[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52619-52623]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0078]
RIN 2127-AL19

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air
Bags

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA has a regulation that permits motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses to install retrofit on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles owned by or used by persons whose request for a switch has
been approved by the agency. This regulation is only available for
motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012. This document
extends the availability of this regulation for three additional years,
so that it applies to motor vehicles manufactured before September 1,
2015.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective August 30, 2012.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by October
15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
202-493-2739).
For legal issues: Mr. William Shakely, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. NPRM Summary
III. Discussion of Comments and Agency Decision
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a more detailed discussion, see the June 8, 2012 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (77 FR 33998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent or mitigate the risk of injuries or fatalities in
frontal crashes, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), requires that vehicles
be equipped with seat belts and frontal air bags.
    In the 1990s, while air bags proved to be highly effective in
reducing fatalities from frontal crashes, they were found to cause a
small number of fatalities, especially to unrestrained, out-of-position
children, in relatively low speed crashes.\2\ To address this problem,
NHTSA developed a plan that included an array of immediate, interim and
long-term measures. As one of the interim measures, on November 21,
1997, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (62 FR 62406) a final
rule permitting motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses to install
retrofit on-off switches for frontal air bags in vehicles owned by or
used by persons whose request for a switch had been approved by the
agency (subpart B of 49 CFR Part 595). This rule provided a limited
exemption from a statutory provision that generally prohibits motor
vehicle dealers and repair businesses from making inoperative any part
of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See preamble to agency final rule on advanced air bags, 65
FR 30680, 30682-83, May 12, 2000.
    \3\ The ``make inoperative'' provision is at 49 U.S.C. 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the procedures set forth in the 1997 rule, vehicle owners can
request a retrofit air bag on-off switch by completing an agency
request form (Appendix B of Part 595) and submitting the form to the
agency. Owners must certify that they have read the information
brochure, in Appendix A of Part 595, discussing air bag safety and
risks. The brochure describes the steps that the vast majority of
people can take to minimize the risk of serious injuries from air bags
while preserving the benefits of air bags, without going to the expense
of buying an on-off switch. The agency developed the brochure to enable
owners to determine whether they are, or a user of their vehicle is, in
one of the groups of people at risk of a serious air bag injury and to
make a careful, informed decision about requesting an on-off switch.\4\
Owners also must certify that they or another user of their vehicle is
a member of one of the risk groups. Since the risk groups for drivers
are different from those for passengers, a separate certification must
be made on the request form for each frontal air bag to be equipped
with a retrofit air bag on-off switch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At NHTSA's request, an expert panel of physicians convened
to formulate recommendations on specific medical indications for air
bag deactivation. The panel concluded that air bags are effective
lifesavers and that a medical condition does not warrant turning off
an air bag unless the condition makes it impossible for a person to
maintain an adequate distance from the air bag. Specifically, the
panel recommended disconnecting an air bag if a safe sitting
distance or position cannot be maintained by a: driver or front
passenger because of scoliosis, osteoporosis/arthritis; driver
because of achondroplasia; or passenger because of Down syndrome and
atlantoaxial instability. The panel also warranted the disconnection
of air bags if the need for wheelchair related modifications made it
necessary or if there is a medical condition that requires an infant
or child to be placed in the front passenger seat for monitoring
purposes. (The Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine
Department of Emergency Medicine and The National Crash Analysis
Center, ``National Conference on Medical Indications for Air Bag
Disconnection,'' July 16-18, 1997.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If NHTSA approves a request, the agency will send the owner a
letter authorizing the installation of one or more on-off switches in
the owner's vehicle. The owner may give the authorization letter to a
dealer or repair business, which may then install an on-off switch for
the driver or passenger air bag or both, as approved by the agency. The
retrofit air bag on-off switch must meet certain criteria, such as
being equipped with a telltale light to alert vehicle occupants when an
air bag has been turned off. The dealer or repair

business must then fill in information about itself and its
installation in a form in the letter and return the form to the agency.
    On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (65 FR
30680) its final rule to require advanced frontal air bags. The rule
required that future air bags be designed to reduce the risk of serious
air bag-induced injuries compared to then-current air bags,
particularly for small-statured women and young children; and provide
improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means that
include advanced air bag technology.
    In the preamble to the May 2000 advanced air bag final rule, the
agency decided to continue the exemption procedures for retrofit air
bag on-off switches for vehicles manufactured through August 31, 2012.
This provided time to allow manufacturers to perfect the suppression
and low-risk deployment systems for air bags in all of their vehicles.
It also provided a number of years to verify the reliability of
advanced air bags based on real-world experience.
    NHTSA also indicated in the advanced air bag final rule that there
would be a need for deactivation of some sort (via on-off switch or
permanently) for at-risk individuals who cannot be accommodated through
sensors or other suppression technology (such as individuals with
disabilities or certain medical conditions). The agency stated at that
time that it believed such needs could be best accommodated through the
authorization system for deactivation of air bags in current use by
NHTSA (65 FR at 30722).
    In addition to the exemption provided by subpart B of Part 595, on
February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register
(66 FR 12638) providing a limited exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition covering various provisions in a number of safety
standards, to facilitate the mobility of persons with disabilities.
This disability exemption, which is in subpart C of Part 595, permits
the installation of air bag on-off switches or the permanent
disconnection of air bags in certain, significantly more limited
circumstances than provided for in subpart B of that part. However,
unlike subpart B, prior agency approval is not required for an
exemption under subpart C.

