[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56618-56620]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0274]
RIN 2126-AB62

Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits rules to
update the current incorporation by reference of the ``North American
Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and
Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting
Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive
Materials as defined in 49 CFR Part 173.403.'' The rules currently
reference the April 1, 2012, edition of the out-of-service criteria and
through this final rule, FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2013, edition.

DATES: Effective September 13, 2013. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of September 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Routhier, Mechanical Engineer,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Policy, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202)
366-1225 or via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
If you have questions on viewing the docket, contact Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to improve the
safety of hazardous materials transported in interstate commerce.
Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(e), relating to
inspections of motor vehicles carrying hazardous material and 49 U.S.C.
5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, it has required the
Secretary of the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations
as part of a comprehensive safety program on hazardous material safety
permits. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87 to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the Secretary
of Transportation. Subsequently, FMCSA has promulgated regulations to
address the Congressional mandate. Such regulations on hazardous
materials are the underlying provisions that have utilized material
incorporated by reference discussed in this notice.
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) specifically
provides that adherence to its notice and public comment rulemaking
procedures are not required where the Agency finds there is good cause
(and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons to
support the finding in the rules issued) to dispense with such
procedures. Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines
that notice and public comment procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Ibid. This document
updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and
referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). The revision does not impose new
requirements or substantively change the Code of Federal Regulations.
For these reasons, the FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public
comment procedures are unnecessary.

II. Background

    Currently, 49 CFR 385.415 prescribes operational requirements for
motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a hazardous
materials safety permit is required. Section 385.415(b)(1) requires
that motor carriers must ensure a pre-trip inspection be performed on
each motor vehicle to be used to transport a highway route controlled
quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the
requirements of the ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria
and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for
Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route
Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR
Parts 173.403.'' With regard to the specific edition of the out-of-
service criteria, 49 CFR 385.4, as amended on October 1, 2012 (77 FR
59818) references the April 1, 2012, edition. Today's final rule amends
Sec.  385.4 by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2012 edition
date with the new edition date of April 1, 2013.
    FMCSA reviewed the April 1, 2013, edition and determined there are
no substantive changes that would result in motor carriers being
subjected to a new standard. Because the CVSA discontinued the printing
and

distribution of the 2012 edition, it is necessary to update the
reference to ensure that motor carriers and enforcement officials have
convenient access to the inspection criteria that are referenced in the
rules.

III. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by
E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011), or within the meaning of the
DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 1103, February 26, 1979).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not review this document.
FMCSA expects the final rule will have no costs; therefore, a full
regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not
required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5
U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because the agency has not issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA has
determined that it has good cause to adopt the rule without notice and
comment.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects
on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mr.
Brian Routhier, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the SBA's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-
734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to
regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against
retaliation for exercising these rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
E.O. 13132 if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on State or local governments. FMCSA analyzed
this action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. This final rule
does not preempt or modify any provision of State law, impose
substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any State, or
diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly,
this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications warranting the
application of Executive Order 13132.

E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
rule.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. FMCSA determined that no new information collection
requirements are associated with this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of ascertaining the
applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and our Environmental Procedures Order 5610.1,
issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). This final rule is categorically
excluded from further analysis and documentation under the Categorical
Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6(b) of Appendix 2 of FMCSA Order 5610.1.
This CE addresses minor revisions such as found in this rulemaking;
therefore preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement is not necessary.
    The FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it will have no effect on air emissions.

E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this final rule in
accordance with E.O. 12898 and determined that there are no
environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were a
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations. FMCSA analyzed this action under NEPA and found
the action to be Categorically Excluded from analysis due to the lack
of impact to the environment. This final rule simply updates an
incorporation by reference and would not result in high and adverse
environmental impacts.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that Executive Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, the rule does not require a Statement of Energy
Effects under E.O. 13211.

E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FMCSA determined that
this final rule will not create an environmental risk to health or
safety that may disproportionately affect children.

