[Federal Register: March 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 46)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10626-10627]
[DOCID:fr09mr07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083; FRL-8285-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a request to amend the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include revisions to the St. Louis Solvent
Metal Cleaning rule. The revisions to this rule include consolidating
exemptions in the applicability section, adding new exemptions, adding
definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and clarifying rule
language regarding operating procedure requirements for spray gun
cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems. This revision will
ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
April 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0083 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule

without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
 [FR Doc. E7-4297 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51237-51238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17915]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0819; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-37]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-
368; King Salmon, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of RNAV route structure in
Alaska and improves the efficient flow of air traffic within the
National Airspace System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground
based navigation.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0819 in the Federal Register (86 FR 58608; October 22, 2021),
establishing RNAV route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, in
support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for
the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-368
in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
The route is described below.
    T-368: T-368 is established between the King Salmon, AK (AKN), VHF
Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC) and the
Kodiak, AK (ODK), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) navigational
aids as an alternative to VOR Federal airway V-506 and Colored Federal
airway B-27.
    The full route description of the new route is in the amendment to
part 71 as set forth below.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing
RNAV route T-368 in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and

Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes
from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised
air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above
ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do
not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas;
modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000
feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive
areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such,
this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2, regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically
excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

 T-368 King Salmon, AK (AKN) to Kodiak, AK (ODK) [New]

King Salmon, AK (AKN)                          VORTAC                        (Lat. 58[deg]43'28.97'' N, long. 156[deg]45'08.45'' W)
KOKOZ, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 58[deg]31'05.99'' N, long. 155[deg]42'32.17'' W)
WORRI, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 58[deg]45'58.43'' N, long. 154[deg]10'05.90'' W)
CIXUL, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 58[deg]43'04.78'' N, long. 153[deg]25'52.53'' W)
OSBOE, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 57[deg]48'07.57'' N, long. 152[deg]27'12.75'' W)
Kodiak, AK (ODK)                               VOR/DME                       (Lat. 57[deg]46'30.13'' N, long. 152[deg]20'23.42'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17915 Filed 8-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 68572]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257, Notice No. 92]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the sixty-third meeting of the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC), a Federal Advisory Committee that develops
railroad safety regulations through a consensus process.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 12, 2022. The
meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn by 11:30 a.m. (all
times Eastern Standard Time). Requests to attend the meeting must be
received by December 2, 2022. Requests for accommodations because of a
disability must be received by December 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held by Microsoft Teams and by
telephone. Virtual and telephonic attendance information will be
provided upon registration with either of the individuals listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Copies of the minutes of past
meetings, along with general information about the committee, are
available on the RSAC internet website at https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated
Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: [email protected]; or Thomas
Woodhams, Executive Officer, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, telephone:
(504) 232-6601or email: [email protected]. Any committee-related
request should be sent to the persons listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC is composed of 51 voting representatives
from 26 member organizations, representing various rail industry
perspectives. The diversity of the Committee ensures a representative
range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its
responsibilities.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and
attendance may be limited due to virtual and telephonic meeting
constraints. To register to attend, please send an email to either of
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The meeting is accessible to individuals with disabilities. DOT and FRA
are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all
participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a
disability, please contact either of the individuals listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and submit your request by December
2, 2022. Any member of the public may submit a written statement to the
committee at any time. If a member of the public wants to submit
written materials to be reviewed by the committee during the meeting,
the submission must be received by December 2, 2022.
    Agenda Summary: The RSAC meeting topics will include updates on
recent activity by RSAC Working Groups for: Passenger Safety; Track
Standards; Roadway Worker Protection; Part 220 Electronic Devices;
Confidential Close Call Reporting System; and Critical Incident Stress
Plans. The detailed agenda will be posted on the RSAC internet website
at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-24730 Filed 11-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 22779-22780]
[DOCID:fr14my09-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59886; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Regarding
Amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 (``Listing of Currency and
Index Warrants'')

