[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64169-64171]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0190]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0190 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 14 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Kevin G. Clem

    Mr. Clem, 49, has had retinal detachment in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury that occurred in 1982. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye is 20/600.
Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Kevin
has driven with a commercial driver's license for years and, in my
opinion, his visual and ocular functioning would not restrict his
ability to continue driving commercially.'' Mr. Clem reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 9\1/2\ years, accumulating
665,000 miles. He holds a

Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard A. Hackney

    Mr. Hackney, 36, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, hand motion vision. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Hackney has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hackney reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 15 years, accumulating 30,000 miles. He holds a Class E
operator's license from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Rocky J. Lachney

    Mr. Lachney, 28, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20, and in his
right eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``I certify, in my opinion, he has sufficient vision to safely
drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lachney reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 28,800 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 600 miles. He holds a
Class D chauffeur's license from Louisiana. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Herman Martinez

    Mr. Martinez, 55, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to an injury sustained in 1976. The best corrected visual acuity in
his left eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my opinion, Mr. Martinez has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Martinez reported that he has driven straight trucks for
34 years, accumulating 136,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 21 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Charles L. McClendon

    Mr. McClendon, 48, has a prosthetic left eye, due to injury since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my
professional opinion, Mr. McClendon is visually qualified to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McClendon reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a
Class E operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Gerald L. Pagan

    Mr. Pagan, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/350. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``I, Andrew J. Lovsin, OD, certify that Mr. Jerry Pagan has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Pagan reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 4 years, accumulating 436,800 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows one crash, for which he was not cited and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Danny C. Pope

    Mr. Pope, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``He will be able to drive a commercial vehicle
since he is correctable to 20/20 in his right eye.'' Mr. Pope reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 294,000
miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 31 years, accumulating 2.6
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

David A. Rice

    Mr. Rice, 47, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic injury
sustained in 2000. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/30. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``I
feel he has sufficient vision to perform his commercial vehicle driving
tasks.'' Mr. Rice reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16
years, accumulating 3,200 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 16
years, accumulating 3,200 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Levi A. Shetler

    Mr. Shetler, 38, has had central retinal vein occlusion in his
right eye since 2006. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/400 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011,
his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Shetler does have
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Shetler reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 3\1/2\ years, accumulating 28,000 miles. He holds a Class B
CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rick E. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``Please be advised that I have certified that Rick Smith has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 31 years, accumulating 930,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 31 years, accumulating 930,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Juan E. Sotero

    Mr. Sotero, 47, has had postenor ureal malignant melanoma in his
right eye since 2000. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/300, and in his left eye is 20/25. Following an examination in
2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Sotero has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Sotero reported that he has driven straight trucks for
5.9 years, accumulating 44,250 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Randell K. Tyler

    Mr. Tyler, 40, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to toscoplasmosis since childhood. The visual acuity in his left eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I
feel he has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Tyler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 200,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alabama. His driving record for the last

3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Steven R. Wetlesen

    Mr. Wetlesen, 44, has had retinal detachment in his left eye due to
an injury sustained at age 14. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye light perception only. Following
an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Mr. Wetlesen has
stable visual impairment of the left eye due to trauma. No significant
change in his eye exam is anticipated. Given that he has safely
operated commercial vehicles in the past, I am of the medical opinion
that he is safe to continue operating commercial vehicles.'' Mr.
Wetlesen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years,
accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey K. Yockey

    Mr. Yockey, 51, has had cataract and a retinal scar in his left eye
due to an injury since age 10. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an
examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``I believe that Mr. Yockey
meets the criteria you specify and that he has sufficient vision to
perform the essential tasks of driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Yockey reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 33
years, accumulating 4.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and two
convictions for speeding in a CMV; in the first instance, he exceeded
the speed limit by 11 mph and in the second incidence, he exceeded the
speed limit by 4 mph.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business November 16, 2011. Comments will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: October 6, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-26690 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21611-21614]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77547; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees for Options That Overlie a
Reduced Value of the FTSE 100 Index and the FTSE China 50 Index

April 6, 2016.
    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 March 24, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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 Exchange proposes to establish fees for options that overlie a
reduced value of the FTSE 100 Index and the FTSE China 50 Index. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective March
29, 2016. Specifically, commencing March 29, 2016, the Exchange will
list new options on two FTSE Russell indexes. More specifically, the
Exchange proposes to establish fees for options that overlie a reduced
value of the FTSE 100 Index (``UKXM'') and the China 50 Index
``(FXTM'').
    By way of background, a specific set of proprietary products are
commonly included or excluded from a variety of programs, qualification
calculations and transaction fees. In lieu of listing out these
products in various sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange uses
the term ``Underlying Symbol List A'' to represent these products.
Currently, Underlying Symbol List A is defined in Footnote 34 and
represents the following proprietary products: OEX, XEO, RUT, RLG, RLV,
RUI, SPX (including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VOLATILITY INDEXES and
binary options. The Exchange notes that the reason the products in
Underlying Symbol List A are often collectively included or excluded
from certain programs, qualification calculations and transactions fees
is because the Exchange has expended considerable resources developing
and maintaining its proprietary, exclusively-listed products. Similar
to the products currently represented by ``Underlying Symbol List A,''
UKXM and FXTM are not listed on any other exchange. As such, the
Exchange proposes to exclude or include UKXM and FXTM in the same
programs as the other products in Underlying Symbol List A, as well as
add UKXM and FXTM to the definition of Underlying Symbol List A in
Footnote 34. Specifically, like the other products in Underlying Symbol
List A, the Exchange proposes to except UKXM and FXTM from the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the Volume Incentive Program (VIP),
the Marketing Fee, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap (``Fee
Cap'') and [sic] exemption from fees for facilitation orders, and the
Order Router Subsidy (ORS) and Complex Order Router Subsidy (CORS)
Programs. Like all other products in Underlying Symbol List A (with the
exception of SROs), the Exchange proposes to apply to UKXM and FXTM