E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the
Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its
own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate
statement to OMB on this matter.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent
Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-
447, Division H, Title I, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268, Dec. 8, 2004)
requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy
impact assessment of each rule that will affect the privacy of
individuals. Because this final rule will not affect the privacy of
individuals, FMCSA did not conduct a separate privacy impact
assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety,
Incorporation by reference. Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR chapter
III, part 385 as set forth below:

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 13901-
13905, 31133, 31135, 31136, 31137(a), 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec.
113(a), Pub. L. 103-311; Sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88; Sec. 350 of Pub.
L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Revise Sec.  385.4(b)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  385.4  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI
Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial
Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled
Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR Part
173.403,'' April 1, 2013; incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
385.415(b).
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
September 5, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-22160 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 69380]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-389, OMB Control No. 3235-0444]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 10b-10

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 10b-10 (17 CFR
240.10b-10) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 10b-10 requires broker-dealers to convey specified information
to customers regarding their securities transactions. This information
includes the date and time of the transaction, the identity and number
of shares bought or sold, and whether the broker-dealer acts as agent
for the customer or as principal for its own account. Depending on
whether the broker-dealer acts as agent or principal, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of commissions, as well as mark-up and mark-
down information. For transactions in debt securities, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of redemption and yield information. Rule 10b-
10 potentially applies to all of the approximately 3,531 firms
registered with the Commission that effect transactions for or with
customers.
    Based on information provided by registered broker-dealers to the
Commission in FOCUS Reports, the Commission staff estimates that on
average, registered broker-dealers process approximately 27,151,388,510
order tickets per year for transactions for or with customers. Each
order ticket representing a transaction effected for or with a customer
generally results in one confirmation. Therefore, the Commission staff
estimates that approximately 27,151,388,510 confirmations are sent to
customers annually. The confirmations required by Rule 10b-10 are
generally processed through automated systems. It takes approximately
30 seconds to generate and send a confirmation. Accordingly, the
Commission staff estimates that broker-dealers spend approximately
226,261,571 hours per year complying with Rule 10b-10 (27,151,388,510 x
.5 / 60).
    The number of confirmations sent and the cost of sending each
confirmation varies from firm to firm. Smaller firms generally send
fewer confirmations than larger firms because they effect fewer
transactions. The Commission staff estimates the cost of producing and
sending a paper confirmation, including postage, to be approximately 67
cents. The Commission staff also estimates that the cost of producing
and sending a wholly electronic confirmation is approximately 40 cents.
Based on informal discussions with industry participants, as well as
representations made in requests for exemptive and no-action letters
relating to Rule 10b-10, the staff estimates that broker-dealers used
electronic confirmations for approximately 35 percent of transactions.
Based on these calculations, Commission staff estimates that
17,648,402,532 paper confirmations are mailed each year at a cost of
$11,824,429,696. Commission staff also estimates that 9,502,985,979
wholly electronic confirmations are sent each year at a cost of
$3,801,194,392. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that the total
annual cost associated with generating and delivering to investors the
information required under Rule 10b-10 is approximately
$15,625,624,088.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
January 17, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: November 14, 2022.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25095 Filed 11-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68172-68177]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27777]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68194; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary
.05 and .07 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 Regarding Strike Price Intervals for
Classes in the Short Term Option Series Program

November 8, 2012.
    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 October 26, 2012, 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4
to allow the Exchange to provide: (i) That the strike price interval
for classes in the Short Term Option Series (``STOS'') Program that
normally trade in $1 Strike Price Intervals shall be