II. NPRM Summary

    On June 8, 2012, the agency published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to extend the availability of the existing regulation
(Subpart B of 49 CFR part 595) that permits motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses to install retrofit on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles owned by or used by persons whose request for a switch has
been approved by the agency. The proposed extension was for three
additional years, so that it would apply to motor vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 2015 (77 FR 33998; Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0078).
    The NPRM stated that the agency plans to use the three-year
extension to evaluate several aspects of the regulation. Specifically,
the agency would evaluate the criteria for granting the retrofit on-off
switches (at-risk groups) in light of the existence of advanced air bag
technology and the retrofit switch brochures and forms that were
included in Part 595. The agency would also consider other topics that
have arisen over the years such as our continued use of prosecutorial
discretion for circumstances not covered by Part 595 (e.g., the
application of retrofit switches for emergency and law enforcement
vehicles).
    The NPRM also explained that given the imminence of the September
1, 2012 date, it would not be possible for the agency to complete the
necessary evaluation and possible rulemaking before that time, and the
extension would avoid any gap in the availability of the retrofit on-
off air bag switches while the agency considers further rulemaking that
could permanently allow such switches in specified circumstances. The
agency expects to be able to fully analyze the issues surrounding such
a rulemaking within these three additional years.

III. Discussion of Comments and Agency Decision

    The comment period for the NPRM closed on July 9, 2012. The agency
received two comments. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates) supported the proposed extension.\5\ Advocates stated that
although advances in air bag design and other vehicle safety systems
have minimized the need for air bag on-off switches, the organization
recognized a continuing need for on-off switches to accommodate certain
at-risk individuals who could not be accommodated by current
technologies, including individuals with disabilities or certain
medical conditions, as well as younger passengers in child restraint
systems in vehicles without rear seats. Advocates asserted that a
three-year extension of the exemption procedures to allow timely review
of the regulation by the agency will pose minimal risk and permit the
regulation to be updated to reflect state-of-the-art safety technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Advocates Comment, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0078-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Automobile Dealer Association (NADA), an organization
representing automobile and truck dealers, urged NHTSA to conduct a
more expeditious evaluation of the air bag on-off exemption regulation
than the three-year period proposed in the NPRM.\6\ NADA asserted that
it should not take NHTSA long to conduct an analysis of the number and
nature of switch installation and air bag deactivation requests
received since the regulation was promulgated. NADA cited anecdotal
evidence that information requests submitted to NADA by dealerships
regarding the air bag on-off exemption have dropped to near zero. NADA
asserted that this evidence indicated a drop in demand for retrofit on-
off switches and air bag deactivations consistent with the rate at
which advanced air bags and switch-equipped two-passenger vehicles have
penetrated the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NADA Comment, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0078-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has considered NADA's comments urging a more expeditious
evaluation period than the three year period proposed in the NPRM.
However, the agency declines to adopt NADA's suggestion. NADA's
reasoning is that a review of the number and nature of requests for
exemptions should not take long, asserting that the organization's
anecdotal evidence indicates a drop in demand for such exemptions.
    First, the agency would like to emphasize that the demand for
retrofit switches is certainly a factor that the agency will consider
as we evaluate subpart B of part 595, but it is not the only factor the
agency will be examining. We will also reexamine the at-risk groups in
light of advanced air bag technology, the brochures and forms included
in Part 595, and the need for the continued use of prosecutorial
discretion for circumstances not covered by Part 595, among other
things. Accordingly, the time needed to examine the demand for retrofit
on-off switches does not reflect the total time needed to evaluate the
issue.
    Additionally, as explained in the NPRM, the three-year extension
period is intended not only to provide the agency time to evaluate this
issue, but to potentially conduct rulemaking to update subpart B.
Finally, NADA did not describe any benefits that would result from a
shorter extension period or any consequences associated with the three-
year period proposed in the