the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. The Exchange does intend
to keep UKXM and FXTM volume in the calculation of qualifying volume
for the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees. The Exchange notes
that although UKXM and FXTM are being added to ``Underlying Symbol List
A'', it wishes to include UKXM and FXTM in the calculation of the
qualifying volume for the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees.
The Exchange wishes to continue to encourage Floor Brokers to execute
open-outcry trades in these classes and believes that including them in
the qualifying volume will provide such incentive.
    The Exchange next proposes to establish transaction fees for UKXM
and FXTM. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to assess the same fees
for UKXM and FXTM as apply to RUT, RUI, RLV and RLG options.
Transaction fees for UKXM and FXTM options will be as follows (all
listed rates are per contract):

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer................................................           $0.18
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary..............            0.25
CBOE Market-Maker/DPM...................................            0.20
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit                0.65
 Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary
 Professional (non-AIM Electronic)......................
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit                0.25
 Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary
 Professional (Manual and AIM)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to apply to UKXM and FXTM, like RUI,
RLV, and RLG, and RUT, the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract
($0.02 per contract for crossed orders). The Exchange also proposes to
apply to UKXM and FXTM the CFLEX Surcharge Fee of $0.10 per contract
for all UKXM and FXTM orders executed electronically on CFLEX, capped
at $250 per trade (i.e., first 2,500 contracts per trade). The CFLEX
Surcharge Fee assists the Exchange in recouping the cost of developing
and maintaining the CFLEX system. The Exchange notes that the CFLEX
Surcharge Fee (and $250 cap) also applies to other proprietary index
options, including products in Underlying Symbol List A.
    The Exchange currently assesses an Index License Surcharge for RUT
of $0.45 per contract for all non-customer orders. Because the fees
associated with the license for UKXM and FXTM are lower than the
license fees for RUT, the Exchange proposes to assess a Surcharge of
$0.10 per contract in order to recoup the costs associated with the
UKXM and FXTM license.
    In order to promote and encourage trading of UKXM and FXTM, the
Exchange proposes to waive all transaction fees (including the Floor
Brokerage Fee, Index License Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee) for
UKXM and FXTM transactions through September 30, 2016. In order to
promote and encourage trading of RUI, RLV and RLG, the Exchange also
proposes to extend the waiver of transaction fees (including the Floor
Brokerage Fee, Index License Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee) for
RUI, RLV and RLG. The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 40 to the
Fees Schedule to make clear that transaction fees for RUI, RLV, RLG,
UKXM and FXTM will be waived through September 30, 2016.
    The Exchange is also offering a compensation plan to the Designated
Primary Market-Maker(s) (``DPM(s)'') appointed in FXTM or UKXM to
offset the initial DPM costs. The Exchange proposes to add Footnote 43
to the Fees Schedule that provides that DPM(s) appointed for an entire
month in either FXTM or UKXM will receive a payment of $5,000 per class
per month through December 31, 2016. Because FXTM and UKXM are
scheduled to be listed on March 29, 2016, the appointed DPM(s) will not
have an appointment in FXTM or UKXM for the entire month of March;
thus, the DPM(s) will not receive compensation for March 2016. The
DPM(s) appointed for the entire month of April, May, etc. will receive
compensation of $5,000 for each entire month the DPM is appointed in
FXTM or UKXM through December 31, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge
different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed
because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation
that exists today for other index products, including RUT, RUI, RLV,
and RLG. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee amounts for
UKXM and FXTM orders are reasonable because the proposed fee amounts
are the same already assessed for similar products (e.g., RUT, RUI,
RLV, and RLG), as well as are within the range of amounts assessed for
the Exchange's other proprietary products.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index Options
Rate Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to other
market participants because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on
the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The fees offered to customers are
intended to attract more customer trading volume to the Exchange.
Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing
preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees
Schedule currently does so in many places, as do