$0.50 or greater; and for classes in the STOS Program that do not
normally trade in $1 Strike Price Intervals, the strike price interval
shall be $0.50 or greater strike price intervals [sic] where the strike
price is less than $75 and $1.00 or greater strike price intervals
[sic] where the strike price is between $75 and $150; and (ii) that the
strike price intervals for the Related non-STOS options shall be the
same as the strike price intervals for STOS from the Thursday prior to
expiration week of an option class that is selected for the STOS
Program. The Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary .05 and .07 to
provide that strike price intervals for the Related non-STOS options
shall be the same as the strike price intervals for STOS starting the
Thursday prior to the expiration week of an option class that is
selected for the STOS Program. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4
to provide that the Exchange may open for trading Short Term Option
Series (``STOS'') \4\ at $0.50 or greater strike price intervals if the
class normally trades in $1 strike price intervals. If the class
normally trades in a greater interval, the Exchange may open STOS at a
strike price interval of $0.50 where the strike price is less than $75,
$1.00 or greater strike price intervals where the strike price is
between $75 and $150, and strike price intervals the same as strike
prices for series in that same option class that expire in accordance
with the normal monthly expiration cycle [sic]. The Exchange also
proposes that the strike price intervals for the Related non-STOS
options \5\ shall be the same as the strike price intervals for STOS
starting the Thursday prior to the expiration week of an option class
that is selected for the STOS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Short Term Options Series (``STOS'') also known as ``Weekly
options'' or ``weeklies'' trade under the STOS Program. For all
practical purposes, the terms STOS, Weekly options, and weeklies are
interchangeable.
    \5\ As proposed, a non-Short Term Option that is on a class that
has been selected to participate in the Short Term Option Series
Program is referred to as a ``Related non-Short Term Option.'' The
Related non-STOS option will be the same option class as the STOS
option but will have a longer expiration cycle (e.g., a SPY monthly
option as compared to a SPY weekly option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a competitive filing that is based on two recently approved
filings submitted by the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``Phlx'').\6\ The ISE and Phlx
filings both made changes to the strike price interval setting
parameter rules for their respective STOS Programs. Weekly options are
not listed to expire during the same week as non-Weekly options. As a
result, both ISE and Phlx amended their rules to permit non-STOS
options to have the same strike price interval setting parameters for
Weekly options during the week that non-Weekly options expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67754 (August 29,
2012), 77 FR 54629 (September 5, 2012) (order approving SR-ISE-2012-
33) (``ISE filing'') and 67753 (August 29, 2012), 77 FR 54635
(September 5, 2012) (order approving SR-Phlx-2012-78) (``Phlx
filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE and Phlx also both amended the strike price interval setting
parameters for their STOS Programs, but the revisions to their
respective rules differ. Specifically, ISE permits $0.50 strike price
intervals for Weekly options for option classes that trade in one
dollar increments and are in the STOS Program.\7\ Phlx permits $0.50
strike price intervals when the strike price is below $75, and $1
strike price intervals when the strike price is between $75 and $150.
Phlx also provides that related non-Weekly option series may be opened
during the week prior to expiration week pursuant to the same strike
price interval parameters that exist for Weekly options. Thus a related
non-Weekly option may be opened in Weekly option strike price intervals
on a Thursday or a Friday that is a business day before the non-Weekly
option expiration week.\8\ If the Phlx is not open for business on the
respective Thursday or Friday, however, the non-Weekly option may be
opened in Weekly option intervals on the first business day immediately
prior to that respective Thursday or Friday.\9\ Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') highlighted the differences between
the two filings during the notice and comment period and submitted a
comment letter on that subject.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The permissible $0.50 strike price intervals may only be
opened on the Weekly option Opening Date that expire on the Weekly
option Expiration date and no additional series, including
additional series of the related non-Weekly option, may be opened
during expiration week in classes that are listed pursuant to the
newly amended ISE rules.
    \8\ This opening timing is consistent with the principle that
the Exchange may add new series of options until five business days
prior to expiration. See Rules 6.4 and 5.19(c)(2).
    \9\ On the Exchange, the STOS opening process is set forth in
NYSE Arca Rules 6.4, Commentary .07: After an option class has been
approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may
open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day
(``Short Term Option Opening Date'') series of options on that class
that expire on the Friday of the following business week that is a
business day (``Short Term Option Expiration Date''). If the
Exchange is not open for business on the respective Thursday or
Friday, the Short Term Option Opening Date will be the first
business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or
Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on the
Friday of the following business week, the Short Term Option
Expiration Date will be the first business day immediately prior to
that Friday.
    \10\ A copy of CBOE's comment letter may be accessed at: http://sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2012-78/phlx201278-1.pdf. For example, in
the comment letter CBOE noted its belief that the Phlx strike price
interval setting parameters were broader since they applied to all
classes that participate in the STOS Program where the ISE proposal
provided increased granularity only to those classes in which $1
strike price intervals are currently permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt strike price interval setting
parameters that are currently in effect for both ISE and Phlx in order
to remain competitive. The Exchange notes that while it believes that
there is substantial overlap between the two strike price interval
setting parameters, the Exchange believes there are gaps that would
enable Phlx to initiate a series that ISE would not be able to initiate
and vice versa.\11\ Since uniformity is not required for the STOS
Programs that

