investors of options trading. The Exchange believes that
incentivizing NOM Participants to transact greater Customer volume on
the Exchange benefits all market participants because of the increased
liquidity to the market.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

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

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-NASDAQ-2012-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-127. 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-NASDAQ-2012-127 and should
be submitted on or before December 11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-28176 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15960-15961]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0003]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Pergolide

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an original new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. The
NADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of pergolide mesylate
tablets in horses for the control of clinical signs associated with
Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction (Equine Cushing's Disease).

DATES: This rule is effective March 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy L. Omer, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-114), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., 2621
North Belt Highway, St. Joseph, MO 64506-2002, filed NADA 141-331 for
the veterinary prescription use in horses of PRASCEND (pergolide
mesylate) Tablets for the control of clinical signs associated with
Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction (Equine Cushing's Disease). The
NADA is approved as of September 7, 2011, and 21 CFR part 520 is
amended to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(i)), this approval qualifies for
5 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.
    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. Add Sec.  520.1705 to read as follows:

Sec.  520.1705  Pergolide.

    (a) Specifications. Each tablet contains 1 milligram (mg) pergolide
mesylate.
    (b) Sponsor. See No. 000010 in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter.
    (c) Conditions of use in horses--(1) Amount. Administer orally at a
starting dose of 2 micrograms/kilograms ([mu]/kg) once daily. Dosage
may be adjusted to effect, not to exceed 4 [mu]g/kg daily.
    (2) Indications for use. For the control of clinical signs
associated with Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction (Equine Cushing's
Disease).
    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on
the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2012-6544 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


List of Documents Submitted by the State of Maryland
   * Letter from Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Maryland Department of Environment, Annapolis, MD to Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
   * Maryland interoffice communications
   * Maryland Environmental Web site Home page
   * Maryland public hearing documents
   * Public hearing advertisement
   * Public hearing transcripts
   * Public hearing attendees list
   * Maryland Completeness Letter
   * Other miscellaneous documents


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34553-34554]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0026; Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-3]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bend, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Bend, OR, to
accommodate aircraft departing and arriving under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) at Bend Municipal Airport. This improves the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also makes
some editorial changes for clarity. This action also adjusts the
geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 1, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at
Bend, OR (78 FR 13843). Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to publication it was discovered by the FAA that the
legal description needed to be rewritten for clarity. With the
exception of editorial changes and the changes described above, this
rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by

modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR, to accommodate IFR
aircraft executing Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Also, the
geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety
and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Bend, OR [Modified]

Bend Municipal Airport, OR
    (Lat. 44[deg]05'40'' N., long. 121[deg]12'01'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.3-mile radius of Bend Municipal Airport, and within 2.2
miles each side of the 338[deg] bearing of the airport extending
from the 4.3-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport, and
within 1 mile each side of the 360[deg] bearing of the airport
extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north of the airport,
and within 1.5 miles each side of the 183[deg] bearing of the
airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 9.3 miles south of the
airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface bounded by a line extending from lat. 44[deg]09'51'' N.,
long. 121[deg]21'05'' W.; to lat. 44[deg]14'29'' N., long.
121[deg]06'59'' W.; to lat. 44[deg]27'24'' N., long. 121[deg]15'42''
W.; to lat. 44[deg]23'11'' N., long. 121[deg]30'16'' W., thence to
the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 24, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-13355 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50409-50410]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-2139-000]

Merlin One, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Merlin One, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is September 3, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 13, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20093 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P