the fees structures of many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts
listed as applying to Customers will be applied equally to all
Customers (meaning that all Customers will be assessed the same
amount).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to, [sic] assess lower fees to Market-Makers as compared
to other market participants other than Customers because Market-
Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of
obligations, including quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not have. Further, these lower fees offered to Market-
Makers are intended to incent Market-Makers to quote and trade more on
the Exchange, thereby providing more trading opportunities for all
market participants. Additionally, the proposed fee for Market-Makers
will be applied equally to all Market-Makers (meaning that all Market-
Makers will be assessed the same amount). This concept also applies to
orders from all other origins. It should also be noted that all fee
amounts described herein are intended to attract greater order flow to
the Exchange in UKXM and FXTM which should therefore serve to benefit
all Exchange market participants. Similarly, it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary orders than those of other market participants
(except Customers and Market-Makers) because Clearing Trading Permit
Holders also have a number of obligations (such as membership with the
Options Clearing Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and
financial obligations, that other market participants do not need to
take on. The Exchange also notes that the UKXM and FXTM fee amounts for
each separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to
all such market participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be
assessed the same amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed
the same amount, etc.).
    The Exchange believes the proposed AIM transaction fees for Brokers
Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and Customers are reasonable because the
amounts are still lower than assessed for AIM transactions in other
proprietary products.\7\ The Exchange believes it's equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees for AIM executions as
compared to electronic executions because AIM is a price-improvement
mechanism, which the Exchange wishes to encourage and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract for non-
crossed orders and $0.02 per contract for crossed orders to Floor
Brokers (and not other market participants) trading UKXM and FXTM
orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because only Floor
Brokers are statutorily capable of representing orders in the trading
crowd, for which they charge a commission. Moreover, this fee is
already assessed, in the same amounts, to the other products in
Underlying Symbol List A, including RUT, RUI, RLV, and RLG.
    The Exchange believes that assessing an Index License Surcharge Fee
of $0.10 per contract to UKXM and FXTM transactions is reasonable
because the Surcharge helps recoup some of the costs associated with
the license for UKXM and FXTM options. Additionally, the Exchange notes
that the Surcharge amount is the same as, and in some cases lower than,
the amount assessed as an Index License Surcharge to other index
products. The proposed Surcharge is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the amount will be assessed to all market
participants to whom the Surcharge applies. Not applying the UKXM and
FXTM Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to attract
Customer UKXM and FXTM orders, which increases liquidity and provides
greater trading opportunities to all market participants. Additionally,
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a lower
License Index Surcharge amount to UKXM and FXTM transactions as
compared to RUT transactions because the costs of the license
associated with RUT is greater.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes assessing a CFLEX Surcharge Fee of
$0.10 per contract for all UKXM and FXTM orders executed electronically
on CFLEX and capping it at $250 (i.e., first 2,500 contracts per trade)
is reasonable because it is the same amount currently charged to other
proprietary index products for the same transactions.\8\ The proposed
Surcharge is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
amount will be assessed to all market participants to whom the CFLEX
Surcharge applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Index Options Rate Table--All Index
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CFLEX Surcharge Fee and
Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol
List A, CFLEX Surcharge Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excepting UKXM and FXTM from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale,
VIP, the Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, and [sic] the exemption from fees
for facilitation orders and the ORS and CORS Programs is reasonable
because other Underlying Symbol List A products (i.e., other products
that are exclusively-listed) are excepted from those same items. This
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it
seems equitable to except UKXM and FXTM from items on the Fees Schedule
from which other proprietary products are also excepted.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to waive all transaction fees, including the Floor
Brokerage fee, the License Index Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee
because it promotes and encourages trading of these new products and
applies to all Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'').
    Applying to UKXM and FXTM to the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale is reasonable because it also applies to other Underlying Symbol
List A products. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for
the same reason; it seems equitable to apply to UKXM and FXTM the same
items on the Fees Schedule that apply to Underlying Symbol List A
options classes (i.e., proprietary options classes that are not listed
on other exchanges).
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to continue to include UKXM and FXTM in the calculation
of the qualifying volume for the Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees
rebate because the Exchange wishes to support and encourage open-outcry
trading of UKXM and FXTM, which allows for price improvement and has a
number of positive impacts on the market system.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to compensate DPM(s) that are appointed for an
entire month in either FXTM or UKXM. DPM(s) incur costs when receiving
an appointment, and in the case of FXTM and UKXM, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to provide compensation to the DPM(s) to offset those
costs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees
are

assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these
different market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market-Makers have
quoting obligations that other market participants do not have. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to waive all
transaction fees through September 30, 2016 will impose any burden on
intramarket competition because it applies to all TPHs and encourages
trading in these new products.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because UKXM and
FXTM will be exclusively listed on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-021 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-021. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-021 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08306 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58529-58530]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-541-000]

Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 4, 2013, Floridian Natural Gas
Storage Company, LLC (Floridian Gas Storage), 1000 Louisiana Street,
Suite 4361, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP13-541-000 an
application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part
157 of the Commission's regulations, seeking to amend its certificate
of public convenience and authorizing the construction and operation of
the Floridian Natural Gas Storage Project (Floridian Gas Storage
Project) that the Commission granted in Docket No. CP08-13-000, amended
in Docket No. CP12-100-000 and extended in Docket No. CP08-13-000.
Floridian Gas Storage seeks authorization to modify part of its Phase 1
facilities by changing one 4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) full containment
tank to a 1 Bcf single containment tank and reducing the associated
vaporization capacity, from the original 400 million cubic feet per day
(MMcf/d) per day to 100 MMcf/d, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. Copies of this filing are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Joan
Darby by mail at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
    Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state
agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and
the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90
days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: October 8, 2013.

    Dated: September 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23129 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

July 6, 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Environmental Fate Assessment of Alkylbenzene Sulfonates for
the Registration Eligibility Document (RED).