have been adopted by the various options exchanges, the Exchange
proposes to revise its strike price intervals setting parameters so
that it has the ability to initiate strike prices in the same manner
(i.e., intervals) as both ISE and Phlx. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to adopt aspects of both the ISE rule text language and the
Phlx rule text language that the SEC recently approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange is making a distinction between initiating
series and cloning series. The Exchange and the majority, if not
all, of the other options exchanges that have adopted a STOS Program
have a similar rule that permits the listing of series that are
opened by other exchanges. See Rule 6.4, Commentary 12. This filing
is concerned with the ability to initiate series. For example, if a
class is selected to participate in the STOS Program and non-STOS on
that class do not trade in dollar increments, the Exchange believes
that Phlx would be permitted to initiate $0.50 strikes on that class
and ISE would not. Similarly, the strike price interval for
exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options is generally $1 or greater
where the strike price is $200 or less. If, an ETF class is selected
to participate in the STOS Program, the Exchange believes that ISE
would be permitted to initiate $0.50 strike price intervals where
the strike price is between $151 and $200, but Phlx would not be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STOS Program is codified in Commentary .07 to Exchange Rule
6.4.\12\ The Rule states that after an option class has been approved
for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for
trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of
options on no more than five option classes that expire on the Friday
of the following business week that is a business day. In addition to
the five-option class limitation, there is also a limitation that no
more than twenty series for each expiration date in those classes may
be initially opened for trading.\13\ Furthermore, the strike price of
each STOS has to be fixed with approximately the same number of strike
prices being opened above and below the value of the underlying
security at about the time that the short term options are initially
opened for trading on the Exchange, and with strike prices being within
thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of the underlying
security from the preceding day. The Exchange does not propose any
changes to the current program limitations. The Exchange proposes only
to specify that STOS can have interval prices of $0.50 and $1, as
proposed under Commentary .07 to Exchange Rule 6.4.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the STOS Program
on a pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52013
(July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41471 (July 19, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-32). The
STOS Program was made permanent on June 23, 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62369 (June 23, 2010), 75 FR 37868 (June
30, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-59).
    \13\ However, if the Exchange opens twenty (20) short term
options for a Short Term Option Expiration Date, up to 10 additional
series may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange
deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer
demand or when the market price of the underlying security moves
substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened. Any additional strike prices listed by the Exchange
shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the current
price of the underlying security. The Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of STOS that are more than 30% above or
below the current price of the underlying security provided that
demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as expressed
by institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers
(market-makers trading for their own account shall not be considered
when determining customer interest under this provision).
    \14\ As of August 31, 2012, there are 159 option classes across
all options exchanges that have STOS options expiring on September
7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal reason for the proposed interval pricing structure is
market demand for weekly options. There is continuing strong customer
demand for having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies
effectively via STOS, particularly in the current fast, multi-faceted
trading and investing environment that extends across numerous markets
and platforms.\15\ The Exchange has observed increased demand for STOS
classes and/or series, particularly when market moving events such as
significant market volatility, corporate events, or large market,
sector, or individual issue price swings have occurred. The STOS
Program is one of the most popular and quickly expanding options
expiration programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These include, without limitation, options, equities,