NPRM. Therefore, for the reasons expressed in the NPRM, this final rule
adopts the three-year extension period proposed in the NPRM and amends
Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 595 to extend the availability of retrofit on-
off switches for air bags so that it will apply to motor vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 2015.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034 (Feb.
26, 1979)). This action was not reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under these executive orders. It is not considered to be
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
    This document delays the sunset date of an existing exemption for
retrofit on-off switches for frontal air bags. They are currently
available, under specified circumstances, for vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 2012. We are extending that date so that they will
be available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2015.
    This final rule does not require a motor vehicle manufacturer,
dealer or repair business to take any action or bear any costs except
in instances in which a dealer or repair business agrees to install an
on-off switch for an air bag. For consumers, the purchasing and
installation of on-off switches is permissive, not prescriptive.
    When an eligible consumer obtains the agency's authorization for
the installation of a retrofit on-off switch and a dealer or repair
business agrees to install the switch, there will be costs associated
with that action. The agency estimates that the installation of an on-
off switch would typically require less than one hour of shop time, at
the average national labor rate of approximately $80 per hour. NHTSA
estimates that the cost of an air bag on-off switch for one seating
position is $51 to $84 and the cost of an on-off switch for two seating
positions is $68 to $101. The agency estimates that approximately 500
air bag on-off switch requests are received and authorized annually.
However, we are uncertain about how many people actually pay to get
them installed after we authorize it. Given the relatively low number
of vehicle owners who will ultimately get the retrofit air bag on-off
switches installed and the above estimated costs, the annual net
economic impact of the actions taken under this final rule will not
exceed $100 million per year.
    Moreover, given the above, the fact that this has been a
longstanding exemption available for consumers and since the agency is
merely extending the availability of this exemption for an additional
three years of vehicle production, the impacts are so minimal that a
full regulatory evaluation is not needed.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule would merely extend the sunset provision in Subpart B of Part 595.
No other changes are being made in this document. Small organizations
and small governmental units will not be significantly affected since
the potential cost impacts associated with this action will be
insignificant.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Today's
final rule does not impose any additional requirements. Instead, it
delays the sunset date of an existing exemption for retrofit on-off
switches for frontal air bags, thereby lessening burdens on the
exempted entities.
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance. This provision is not relevant to this
final rule as this final rule does not involve the establishing,
amending or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
However, general principles of preemption law could apply so as to
displace any conflicting state law or regulations. We are unaware of
any State law or action that would prohibit the actions that this
exemption would permit.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon
there being an actual conflict between a NHTSA regulation and the
higher standard that would effectively be imposed on regulated entities
if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against a
regulated entity, notwithstanding the regulated entity's compliance
with the NHTSA regulation. Because most NHTSA standards established by
an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on regulated entities will
generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does
exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a
maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
    Although this final rule does not establish, amend, or revoke an
FMVSS,

NHTSA has considered, pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988,
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's final
rule and finds that this final rule would increase flexibility for
certain exempted entities. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this
final rule would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a
higher standard on regulated entities than that would be established by
today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort
law would not conflict with the exemption. Without any conflict, there
could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of
action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing a final rule subject to
the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' This
final rule will not result in a Federal mandate that will likely result
in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).

E. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Several of the
conditions placed by this exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition are considered to be information collection requirements as
defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. Specifically, this exemption
from the make inoperative prohibition for motor vehicle dealers and
repair businesses is conditioned upon vehicle owners filling out and
submitting a request form to the agency, obtaining an authorization
letter from the agency and then presenting the letter to a dealer or
repair business. The exemption is also conditioned upon the dealer or
repair business filling in information about itself and the
installation of the retrofit on-off switch in the form provided for
that purpose in the authorization letter and then returning the form to
NHTSA. These information collection requirements in Part 595 have been
approved by OMB (OMB Control No. 2127-0588) through June 30, 2013,
pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq). NHTSA will request an extension of this approval in a
timely manner.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this rule.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this final rule.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

K. Privacy Act

    Petitions for reconsideration will be placed in the docket. Anyone
is able to search the electronic form of all petitions received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
petition (or signing the

petition, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part
595 as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and
30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Amend Sec.  595.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  595.5  Requirements.

    (a) Beginning January 19, 1998, a dealer or motor vehicle repair
business may modify a motor vehicle manufactured before September 1,
2015, by installing an on-off switch that allows an occupant of the
vehicle to turn off an air bag in that vehicle, subject to the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 24, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-21468 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5691]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-151-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 1, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 29, 2007 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
(Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 368, to become effective
March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2019 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6116-6117]
[DOCID:fr06fe06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53187; File No. SR-NASD-2006-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Modify the Hours of
Operation of Nasdaq's Brut System

January 30, 2006.
    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 January 20, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc.(``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. On January
25, 2006, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 clarified that the filing was made pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to amend NASD Rule 4912. The text of the proposed
rule change is below. Additions are italicized; deletions are
[bracketed].\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic NASD Manual found at http://www.nasd.com. Prior to the

date when The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ LLC'') commences
operations, NASDAQ LLC will file a conforming change to the rules of
NASDAQ LLC approved in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128
(January 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

4912. Normal Business Hours

    The Brut System operates from [6:30] 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on each business day.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 the starting time for the Brut ECN hours
of operation, order acceptance time, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
(Eastern Time). This change will standardize the system start times of
the Nasdaq Market Center and Nasdaq's Brut Facility.
    The current configuration allows connectivity and order entry from
the time the System is brought online beginning at 6:30 a.m., which
allows orders and executions to begin at 6:30 a.m.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Phone call from Jonathan Cayne, Associate General Counsel,
Nasdaq, to Angela R. Muehr, Attorney, Commission, on January 27,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment would:
    (1) Allow client connection from System up time, scheduled to begin
at 6:30 a.m. (this process takes 10-15 minutes);
    (2) Reject orders entered prior to 7:30 a.m.;
    (3) Allow orders and executions beginning at 7:30 a.m.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 15A of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 7 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \8\ 8 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Nasdaq has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\10\ Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), Nasdaq provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to filing the proposal with the Commission or such shorter period
as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
January 20, 2006 and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is
January 25, 2006. The proposed rule change does not become operative
for 30 days from the date of filing. For purposes of calculating the
60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the
proposed rule change, as amended, under section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on January 25,
2006, the date on which Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-NASD-2006-006 and should be submitted on or before
February 27, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1537 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79488-79489]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Concerning All Permitted Hard Copy Submissions