TO:	Heather Garvie, Chemical Review Manager, Reregistration Team 36

	Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

		And

Deborah Smegal, Risk Assessor

Reregistration Branch I

Health Effects Division (7509C)

FROM:	Talia Milano, Chemist, Team II

	Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

THRU:	Norm Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

DP Barcode:  323968

Case No.: 4006

Chemical Names (CAS #)1:

              Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (#25155-30-0),
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl

              derivatives (#68584-22-5), and Dodecylbenzene sulfonic
acid (#27176-87-0)

1: The CAS #  listed reflect the current numbering system. However,
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid is not a pure chemical, and is considered
part of the mixture of benzenesulfonic acid.  A discussion of this
discrepancy can be found in the text and in the Preliminary Risk
Assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ASSESSMENT OF

ALKYYLBENZENE SULFONATES

CASE 4006

PC CODE: 190116

7/6/06

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
………………………...…………………………………..
………..…4

.

1.0
INTRODUCTION……………………...……………………………
………………....……….5

	1.1
Purpose………………………...……………………………
………………....………....5

	1.2 Chemical
Identification…………………………...……………………
……..………….5

2.0 USE
INFORMATION……………………...……………………………
…………..……..…..6

	2.1 Formulation Type and Percent Active
Ingredient…..........................................................6

	2.2 Summary of Use Patterns and
Formulations………………………....…....….…...……..6

3.0 MODEL RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . .
………………………………………………….…………..
7

	3.1 EPI Suite Output for sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate…………...……………………7

	3.2 EPI Suite Output for
DDBSA…………………………...……………………………
….8

4.0 ADDITIONAL DATA FROM LITERATURE
SEARCH........……………......…….…..….9

	4.1 Sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate………………………...……...…………....……
….10

	4.2
DDBSA………………………...………………………………
……………..…….......10

5.0
CONCLUSION……………………………..………………………
……………………….....11

6.0
REFERENCES………………………………..……………………
………………….....……12EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is the Environmental Fate Assessment Chapter of the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) for the alkylbenzene
sulfonates.  The currently listed active ingredients that are included
under this decision are sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (CAS #
25155-30-0), dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (CAS # 27176-87-0), and
benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives (CAS # 68584-22-5).  To
date, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid has been listed separately from
benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives, and identified by the
CAS #27176-87-0 on numerous labels and in different databases.

The environmental fate properties of dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid are
assumed to be represented by the conclusions made pertaining to
benzenesulfonic acid, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives.  This is because
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid is not considered to be a pure compound,
and is actually included in the mixture of benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16
alkyl derivatives.  These two compounds will be addressed as a group,
DDBSA, throughout the document.  This issue of dodecylbenzene sulfonic
acid being a subsidiary of benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16 alkyl
derivatives is discussed in more detail in the Preliminary Risk
Assessment.

The conclusions presented in this environmental fate chapter are based
on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s)
Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite and a literature search.  EPI
Suite provides estimations of physical/chemical properties as well as
environmental fate properties.

Based on the output of the model, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is
highly unlikely to bioaccumulate in the environment or aquatic organisms
(i.e. fish) because the low value for the log Kow (1.96).  This also
supports that the chemical is soluble in water such that it will exhibit
mobility through the soil.  In addition, the low log Koc (4.22) further
supports the expected soil mobility.  The model-calculated linear and
non-linear biodegradation probabilities suggest that the linear carbon
chain will biodegrade rapidly, whereas the benzene ring is not expected
to biodegrade as rapidly.  The extremely low vapor pressure along with
the short half life of approximately 7.9 hours indicates that if this
chemical is present in the soil, it is not likely to be volatile and is
expected to degrade rapidly.

Based on the output of the model, DDBSA is expected to behave very
similarly as what is projected for sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
Based on the low Kow value (3.80), DDBSA is highly unlikely to
bioaccumulate in the environment or aquatic organisms (i.e. fish).  The
chemical is also expected to be soluble in water such that it will
exhibit mobility through the soil.  In addition, the log Koc (3.69) is
low, and this further supports the expected soil mobility.  The
model-calculated linear and non-linear biodegradation probabilities
suggest that the chemical will most likely biodegrade rapidly.  The
extremely low vapor pressure along with the short half life of
approximately 9.48 hours indicates that this chemical is not likely to
be volatile and is likely to degrade rapidly in soils.

The output parameters from the EPI Suite model support that potential
impacts for both of these chemicals are expected to be very short-lived.
 This is because they are not likely to persist in water or microbial
soils and sediments.  As a result, the environmental fate of
alkylbenzene sulfonates is not likely to be of a concern.

1.0	 INTRODUCTION tc \l1 "1.0	 INTRODUCTION

		1.1	Purpose  tc \l2 "1.1	Purpose

	In this document, the Agency presents the results of its review of the
potential environmental fate of the alkylbenzene sulfonates, and this
information is for use in EPA's development of the Alkylbenzene
Sulfonates Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED).

	The types of studies indicated by the, “Pesticide Assessment
Guidelines, Subdivision N,” as being useful for performing
environmental fate assessments are degradation studies, metabolism
studies, mobility studies, dissipation studies, and accumulation
studies. After a search through the USEPA’s archives, there are a
handful of studies that discuss the environmental behavior of the
chemicals addressed in this chapter, however there are no current data
evaluation reports (DER’s) for the corresponding studies.  This
absence of documentation is supported by the following memorandum in
USEPA’s files:

Memo dated March 2, 1993 (DP Barcodes D185513 and D185394), with the
subject: “Phase IV – List D Chemicals; Registration Case #4006,”
indicates that, “environmental fate assessments can be generated from
data available in-house and from information published in the open
chemical literature.”  In addition to this statement, the memo
provides a list of the different criteria that need to be met to fulfill
the environmental fate requirements.  On the list, it is indicated that
each criteria has been either satisfied or waived for both sodium
dodecylbenzene sulfonate (CAS # 25155-30-0) and dodecylbenzene sulfonic
acid (CAS # 68584-22-5).