futures, derivatives, indexes, exchange traded funds, exchange
traded notes, currencies, and over-the-counter instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the two years since the application of the STOS Program to
multiply listed issues, it has steadily expanded to the point that as
of August 31, 2012, STOS represent 4.69% of the total options volume on
the Exchange and 12.6% of the total options volume in the United
States.\16\ The STOS volumes become even more significant when the
volumes of an STOS class are compared to the volumes of the Related
non-STOS options class. As an example, through the first eight months
of 2012, on the Exchange there were 2,090,189 contracts of SPY STOS
traded and 34,967,949 contracts of SPY monthly options traded; and
1,047,903 contracts of AAPL STOS traded and 8,818,945 contracts of AAPL
monthly options traded. From the 4th quarter of 2010 to the 4th quarter
of 2011, STOS volume expanded more than 90%,\17\ and the Exchange
believes that STOS volumes will continue to expand in 2012. The
Exchange believes that, as such, while STOS are currently one of most
popular (high volume) expiration lengths of options traded on NYSE Arca
and other options exchanges, STOS will only become more popular as
market participants continue to gain knowledge about more effective
uses of these products for trading and hedging purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that, in fact, the volume increase in
STOs since their inception just over two years ago greatly exceeds
the volume increase of any other length option (e.g., monthly,
quarterly, or long term) over the same equivalent time period.
    \17\ During the same time period, monthly options volume
decreased by 8%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission has approved the use of $0.50 and $1
strike price intervals on the Exchange as well as in the options
industry, particularly at lower price levels (e.g., below $150).
Numerous options products are listed (trade) on the Exchange at $0.50
and $1 strike price intervals. For example, there are two individual
ETF options listed on the Exchange with $0.50 strike price intervals.
There are approximately 50 options listed on the Exchange at $0.50
strike price intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program. There are
820 options listed on the Exchange with $1 strike price intervals.
Moreover, the Commission has recently approved certain products to
trade at $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals on CBOE within exactly the
same strike price points that are proposed by the Exchange in this
filing, namely $75 and $150.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64189 (April 5,
2011), 76 FR 20066 (April 11, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-008) (order
granting approval of $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals for certain
volatility options where the strike prices are less than $75 and
between $75 and $150, respectively). In approving the CBOE proposal,
the Commission stated that the proposal appears to strike a
reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider
array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary
proliferation of options series and the corresponding increase in
quotes and market fragmentation. The Exchange notes that other
options exchanges including NYSE MKT, ISE, NOM, and Phlx, have made
similar rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the benefits of the ability to trade
STOS at $0.50 and $1 intervals at lower price levels cannot be
underestimated. The proposed intervals would clearly allow traders and
investors, and in particular public (retail) investors to more
effectively and with greater precision consummate trading and hedging
strategies on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this precision
is increasingly necessary, and in fact crucial, as traders and
investors engage in trading and hedging strategies across various
investment platforms (e.g., equity and ETF, index, derivatives,
futures, foreign currency, and even commodities products); particularly
when many of these platforms enjoy substantially smaller strike price
differentiations (e.g., as low as $.05).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As an example, per the CME Web site, strike prices for
options on futures may be at an interval of $.05, $.10, and $.25 per
specified parameters. See http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equityindex/files/EQUITY_FLEX_Options.pdf (options on S&P 500 and
NASDAQ-100 contracts) and http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/files/S_5734_x11-0518x_Change_in_Listing_Rules_for_Goldx_Silverx_Copper_Options.pdf (options on metals contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weekly options have characteristics that are attractive for certain
trading and hedging strategies. Thus, weeklies may be attractive for
retail trading strategies that could benefit from the inherent
accelerated time decay of weekly