    As a result of onsite personnel recently being exposed to a
positive COVID-19 case, the Commission is temporarily delaying the
processing of all permitted hard copy submissions to the Commission's
Headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Permitted
hard copy filings will be processed after clearance has been given for
relevant staff to re-enter the Commission's Headquarters. Accepted hard
copy filings will be given the date that the filing was received by the
Commission as the ``File Date.'' This notice will remain in effect for
7 days from the date of its issuance and may be renewed at the
conclusion of this period.
    This notice does not change the process for submitting electronic
filings with the Commission. The public is strongly encouraged to
continue to submit filings and submissions electronically, through the
Commission's eFiling application, at https://www.ferc.gov/. More
detailed

information relating to electronic filing requirements can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For assistance
with filing electronically, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27132 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5626]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 3, 2011 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 3, 2011 will be:

Consideration of amicus participation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 27, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2228 Filed 1-28-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 10728]
[DOCID:fr12mr09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-768-000]

Saracen Power Partners, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

March 4, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Saracen Power Partners, L.P.'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 March 24, 2009.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5250 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


! Recordkeeping. The burden increase of 33 percent from the previous ICR represents an increase in the number of general permits, the growth of the storm water general permitting program ( e. g., storm water general permits increased by 186,947 in this burden estimate) and the resultant improvements in estimates of the number of permittees subject to its specific recordkeeping and inspection requirements. Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Annual Costs Recordkeeping 1,568,158 $ 62,777,658 Reporting ( w/ o Part 435) 141,122 $ 5,032,350 Part 435 Certification 53,516 $ 1,635,944 Total for Respondents 1,762,796 $ 69,445,952 State Governments 46,784 $ 1,526,226 Federal Governments 18,039 $ 570,157 TOTAL 1,827,619 $ 71,542,335 Exhibit 13. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Costs to Respondents and Government DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 51 March 26, 2004 ! Compliance Schedule Reports. The burden associated with this requirement is essentially unchanged from the previous ICR. Slight reductions reflect fewer permits identified in PCS that have compliance schedule report requirements.

! Noncompliance Reports. The total burden associated with this requirement decreased 9.7 percent from the previous ICR. This reduction reflects a decrease in the number of respondents subject to the noncompliance report requirements. This is likely due to PCS refinement resulting in fewer permits identified.

! Notice of Alternate Level of Production. No burden is associated with this requirement.

! Section 308( a) Letters. The burden associated with this requirement did not change.

! Pollution Prevention Alternative. The burden associated with this requirement did not change.

! Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes. The burden associated with this requirement did not change.

! SSO Reporting and Unpermitted CSO Reporting. No changes in burden are estimated for this activity since the previous ICR. Item/ Type of Respondent Previous ICR ( A) Current ICR ( B) Change ( C) ( B   A) Percent Change ( C ÷ A)

Recordkeeping 1,177,116 1,568,158 391,042 33.22%

Compliance Schedule Reports 8,930 8,267  663  7.42%

Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report 24,246 21,015  3,231  13.33%

Maximum Daily Violation Report 27,697 25,996  1,701  6.14%

Other Noncompliance Reports 3,613 3,123  490  13.56%

Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 0.00%

Section 308( a) Letters 9,600 9,600 0 0.00%

Pollution Prevention Alternative 1,080 1,080 0 0.00%

Certifications and Notice of Process Changes 4,713 4,713 0 0.00%

SSO Reporting 62,144 62,144 0 0.00%

Unpermitted CSO Reporting 5,184 5,184 0 0.00%

Burden to State Governments as Users of Data 51,089 46,784  4,305  8.43%

Part 435 Certification ( former OMB ICR # 2040 0230) 47,168 53,516 6,348 13.46%

TOTAL 1,422,580 1,809,580 387,000 27.20% Exhibit 14. Change in Annual Respondent and State Burden DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 52 March 26, 2004 ! Change in State Burden. The ( 8) percent difference in State burden is the result of a fewer permits identified in PCS that have require compliance/ assessment reporting.