	In addition to the supporting memorandum, the EPI Suite model was run
to collect the different environmental properties of the chemicals
addressed in this case.  These values are provided in Section 3.0,
“Model Results.”  The Agency conducted a literature search to
further support the output parameters that were provided by the EPI
Suite model.  The results of the literature search are presented in
Section 4.0, “Additional Data From Literature Search.”

	Minimal or no environmental exposure is expected to occur from the
majority of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate uses and it is unlikely that
any appreciable exposure to terrestrial or aquatic organisms would occur
from limited commercial down-the-drain use because of the very small
number of pounds sold for these uses (CBI data).  It is conclusive from
the chemical properties of the alkylbenzene sulfonates and the published
literature that there are most likely no environmental impacts to be
concerned with at this time.

		1.2 Chemical Identification:

	Three chemicals are considered in this document: sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate, benzene sulfonic acid, C10-16 alkyl derivatives, and
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid.  It is important to reiterate that even
though benzene sulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivatives and
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid are listed as separate active ingredients
when denoted on labels, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid is assumed to
exhibit the same environmental effects as the benzene sulfonic acid,
C10-16-alkyl derivatives.  Additionally, these two chemicals will be
jointly referred to as DDBSA throughout the document and conclusions
will be made based on the properties affiliated with benzene sulfonic
acid, C10-16-alkyl derivatives. Table 1 shows chemical information that
was used for sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and DDBSA.  This data in
Table 1 was extracted from the Product Chemistry Science Chapter that
has been developed for the alkylbenzene sulfonate RED.

Table 1.  Chemical Identification Information Alkylbenzene Sulfonatesa

	Sodium Dodecylbenzene Sulfonate	Benzene Sulfonic Acid, C10-16-alkyl
derivatives (DDBSA)

CAS Number	25155-30-0	68584-22-5

Molecular Formula	C18H29O3NaS	C18H30O3S

a:  Refer to the product chemistry chapter for a full list of the
different chemical and physical properties of each of these compounds.

2.0	 USE INFORMATION tc \l1 "2.0	 USE INFORMATION

		2.1	 Formulation Types and Percent Active Ingredient tc \l2 "2.1
Formulation Types and Percent Active Ingredient

		The products containing alkylbenzene sulfonates as the active
ingredients (a.i.) are formulated as soluble concentrates, flowable
concentrates, ready-to-use solutions, and water soluble packaging.
Concentrations of alkylbenzene sulfonates in these products range from
0.036% to 25.6%.  In the past registrations, there was a use for acid
mine treatments that involved sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.  The
labels that have these uses have been voluntarily cancelled by the
registrant.  As a result, there are no terrestrial uses of this chemical
to be concerned with for this RED.

		2.2	 Summary of Use Patterns and Formulations tc \l2 "2.2	 Summary of
Use Pattern and Formulations

The Agency determines potential exposures to the product by identifying
exposure scenarios from the various application methods that are
plausible, given the label uses. Based on a review of registered product
labels, the use categories for alkylbenzene sulfonates include
agricultural premises and equipment, food handling/storage establishment
premises and equipment, and commercial /institutional and industrial
premises and equipment (Use Site Categories I, II, and III
respectively).  Examples of registered uses for alkylbenzene sulfonates
include, but are not limited to: application to indoor hard surfaces
(e.g. urinals, shower stalls, toilet bowls, etc.), food dispensing
equipment (e.g. pre-mix and post-mix vending machines), food contact
surfaces (glasses, dishes, silverware, countertops, etc.), agricultural
tools, and fruits and vegetables (post-harvest).  The percentage of
alkylbenzene sulfonates in various products can range from 0.036% to
25.6%.  Products containing alkylbenzene sulfonates are formulated as
soluble concentrates, flowable concentrates, ready-to-use solutions, or
water soluble packaging.   All of the scenarios are highly unlikely to
produce environmental fate concerns.

MODEL RESULTS

	EPI Suite contains ten models, not all of which were executed for this
chapter.  EPIWIN, Estimations Programs Interface for Windows, is an
interface program that transfers a single SMILES notation to eleven
separate structure estimation programs.  These programs are useful
because they provide chemical properties so that different estimations
can be made about the behavior and properties of the particular chemical
being discussed.  The programs that provided output applicable to this
chapter are:

AOPWIN: This estimates the rate constant for the atmospheric gas-phase
reaction between photochemically reduced hydroxyl radicals and organic
chemicals.  It then uses the calculated rates to estimate the half-lives
for organic compounds based upon average atmospheric concentrations of
hydroxyl radicals and ozone.

BIOWIN: Estimates the probability for the rapid aerobic biodegradation
of an organic chemical in the presence of mixed populations of
environmental microorganisms.  Estimates are based upon fragment
constants that were developed using multiple linear and non-linear
regression analyses.

HENRYWIN: Estimates Henry’s law constant.