options, such as selling (buying) vertical or calendar spreads. And
weeklies may be particularly attractive instruments for short-term
institutional hedging needs (e.g., sudden price movements against large
option positions during expiration week; maintenance or adjustment of
complex option positions) as well as for retail hedging needs (e.g.,
preceding large earnings plays). In every case, trading and hedging is
more effective when it can be closely tailored. The current wider STOS
price intervals have negatively impacted investors and traders,
particularly retail public customers, who have on several occasions
requested the Exchange for finer, narrower STOS intervals. The proposal
would fix this.
    The following is an example of how inadequately narrow STOS
intervals negatively impact trading and hedging opportunities. If an
investor needs to purchase an STOS call option in CSCO (03/26/12
closing price $20.84), the current $1 strike interval would offer less
opportunity and choice for an investor seeking to keep cash
expenditures low. For example, an investor wishing to buy an in-the-
money call option for less than a $2.50 investment per call purchase
has only two strike prices that meet his criteria from which to choose:
the 19 strike and the 20 strike. Such call options with five days until
expiration might offer ``ask prices'' (option premiums) of $1.75 and
$.75. However, if CSCO had $0.50 strike prices as proposed, the same
investor would have a selection of March 18.50, 19.00, 19.50, 20.00,
and the 20.50 strike call options that may have options premiums from
approximately $2.25 down to approximately $.25. This expanded range of
strikes, and commensurate option premiums, offers far more choice and a
considerably lower cost of entry to the investor, thereby garnering the
investor more than a 66% options premium savings. Lower intervals
increase effective liquidity by offering investors and traders more
price points at which they may execute trading and hedging
strategies.\20\ This allows investors and traders the ability to more
effectively execute their strategies at lower cost. Clearly, more
efficient pricing is advantageous to all market participants, from
retail to institutional investors. The changes proposed by the Exchange
should allow execution of more trading and hedging strategies on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that in conformance with Exchange Rules,
the Exchange shall not list $0.50 or $1 strike price intervals on
Related non-STOS options within five days of expiration. For example,
if a Related non-STOS in an options class is set to expire on Friday,
September 21, the Exchange could begin to trade $0.50 strike price
intervals surrounding that Related non-STOS on Thursday, September 13,
but no later than Friday September 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Moreover, lower strike intervals provide additional price
points for liquidity providers. This allows the liquidity providers
to improve theoretical pricing as well as hedging capabilities,
thereby enabling them to increase the size and quality of their
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list the expiring Related non-STOS on the
Thursday or Friday prior to expiration week, so that investors can
close a position in an expiring STOS and open a position at the same
strike price in a Related non-STOS. The listing of the $0.50 or $1
strike price intervals for expiring Related non-STOS on the Thursday or
Friday prior to expiration week is intended to be consistent with the
``overlap'' of STOS today, which facilitates investors desire to
``roll'' a position from one STOS expiration to another. If the $0.50
or $1 interval strikes are not available until the opening on Monday of
expiration week, an investor who had a position in the prior week's
$0.50 or $1 interval STOS could not close a position in the expiring
STOS and open a position at the same strike in the Related non-STOS.
    Furthermore, the inadequate price intervals for STOS, particularly
at the lower price levels proposed by the Exchange, may discourage
retail and other customers from executing STOS orders when they could
be the most advantageous for effective execution of trading and hedging
strategies on regulated and transparent exchanges. The Exchange feels
that it is essential that such negative, potentially costly and time-
consuming impacts on retail investors are eliminated by offering
tighter intervals within the STOS Program. The changes proposed by the
Exchange should allow execution of more trading and hedging strategies
on the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition, there is a competitive impact. First, the
proposal would enable the Exchange to provide market participants
with an opportunity to execute their strategies (e.g., complex
option spreads) wholly on their preferred market, namely the
Exchange. Second, the proposal would diminish the potential for
foregone market opportunities on the Exchange caused by the need to
use a more advantageous (that is, interval-precise) platform than
STOs currently allow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with
trading in the Program at $.50 or $1 intervals, as applicable under the
proposal. The Exchange notes that this proposal would not increase the
number of listed STOS, but only the interval between them. The Exchange
believes that its OTP Holders and OTP Firms will not have a capacity
issue as a result of this proposal.
    The Exchange also proposes that Related non-STOS shall be opened on
the Thursday or Friday prior to the expiration week that such Related
non-STOS expire in the same manner as permitted in Rule 6.4, subsection
(a) of Commentary .07, and in the same strike price intervals for the
STOS permitted in this [sic] Rule 6.4, subsection (e) of Commentary
.07. The Exchange proposes to make this change to ensure conformity
between STOS options and Related non-STOS options that are in the same
options class (e.g., weekly and monthly SPY options). The Exchange
believes that not having such a conforming change would be counter-
productive and not beneficial for trading and hedging purposes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Moreover, the Exchange notes that STOS options are not
listed and traded during the expiration week of the Related non-STOS
options. During this week, the non-STOS options are materially and
financially equivalent to the STOS options. The proposed change
would allow traders and hedgers to have the noted benefits of the
STOS Program during each week in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the STOS Program has provided investors
with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to
more closely tailor their investment and risk management strategies and
decisions. Furthermore, the Exchange has had to reject trading requests
because of the limitations imposed by the Program. For these reasons,
the Exchange requests a modification of the strike price intervals in
the Program and the opportunity to provide investors with better weekly
option choices for investment, trading, and risk management purposes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\23\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\24\ in particular, in that
it is 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the

mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing strike prices of $.50 and $1
intervals in STOS eligible classes will result in a continuing benefit
to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their
investment decisions and hedging decisions in a greater number of
securities. The Exchange also believes that providing the same strike
price intervals for options classes that are in the STOS Program and
for the Related non-STOS options just prior to and during expiration
week will provide the investing public and other market participants
with additional opportunities to hedge their investment, thus allowing
these investors to better manage their risk exposure. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposal will ensure conformity between STOS
options and Related non-STOS options that are in the same options
class. The Exchange believes that allowing the listing of expiring
Related non-STOS on the on the Thursday or Friday prior to expiration
week will help facilitate the ability of investors and other market
participants to close a position in an expiring STOS and open a
position at the same strike price in a Related non-STOS is a manner
that is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade.
While the expansion of the STOS Program will generate additional quote
traffic, the Exchange does not believe that this increased traffic will
become unmanageable since the proposal remains limited to a fixed
number of classes.

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 this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to existing ISE and PHLX rules. The
Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among the options exchanges with respect to their short
term options programs.

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 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 if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay period for non-controversial proposed rule changes to allow the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\27\ The Commission
believes it is consistent with the public interest to waive the 30-day
operative delay. The proposed rule change is substantially similar in
all material respects to existing ISE and PHLX rules, which permit the
listing of Short Term Options Series at finer strike price intervals;
the proposal presents no novel issues.\28\ Waiver of the operative
delay will allow the Exchange to expand its STOS Program to the current
parameters of those SROs and compete without undue delay. Therefore,
the Commission grants such waiver and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change along with a brief description and the text
of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission.
    \28\ See ISE Filing and Phlx Filing, supra note 6.
    \29\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-2012-114 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-2012-114. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between 10:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-2012-114 and should be submitted on or before
December 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27777 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:	Scott Evans<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To:	Jim Meador<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Mullins
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bob Finken
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phillip Billick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Augie
de la Vega<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jim Locke
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert Platt<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rob Patterson<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Hartman
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Swiggard<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Angela Hansen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John
Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Schiff<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Quinn Bierman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phil Schwindt
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Leach<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Simon
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fred Ballay<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Elam<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Walt Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Walker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Date:	01/23/2009 03:18 PM

Subject:	Great News from Louisiana

OK. Hold on to your hats here...

After extensive discussions with LA DEQ at the TNI (NELAC) meeting in

Miami, LA DEQ has agreed to scrap their stack testing accreditation

program and in its place substitute accreditation to ASTM D7036 AND

agrees to recognize third party accreditors such as STAC. Paul

Bergeron has asked us to draft some proposed statutory language by mid-

February so that the required changes can be made to state code.

Amazing. I always thought that Louisiana would be the last state to

come around and instead it is the first.

There are some things that we as STAC need to get done in order for

this to happen. First of all, STAC is going to be recognized by TNI as

an accrediting body. In order for this to happen, we need to review

all of our procedures to ensure they conform to ISO 17011. This should

not be too much of a problem since this was the standard we used when

they were put together. Second, we have to re-assess our existing

accredited companies to ensure they fully comply with the TNI Field

Activities standard, which is equivalent to ISO 17025. Again, this

should not be too much of a problem since the ASTM standard is also

equivalent to ISO 17025. There may be a few small gaps however that

must be addressed. Third, we have to complete our field audit

procedures and begin to perform the field assessments. Frank Jarke and

I are working on this. Finally, we need to identify field assessors

and provide them with training.

All of this must be done by the end of this year if we want this to

happen. So... we have a busy year. I need assistance from all of you

to make this happen. I cannot do this alone. If you are too busy,

perhaps you can designate someone from your organization to help.

This is our moment and we must seize it if we want STAC to be a

success. Once we have Louisiana, other states (such as Texas) are also

within reach. This is our chance to avoid a patchwork of

accreditations and create one single unified national program. Let's

git er done.

Best Regards,

Scott

---

Scott Evans

Clean Air Engineering

500 W. Wood St.

Palatine, Illinois 60041

847-654-4569 - voice

847-991-3385 - fax

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>