6. g Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.76 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2003 0073, which is available for public viewing at the Water 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 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 docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2003 0073) and OMB control number ( 2040 0110) in any correspondence. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 53 March 26, 2004 Appendix A  Input Parameters for Part 435 Burden Estimate Input Parameters Value*

SBF Usage Assumptions: Total Number of SBF Wells ( SBF wells/ yr.): 204** Number of SBF Wells per SBF Facility ( SBF wells/ fac.): 3 Number of SBF Facilities per Year ( fac./ yr.): 68** Length of SBF Drilling Operation ( months/ SBF well): 1 Days in month ( days/ month): 30 Labor Rate Assumptions: Contractor Engineering Labor Rate ($/ hr): 65 Contractor Senior Management Labor Rate ($/ hr): 100 In house Engineering Labor Rate ($/ hr): 65 In house Senior Management Labor Rate ($/ hr): 100 In house Operators/ Shift Supervisors Labor Rate ($/ hr): 20 In house Engineering Technicians Labor Rate ($/ hr): 65 In house Clerical Support Labor Rate ($/ hr): 15 Labor rate for contractor teaching Re fresher training ($/ hr): 65 State NPDES controlling authority labor rate ($/ hr): 33.6* EPA Regional labor rate ($/ hr): 33.3*

Labor Assumptions ( Development and Annual Review): Initial Facility Contract Labor Hours Required ( 2 SBF wastestreams) ( hours): 200 Initial Facility Contract Labor Hours Required ( 1 SBF wastestream) ( hours): 150 % of Initial Facility Contract Labor Hours that are Engineering Labor (% of total): 75 % of Initial Facility Contract Labor Hours that are Senior Management (% of total): 25 Initial Facility In house Labor Hours Required ( 2 SBF wastestreams) ( hours): 150 Initial Facility In house Labor Hours Required ( 1 SBF wastestream) ( hours): 100 % of Initial Facility In house Labor Hours that are Engineering Labor (% of total): 75 % of Initial In house Labor Hours that are Senior Management (% of total): 25 Annual Facility In house Lab. Hrs. for BMP Plan Review ( 2 SBF wastestreams) ( hours): 40 Annual Facility In house Lab. Hrs. for BMP Plan Review ( 1 SBF wastestream) ( hours): 30 % of Annual Facility In house Lab. Hrs. for BMP Review that are Eng. Staff (% of total): 75 % of Annual Facility In house Lab. Hrs. for BMP Review that are Snr. Mgmt. (% of total): 25 Labor Assumptions ( Spills): In house Eng. Lab. Hrs. per SBF spill ( hr./ spill): 4 Number of SBF spills per SBF well ( SBF spills/ SBF well): 3 Labor Assumptions ( Recordkeeping): DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 54 Input Parameters Value*

March 26, 2004 Number of Recordkeeping Hours by Operators/ Shift Sup. per month ( hr./ month): 2 Number of Recordkeeping Hours by Engineering Technicians per month ( hr/ month): 2 Number of Recordkeeping Hours by Clerical Staff per month ( hr/ month): 2 Labor Assumptions ( Re fresher training): Number of Operators in Re fresher training: 9 Number of Re fresher training sessions per year: 2 Number of hours per Re fresher training session: 4 Number of consultants teaching re fresher training: 1 Labor Assumptions ( Additional Monitoring and Reporting): Inspection of SBF Equipment ( but not solids control equipment) for spills/ leaks ( hrs/ day): 3 Inspection of SBF Equipment ( but not solids control equipment) for malfunctions ( hrs/ day): 3 Inspection of solids control equipment for O& M ( hrs/ day): 3 Daily Retort analysis ( hr/ day): 3 Labor Assumptions ( State): Number of initial hours by State NPDES controlling authority ( hr/ yr facility): a 0 Number of annual hours by State NPDES controlling authority ( hr/ yr facility): a 0 Labor Assumptions ( EPA Regions): Number of initial hours by EPA Region ( hr/ yr facility): 8 Number of annual hours by EPA Region ( hr/ yr facility): 3 * Source is original ICR except for items with **, which were updated for inclusion in this document. a EPA has not yet delegated NPDES permitting authority to the State of Alaska where these discharges are likely to occur. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 55 March 26, 2004 Appendix B  Burden and Costs Estimates ( Part 435)

Table 1: Facility Consultant Burden and Costs for Development, Review, and Certification of BMP Plans Labor Hours Labor Costs Engineering Management Total Engineering Management Total 7,650 2,550 10,200 497,217 254,949 752,166 Table 2: Facility In house Burden and Costs for Development, Review, and Certification of BMP Plan Labor Hours Labor Costs Engineering Management Total Engineering Management Total 5,100 1,700 6,800 331,500 170,000 501,500 Table 3: Total Facility Initial Burden and Costs Labor Hours Labor Costs 17,000 1,253,666 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 56 March 26, 2004 Table 4: Facility Labor Hours for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Training Amend. & Rvw BMP Plan Reporting of Spills Add'l Monit. and Rpting Record Keeping Refresher Training Total Hours 2,040 2,448 36,720 1,224 5,440 47,872 Table 5: Facility Costs for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Training Amend. & Rvw BMP Plan Reporting of Spills Add'l Monit. and Rpting Record Keeping Refresher Training Total Costs 150,450 159,120 734,400 40,800 133,280 1,218,050 Table 6: Total Recurring Facility Respondent Burden and Costs Labor Hours Labor Costs 47,872 1,218,050 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 57 March 26, 2004 Table 7: Summary of Burden Hours to Respondents and EPA TOTAL LABOR HOURS Respondents: Facilities Respondents: States EPA Initial Annual Initial Annual Initial Annual 17,000 47,872 0 0 544 204 Table 8: Summary of Costs ( 2003$) to Respondents and EPA TOTAL COSTS Respondents: Facilities Respondents: States EPA Initial Annual Initial Annual Initial Annual 1,235,666 1,218,050 0 0 18,115 6,793 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 58 March 26, 2004 References for use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs Angelle, Richard, and Paul Scott, 2000, Rig Survey Update Focusing on the Number of Rigs/ platforms Where Cuttings Dryers Could Not Be Installed, SBF Rulemaking Record, Section IV. B. b. 34, November 9, 2000.