KOWWIN: Estimates the octanol-water partition coefficient

MPBPWIN: estimates the melting point, boiling point, and vapor pressure

PCKOCWIN: Estimates the soil sorption coefficient, KOC of organic
compounds.  The output can be defined as the ratio of the amount of
chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon (oc) in the soil or
sediment to the concentration of the chemical in solution at
equilibrium.  The coefficient provides an indication of the extent to
which a chemical partitions between solid and solution phases in soil,
or between water and sediment in aquatic ecosystems.

WSKOWWIN: Estimates the water solubility from the log octanol-water
partition coefficient.

The following sections, 3.1 and 3.2 respectively, provide the chemical
specific conclusions that are based on model output.

	3.1 EPI Suite Output for sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (CAS #
25155-30-0)

log Kow: 1.96

Koc: 1.683 E +004 (log Koc: 4.22)

MP: 287.6OC

BP: 660 OC

VP: 6.02 E-015 mm Hg

Water solubility: 800 mg/L

Henry’s Law Constant: 6.02 E-017 atm-m3/mol

Linear biodegradation probability: 0.5314

Non-linear biodegradation probability: 0.4415

Half life: 7.9 hrs (in the air or atmosphere)

	Based on the output of the model, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is
highly unlikely to bioaccumulate in the environment or aquatic organisms
(i.e. fish) because of the low Kow value.  This suggests that the
chemical is soluble in water such that it will exhibit mobility through
the soil.  “In general, the higher its octanol-water partition
coefficient Kow, the more likely a chemical is to be bound to organic
matter in soils and sediments…Thus, it is chemicals with log Kow
values in the 4-7 range that bioconcentrate to the greatest degree”
(Barid 303).  In addition, the log Koc is low, and this further supports
that dodecylbenzene sulfonate will most likely exhibit soil mobility.
This is because it is not expected to immediately bind to the soil
sediments.

	The model-calculated linear and non-linear biodegradation probabilities
provide information about the rate of the degradation of the
constituents of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate in the environment.  For
numerical comparisons, the BIOWIN model indicates that numbers greater
than or equal to 0.5 indicate rapid biodegradation and numbers less than
0.5 do NOT biodegrade quickly.  For the sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate,
it is expected that the linear carbon chain will biodegrade rapidly,
whereas the benzene ring is not expected to biodegrade as rapidly.  The
same model also provides an estimation of the behavior of the chemical
in the aquatic environment as well as ultimate biodegradation
(mineralization).  It is estimated that the chemical will biodegrade
linearly within days in the aquatic environment, whereas ultimate
biodegradation is estimated to take place over the course of weeks.

	The extremely low vapor pressure along with the short half life of
approximately 8 hours indicates that this chemical is not likely to be
volatile, and is likely to degrade rapidly by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals in air.  The short half-life
supports that any potential impacts of the chemical may be very
short-lived because the chemical is not likely to persist in water or
microbial soils and sediments.

	As an aside, insignificant exposure to sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate,
also commonly refeered to as LAS, in the environment is expected for the
following reasons: 1.) total LAS usage for these industrial applications
is very minor - a very small percentage of the total pounds used in
antimicrobials (CBI data); and commercial only use precludes broad
environmental exposures that might occur with residential use, 2.)  LAS
breakdown and degradation in the environment is very rapid, 3.) LAS is
significantly reduced by sewage treatment.   Industrial water treatment
requires a NPDES permit in order to discharge effluents.

	3.2  EPI Suite Output for DDBSA  (CAS # 68584-22-5)

log Kow: 3.80

Koc: 4.95 E+003 (log Koc: 3.69)

MP: 167.7OC

BP: 437OC

VP: 5.1 E-010 mm Hg

Water solubility: 400g/L (@250C)

Henry’s Law Constant: 2.8 E-011 atm-m3/mol

Linear biodegradation probability: 0.5448

Non-linear biodegradation probability: 0.5407

Half life: 9.48 hrs (in the air or atmosphere)

	Based on the output of the model, DDBSA is highly unlikely to
bioaccumulate in the environment or aquatic organisms (i.e. fish)
because of the low log Kow value.  This value suggests that the chemical
is soluble in water such that it will exhibit mobility through the soil.
 Again, the Kow value is low such that the chemical will be highly
unlikely to bioconcentrate and is in other words, mobile (Barid 303).
In addition, the log Koc is low, and this further supports that
dodecylbenzene sulfonate will most likely exhibit soil mobility.  This
is because it is not expected to immediately bind to the soil sediments.

	The model-calculated linear and non-linear biodegradation probabilities
provide information about the rate of the degradation of the
constituents DDBSA in the environment.  For numerical comparisons, the
BIOWIN model indicates that numbers greater than or equal to 0.5
indicate rapid biodegradation and numbers less than 0.5 do NOT
biodegrade quickly.  For the DDBSA, it is expected that overall molecule
will most likely biodegrade rapidly.  The same model also provides an
estimation of the behavior of the chemical in the aquatic environment as
well as ultimate biodegradation (mineralization).  It is estimated that
the chemical will behave similarly to LAS and biodegrade linearly within
days in the aquatic environment, and ultimate biodegradation is
estimated to take place over the course of weeks.

	The extremely low vapor pressure along with the short half life of
approximately 9 hours indicates that this chemical is not likely to be
volatile and is likely to degrade rapidly by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals in air.  In addition, the
short half-life supports that any potential impacts may be very
short-lived because the chemical is not likely to persist in water and
microbial soils and sediments.