Henry, Larry, Response to EPA Request for Additional Input Parameter for EPA Modeling, SBF Rulemaking Record, Section IV. B. a. 9, September 11, 2000.

Johnston, Carey A., Initial Burden and Cost Estimates for SBF BMP Information Collection Request, SBF Rulemaking Record, Section III. H.( 2), February 28, 2000.

U. S. EPA, Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for Best Management Practices Alternatives, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category ( 40 CFR Part 435), EPA ICR No. 1953.01, SBF Rulemaking Record, Section III. H.( 5), April 11, 2000.

U. S. EPA, Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids and Other Non Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, EPA 821 B 98 021, February 1999.

U. S. EPA, Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ( 40 CFR Part 430), December 1, 1998.

U. S. EPA, Guidance Document for Developing Best Management Practices ( BMP), EPA 833 BB93B004, October 1993.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32139-32140]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 578

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0136]
RIN 2127-AL82

Civil Penalties

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is delaying the effective date of the final rule
entitled ``Civil Penalties,'' published in the Federal Register on
December 28, 2016, because NHTSA is reconsidering the appropriate level
for CAFE civil penalties.

DATES: As of July 7, 2017, the effective date of the final rule
published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016, at 81 FR 95489,
is delayed indefinitely pending reconsideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 2016, NHTSA published an interim
final rule updating the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of
statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA, pursuant to the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015
(Inflation Adjustment Act). The penalty for exceeding an applicable
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard was among the penalties
adjusted for inflation in the interim final rule. In accordance with
the Inflation Adjustment Act and guidance on calculating the
inflationary adjustment mandated by the Act issued by the Office of
Management and Budget, NHTSA increased the civil penalty for failing to
meet an applicable CAFE standard from $5.50 per tenth of a mile per
gallon (mpg) to $14 per tenth of an mpg.
    The Auto Alliance and Global Automakers jointly petitioned NHTSA
for reconsideration of the interim final rule regarding the
inflationary adjustment of CAFE non-compliance penalties (hereafter,
the Alliance and Global petition will be referred to as the ``Industry
Petition'') \1\ on August 1, 2016. The Industry Petition argued that
NHTSA used the wrong base year to calculate the inflationary adjustment
to the CAFE civil penalty and raised concerns about applying the
adjusted civil penalty retroactively. The Industry Petition also argued
that in the event that NHTSA chose not to adopt the base year suggested
in the petition, NHTSA should seek comment on whether NHTSA should
adopt a lower penalty level than the one in the interim final rule
based on ``negative economic impacts,'' as permitted by the Inflation
Adjustment Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC also filed a petition
for reconsideration in response to the July 5, 2016 interim final
rule raising the same concerns as those raised in the Industry
Petition. Both petitions can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0075,
accessible via www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 28, 2016, NHTSA published a final rule in response to
the Industry Petition.\2\ To address concerns raised in the Industry
Petition about applying the adjusted penalty retroactively, NHTSA
delayed application of the $14 per tenth of an mpg penalty until the
2019 model year, which begins in October 2018 for most manufacturers.
The final rule did not address the other points raised in the Industry
Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 95489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 28, 2016 final rule is not yet effective and would
currently become effective on July 10, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 82 FR 8694 (Jan. 30, 2017); 82 FR 15302 (Mar. 28, 2017); 82
FR 29009 (June 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is now reconsidering the final rule because the final rule
did not give adequate consideration to all of the relevant issues,
including the potential economic consequences of increasing CAFE
penalties by potentially $1 billion per year, as estimated in the
Industry Petition. Thus, in a separate document

published in this Federal Register, NHTSA is seeking comment on whether
$14 per tenth of an mpg is the appropriate penalty level for civil
penalties for violations of CAFE standards given the requirements of
the Inflation Adjustment Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) of 1975, which authorizes civil penalties for violations of CAFE
standards.\4\ Because NHTSA is reconsidering the final rule, NHTSA is
delaying the effective date pending reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA incorporates the discussions in the document seeking
comment on the appropriate CAFE civil penalties level by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is good cause to implement this delay without notice and
comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) because those procedures
are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest in
these circumstances, where the effective date of the rule is imminent.
Moreover, the agency is, through a separate document, already seeking
out public comments on the underlying issues, which may be extensive,
and additional time will be required to thoughtfully consider and
address those comments before deciding on the appropriate course of
regulatory action. A delay in the effective date is therefore
consistent with NHTSA's statutory authority to administer the CAFE
standards program and its inherent authority to do so efficiently and
in the public interest. In addition, no party will be harmed by the
delay in the effective date of the rule. On the contrary, the rule does
not increase CAFE penalties before Model Year 2019, and therefore, the
delay will not affect the civil penalty amounts assessed against any
manufacturer for violating a CAFE standard prior to the 2019 model year
at the earliest, i.e., until sometime in 2020. Therefore, the increased
penalty rate set forth in the rule would not be applied for current
violations, so there is no immediate, concrete impact from the delay.

    Authority: Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59,
Pub. L. 114-74, Pub L. 114-94, 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32912; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.

Jack Danielson,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-14526 Filed 7-7-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18649-18652]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69197; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Definition of Complex Orders and Stock/Options Orders To Accommodate
the Trading of Option Contracts Overlying 10 Shares of a Security

March 20, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 19, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Complex Orders and
Stock/Options orders to accommodate the trading of option contracts
overlying 10 shares of a security (``mini-options contracts''). The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently amended its rules to allow for the listing of
mini-options contracts on SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), Apple, Inc.
(``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG'') and
Amazon.com Inc. (``AMZN'').\4\ Whereas standard option contracts
represent a deliverable of 100 shares of an underlying security, mini-
options contracts represent a deliverable of 10 shares. Except for the
difference in the number of deliverable shares, mini-options contracts
have the same terms and contract characteristics as regular-sized
equity and ETF options, including exercise style. The Exchange notes
that Exchange rules that apply to the trading of standard option
contracts would apply to mini-option contracts as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. [sic] 67948
(September 28, 2012), 77 FR 60735 (October 4, 2012) (SR-NYSE-Arca-
2012-64) (SR-ISE-2012-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the commencement of trading mini-options, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 6.62 (Certain Types of Orders Defined) and Rule
6.92 (Definitions) to provide that Exchange rules regarding complex
orders shall apply to mini-options and that consequently, OTP Holders
may execute complex orders and Stock/Option Orders involving mini-
options contracts. Moreover, the Exchange seeks to amend these rules to
provide that all permissible ratios referenced in the definitions of
Stock/Option Orders represent the total number of shares of the
underlying stock in the option leg to the total number of shares of the
underlying stock in the stock leg. Finally, the Exchange seeks to make
these amendments to coincide with a similar proposal recently submitted
by another options market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69129 (March 13,
2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 6.62 governs Complex Orders and Stock/Options Orders
on the Exchange and Rule 6.92 lists definitions applicable to
intermarket linkage. Currently, a Stock/Option Orders are defined in
Rule 6.62(h)(1) and Rule 6.92(a)(4)(ii) as an order to buy or sell a
stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible
into the underlying stock coupled with the purchase or sale of options
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either (A)
the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security, or (B) the number of units of the underlying stock

necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio
greater than 8 options contracts per unit of trading of the underlying
stock or convertible security established for that series by the
Clearing Corporation. Therefore, under this definition it would be
permissible to execute, for example, a trade where the options leg
consists of one (1) standard option contract (i.e., 100 shares) and the
stock leg consists of 100 shares of the underlying stock. Additionally,
it would be permissible to execute a trade where the options leg
consists of eight (8) standard option contracts (i.e., 800 shares) and
the stock leg consists of 100 shares of the underlying stock.
    The terms Complex Order in Rule 6.62(e) and Complex Trade in Rule
6.92(a)(4)(i) are defined substantially identical as any order
involving the execution of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security occurring at or near the same time in a ratio
that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or
equal to three-to-one (3.00).
    The Exchange notes that the abovementioned permissible ratios were
established to ensure that only complex and Stock/Option orders that
seek to achieve legitimate investment strategies are afforded certain
benefits. Particularly, since compliance with trade-through rules may
impede a market participant's ability to achieve the legitimate
investment strategies that complex and Stock/Option orders facilitate,
an exception from the prohibition on trade-throughs is provided for any
transaction that was effected as a portion of a legitimate complex and
Stock/Option order. Requiring a meaningful relationship between the
different legs of a complex and Stock/Option order prevents market
participants from taking advantage of these orders to circumvent the
otherwise applicable trade-through rules (e.g., preventing the
execution of a Stock/Option Order where the option leg consists of 100
options (i.e., 10,000 shares) and the stock leg consists of only 100
shares).
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Stock/Option
Orders in Rule 6.62(h)(1) and Rule 6.92(a)(4)(ii). As discussed above,
the Stock/Option Order definition in both Rule 6.62 and Rule 6.92
clearly permits that an option leg may be coupled with a stock leg
representing the same number of units of the underlying stock (i.e.,
one-to-one ratio). The Exchange seeks to provide that mini-options
contracts may also be coupled with a stock leg if the stock leg
represents the same number of units of the underlying stock. For
example, pursuant to the definition, it would be permissible to execute
a trade where leg one consists of one (1) mini-option contract (i.e.,
10 shares) and leg two consists of 10 shares of the underlying stock.
    Next, the Exchange seeks to amend the Stock/Option Order definition
in Rule 6.62 and Rule 6.92 to provide that in addition to standard
options, mini-options contracts may be coupled with a stock leg
consisting of however many units of the underlying stock is necessary
to create a delta neutral position, provided that the total number of
shares of the underlying stock in the option leg to the total number of
shares of the underlying stock in the stock leg does not exceed an
eight-to-one ratio. The proposed change specifies that the permissible
ratios should be calculated and scaled based upon the total number of
shares of the underlying stock in the option leg to the total number of
shares of the underlying stock in the stock leg, instead of by the
total number of option contracts in the option leg to the total number
of shares of the underlying stock in the stock leg. An example of a
permitted Stock/Option Order involving mini-options contracts would be
an order in which leg one consists of eighty (80) mini-options
contracts (i.e., 800 shares) and leg two consists of 100 shares of the
underlying stock (i.e., eight-to-one ratio). Similarly, an order where
leg one consists of eight (8) mini-options contracts (i.e., 80 shares)
and leg two consists of 10 shares of the underlying stock would be
permitted.
    The proposed rule change provides that market participants may
execute complex and Stock/Option orders involving mini-options
contracts. The proposed change also ensures that the principle behind
the permissible ratios (i.e., to provide a meaningful relationship
between the legs of complex and Stock/Option Orders) is maintained for
mini-options contracts.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of Complex Order
and Complex Trade to specify that when trading a Complex Order/Complex
Trade that is comprised of both mini-options contracts and standard
contracts, ten mini-options contracts will represent one standard
contract. The Exchange seeks to make clear that the current definition
of Complex Order in Rule 6.62(e) and Complex Trade in Rule
6.92(a)(4)(i) applies to both standard options and mini-options. The
Exchange acknowledges that in accordance with the provisions of Rules
6.62(e) and 6.92(a)(4)(i), one leg of a complex order may consist of
mini-options contract(s) and the other leg of the order may consist of
standard options contract(s), so long as the underlying security is the
same and the transaction does not violate the permissible ratios set
forth in the rules (i.e. ratio greater or equal to one-to-three or less
or equal to three-to-one). Moreover, the Exchange's proposed amendment
seeks to provide that the permissible ratios represent the total number
of shares of the underlying stock in the mini-option leg to the total
number of shares of the underlying stock in the standard option leg. An
example of a permissible complex order involving mini-options and
standard options would be an order in which leg one consists of thirty
(30) mini-options (i.e. 300 shares) and leg two consists of one (1)
standard options (i.e. 100 shares) in the same underlying security
(i.e., a ratio equal to 3.0). Another example of a permissible complex
order would be an order in which leg one consists of ten (10) mini-
options (i.e. 100 shares) and leg two consists of one (1) standard
options (i.e. 100 shares) in the same underlying security (i.e., a
ratio equal to one-to-one). The Exchange believes the proposed
amendment will reduce potential confusion for investors when trading
mini-options contracts. Further, the Exchange proposes to provide that
Complex Orders comprised of both mini-options contracts and standard
contracts are not available for Electronic Complex Order trading
pursuant to Rule 6.91.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \6\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in
particular, because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors and other market
participants would benefit from the current rule proposal because it
would allow market participants to take advantage of legitimate
investment strategies and execute complex and Stock/Option orders in
mini-options contracts. Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will avoid investor confusion if both standard
options and mini-options on the same underlying security are

permitted to trade as complex and Stock/Option orders. Also, the
proposal to maintain the permissible ratios that are applicable to
standard options in proportion for mini-options contracts ensures that
the principle behind the permissible ratios (i.e., to provide a
meaningful relationship between the legs of complex and Stock/Option
orders) is maintained for mini-options, which promotes just and
equitable principles of trade. The Exchange believes that describing
prior to the commencement of trading how the permissible ratios in
complex and Stock/Option orders rules will be scaled for mini-options
contracts would lessen investor and marketplace confusion.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the proposed
amendment is based upon recently published rule amendments by other
option exchanges.\8\ Since mini-options contracts are permitted on
multiply-listed classes, other exchanges that have received approval to
trade mini-options will have the opportunity to similarly amend their
rules to clarify and accommodate complex and Stop/Option orders in
mini-options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act \11\
normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act,\12\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. In June 2012, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
amend its rules to list and trade certain mini-options contracts on the
Exchange, and represented in that filing that the Exchange's rules that
apply to the trading of standard options contracts would apply to mini-
options contracts.\13\ The Exchange believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would minimize confusion among
market participants about how complex orders and stock-options orders
involving mini-options contracts will trade.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67283 (June 27,
2012), 77 FR 39535 (July 3, 2012). See also supra note 4.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change immediately, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion as
to how complex orders and stock options orders involving mini-options
contracts will trade. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented that it began trading in mini-options
contracts on March 18, 2013.\16\ The Commission notes that this
proposed rule change was filed on March 19, 2013, and, therefore,
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6), waiver of the 30-day operative delay
renders this proposed rule change effective upon the day that it was
filed, March 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SR-NYSEArca-2013-28, Item 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-28 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-NYSEArca-2013-28. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from

submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2013-28, and should be submitted on or before April 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07005 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P