 4.0 ADDITIONAL DATA FROM LITERATURE SERACH

	There are minimal studies in house that provide environmental fate data
for the two CAS numbers affiliated with this RED.  A literature search
was conducted for different published articles that could be used as
resources for providing information on the chemical behavior of the
alkylbenzene sulfonates in the environment.  There was a sufficient
amount of information available for LAS, but not on DDBSA.  Section 4.1
provides a summary of the different published literature that discusses
the environmental behavior of LAS.  This literature search serves to
supplement the conclusions derived from the EPI Suite model output
(Section 3.0).  Section 4.2 discusses the conclusions for DDBSA.  The
excerpts also serve as a foundation for the conclusion that the
environmental fate of alkylbenzene sulfonates is not likely to be of a
concern.

	4.1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (CAS # 25155-30-0)

	Several excerpts are included for a discussion of this chemical to
provide a well rounded understanding of its behavior in the environment.
The location of the full text of where these excerpts were obtained from
is fully referenced in the bibliography.

“LAS biodegrades easily and loses its tensioactive properties quickly,
as many works of literature testify” (Cavalli 1993).

“Throughout their passage into the environment, LAS are removed by a
combination of adsorption and primary and ultimate bio-degradation.  LAS
are adsorbed onto colloidal surfaces and onto suspended particles…they
biodegrade in surface water (half-life 1-2 days), aerobic sediments (1-3
days), and marine and estuarine systems (5-10 days) (WHO 1996).

“For anionic surfactants in general, the most important compartments
[where LAS can be found in the environment] are sewage water treatment
plants, surface waters, sediment- and sludge-amended soils, and
estuarine and marine environments.  Both biodegradation (primary and
ultimate) and adsorption occur, resulting in decreased environmental
concentrations and bioavailability.  Reduction in chain length and loss
of the parent structure both result in compounds that are less toxic
than the parent compound.  It is important that these considerations be
taken into account when the results of laboratory tests are compared
with potential effects on the environment” (WHO 1996).

“The sorption of LAS to soil is a combination of several mechanisms
and sorption to both the organic and inorganic fraction of the soil has
been demonstrated.  The linear alkyl group of LAS is hydrophobic and
sorbs to the non-polar fractions of the soil, such as the organic
matter.  However, the sulfonate group of LAS is negatively charged and
hydrophilic and therefore interacts with positively charged soil
components or polar groups, such as hydroxyl-groups, minerals, or
oxides” (Jacobsen 2004).

“Environmental degradation of LAS homologs in aquatic systems is
rapid; the measured half-life in river waters is <2 d[ays].  Degradation
processes rapidly reduce chain lengths of LAS in the environment to
averages lower than C12,” and in addition to this research finding,
“[t]oxicity generally decreases with decreasing chain length”
(Fairchild 1993).  This supports that this chemical has an extremely
short-lived presence in the environment, and its degradates are less
toxic than the parent compound.

In a published review by Kuhnt (1993), a flow chart is provided to
depict the behavior of surfactant in soils.  It is conclusive from the
flow chart that surfactants that exhibit either low or no adsorption can
exhibit enhanced mobility and degradability, which result in low
persistence in the environment.

	4.2 DDBSA  (CAS # 68584-22-5)

	There is a deficiency in the availability of literature on DDBSA. The
major difference between LAS and DDBSA are the ions on the sulfonate
groups which are sodium versus hydrogen respectively.  It is important
to also acknowledge that, “[t]he commercial mixture of LAS is composed
of a range of homologs with alkyl chain lengths ranging from 10 to 15
carbon units and isomers that vary in phenol position” (Fairchild
1763).  This supports that LAS is very similar to DDBSA in terms of the
length of the carbon chain, and the empirical formulas provided in Table
1, Chemical Identification Information for Alkylbenzene Sulfonates
further support this.

5.0 CONCLUSION

As a result of the structural observations and comparisons between LAS
and DDBSA along with the similar properties provided by EPI Suite, the
literature data that is available for LAS is assumed to be
representative of DDBSA.   In conclusion, the potential effects of both
LAS and DDBSA in the environment are not likely to be of a concern.

6.0 REFERENCES

Barid, Colin.  Environmental Chemistry, 2nd Edition.  W.H. Freeman and
Company: New York, 2003.

Cavalli, L., et. al. (1993). “LAS Removal and Biodegradation in a
Wastewater Treatment Plant.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Vol. 12. pp 1777-1788.

Fairchild, James F, et. al. (1993).  “Evaluation of a
Laboratory-Generated OEC For Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate in Outdoor
Experimental Streams.”  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol.
12. pp 1763-1776.

“International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health
Criteria 169, Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonates and Related Compounds.”
World Health Organization. Geneva, 1996   HYPERLINK
"http://inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc169.htm"
http://inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc169.htm .

Jacobsen, Anne Marie, Gerda Krog Mortensen, and Hans Christian Bruun
Hansen. (2004). “Degradation and Mobility of Linear Alkylbenzene
Sulfonate and Nonylphenol in Sludge-Amended Soil.” Journal of
Environmental Quality. Vol 33. pp. 232-240.

Kuhnt, Gerald. (1993).  “Behavior and Fate of Surfactants in Soil.”
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol. 12. pp 1813-1820.

The Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite.  Windows based suite of
physical/chemical properties and environmental estimation models
developed by the US EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) and Syracuse Research Institute (SRC).    HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/EPISuitedl.htm
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/EPISuitedl.htm

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  12


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9296]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 4, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0016.
    Date Filed: January 30, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: February 21, 2012.
    Description: Application of Helicopteros Dominicanos, S.A.
requesting a foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to
engage in (i) charter foreign air transportation of persons and
property between points in the Dominican Republic and points in the
United States and beyond, with or without stopovers, and (ii) Fifth
Freedom charter service pursuant to the prior approval requirements.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0017.
    Date Filed: January 30, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: February 21, 2012.
    Description: Application of Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A.
(``LOT'') requesting an exemption and amended foreign air carrier
permit authorizing LOT to engage in foreign air transportation to the
full extent permitted by the United States-European Union Air Transport
Agreement. More specifically, LOT requests authority to engage in: (a)
Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property,
and mail from any point or points behind any Member State of the
European Union, via any point or points in any Member State and via
intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and
beyond; (b) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property, and mail between any point or points in the United
States and any point or points in any member of the European Common
Aviation Area; (c) other charters pursuant to the prior approval
requirements; and (d) transportation authorized by any additional route
rights made available to European Union carriers in the future.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-3493 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6148-6150]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74170; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule Under Section VIII With Respect To
Execution and Routing of Orders in Securities Priced at $1 or More Per
Share

January 29, 2015.
    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 16, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
under Section VIII, entitled ``NASDAQ OMX PSX FEES,'' with respect to
execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per
share.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the certain
fees and rebates for order execution and routing applicable to the use
of the order execution and routing services of the NASDAQ OMX PSX
System (``PSX'') by member organizations for all securities traded at
$1 or more per share.
    Currently, for non-displayed orders the Exchange assesses a charge
of ``$0.0003 per share executed charge for a midpoint pegged order
(``midpoint order'')''. The Exchange proposes to delete this so that
the charge for orders with midpoint pegging to access liquidity will
revert to the $0.0024 per share executed charge currently assessed on
member organizations that enter orders that execute in PSX.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the $0.0003 per
share executed charge for orders that execute against resting midpoint
liquidity and add a $0.0010 per share credit for orders with midpoint
pegging that provide liquidity.
    The current $0.0005 per share executed credit for other non-
displayed orders that provide liquidity will remain unchanged, but
within the Pricing Schedule it will follow the charge listed in the
paragraph immediately above for purposes of clarity. This makes it
clear that the word ``other'' in ``other non-displayed orders that
provide liquidity'' refers to orders other than ``orders with midpoint
pegging''.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \4\
in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. The proposed changes are reasonable
because they reflect the Exchange's need to adjust its credits and fees
in response to the costs and benefits provided. Credits provided by the
Exchange are given in lieu of assessing normal fees, and accordingly
provide incentives to market participants to enter such orders. The
proposed changes balance the Exchange's desire to provide certain
incentives to market participants with the costs the Exchange incurs in
providing such incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the proposed change with respect to the elimination of the
$0.0003 per share executed charge for a midpoint pegged order is
reasonable because by eliminating the charge within this part of the
Pricing Schedule, the charge will become the already existing current
charge of $0.0024 per share executed assessed on member organizations
that enter orders that execute in PSX, regardless of the listing venue
of the security. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is
consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to all member organizations that
enter orders that execute in PSX, regardless of the listing venue of
the security.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the $0.0003 per share
executed charge for orders that execute against resting midpoint
liquidity is reasonable for the reasons discussed above regarding the
Exchange's need to adjust its credits and fees. The Exchange also
believes that it is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and
is not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that adding a $0.0010 per share credit for
orders with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity is reasonable for
the reasons discussed above regarding the Exchange's need to adjust its
credits and fees. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the $0.0010
per share credit for orders with midpoint pegging will incentivize
market participants to add liquidity using orders with midpoint
pegging. The Exchange also believes that the $0.0010 per share credit
for orders with midpoint pegging is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because it
applies to all market participants that provide liquidity using orders
with midpoint pegging, regardless of the listing venue of the security
of the order.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\5\ The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. In this instance, the changes to the credits
provided and charges assessed are intended to reduce the Exchange's
costs, while still continuing to provide an incentive for members to
execute shares on PSX. Because there are numerous competitive
alternatives to PSX, it is likely the Exchange will lose market share
as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to market
participants. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\6\ the Exchange has
designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-Phlx-2015-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-Phlx-2015-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02105 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28929-28930]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Small Unmanned
Aircraft Registration System (sUAS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. Aircraft registration is necessary to ensure personal
accountability among all users of the national airspace system.
Aircraft registration also allows the FAA and law enforcement agencies
to address non-compliance by providing the means by which to identify
an aircraft's owner and operator.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0765.

    Title: Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration System (sUAS).
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10702). There were no comments.
The Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently
affirmed that all unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, are
aircraft. As such, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44101(a) and as further
prescribed in 14 CFR part 47, registration is required prior to
operation. See 80 FR 63912, 63913 (October 22, 2015). Aircraft
registration is necessary to ensure personal accountability among all
users of the national airspace system. See id. Aircraft registration
also allows the FAA and law enforcement agencies to address non-
compliance by providing the means by which to identify an aircraft's
owner and operator.
    Respondents: Approximately 1.9 million registrants annually.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4.25 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 141,158 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy &
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-10978 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P