May 7, 2009.
    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 May 1, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') 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, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), proposes to amend NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.3 (``Listing of Currency and Index Warrants'') to
include alternate listing standards for currency and index warrants.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at
the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 to
include alternate minimum distribution and market value standards for
currency and index warrants.\4\\\ Under the proposed alternative
standards, the minimum number of public holders required will not be
defined, but will be determined on a case by case basis. Other criteria
will require a minimum of 2,000,000 warrants together with an aggregate
market value of $12,000,000 and initial price of $6 per warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 accommodates listing of
currency, currency index and stock index warrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 provides listing standards for currency
and index warrants which includes, among other things, minimum
distribution and market value standards. Currently, NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.3 requires a minimum public distribution of 1,000,000 warrants
together with a minimum of 400 public warrant holders, and an aggregate
market value of $4,000,000.
    The Exchange proposes to add alternative standards to allow the
Exchange to list warrant issues that it believes are appropriate for
listing and increase its flexibility in reviewing such issues. The
proposed alternative standards are similar to those previously approved
by the Commission for the American Stock Exchange LLC (now known as
NYSE Amex LLC) and for the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'').\5\ Accordingly, under the proposed alternative listing
standards, the minimum number of public holders required will not be
defined, but will be determined on a case by case basis. Other criteria
will require a minimum of 2,000,000 warrants together with an aggregate
market value of $12,000,000 and minimum price of $6 per warrant.
Because currency and index warrants are in many respects similar to
currency and index options, which require no minimum number of holders
upon issuance, the Exchange believes reviewing the number of public
warrant holders on a case by case basis is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43611 (November 22,
2000), 65 FR 75326 (December 1, 2000 (SR-CBOE-99-14) (order
approving a proposed rule change relating to listing criteria for
stock index warrants in CBOE Rule 31.5E); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 45036 (November 6, 2001), 66 FR 57760 (November 16,
2001) (SR-Amex-2001-89) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change relating to currency and index
warrant listing standards in Section 106 of the American Stock
Exchange LLC Company Guide).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed alternative warrant listing
standards will increase the Exchange's ability to review proposed
warrant issues on a case by case basis in determining whether it is
appropriate to list the particular warrant being proposed. Lastly, the
Exchange believes that the approval of the alternative warrant listing
standard will help foster competition between the Exchange and other
national securities exchanges that have implemented the alternative
warrant listing standards proposed herein.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in
securities,

and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change will allow the listing and trading of currency and
index warrants on the Exchange under standards previously implemented
by other national securities exchanges, which the Exchange believes
will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\11\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange requested that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and 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. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that the proposed alternative listing standards
are substantially identical to rules of other national securities
exchanges.\12\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 5.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-39 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-2009-39.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-39 and should be submitted on or before
June 4, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11163 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59619-59622]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0961]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Environmental Impact Considerations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
entitled ``Environmental Impact Considerations.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by November 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Environmental Impact Considerations--21 CFR Part 25 (OMB Control Number
0910-0322)--Extension)

    FDA is requesting OMB approval for the reporting requirements
contained in the FDA collection of information ``Environmental Impact
Considerations.''
    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347)
states national environmental objectives and imposes upon each Federal
Agency the duty to consider the environmental effects of its actions.
Section 102(2)(c) of

NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for every major Federal action that will significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    FDA's NEPA regulations are in part 25 (21 CFR part 25). All
applications or petitions requesting Agency action require the
submission of a claim for categorical exclusion or an environmental
assessment (EA). A categorical exclusion applies to certain classes of
FDA-regulated actions that usually have little or no potential to cause
significant environmental effects and are excluded from the
requirements to prepare an EA or EIS. Section 25.15(a) and (d)
specifies the procedures for submitting to FDA a claim for a
categorical exclusion. Extraordinary circumstances (25.21), which may
result in significant environmental impacts, may exist for some actions
that are usually categorically excluded. An EA provides information
that is used to determine whether an FDA action could result in a
significant environmental impact. Section 25.40(a) and (c) specifies
the content requirements for EAs for nonexcluded actions.
    This collection of information is used by FDA to assess the
environmental impact of Agency actions and to ensure that the public is
informed of environmental analyses. Firms wishing to manufacture and
market substances regulated under statues for which FDA is responsible
must, in most instances, submit applications requesting approval.
Environmental information must be included in such applications for the
purpose of determining whether the proposed action may have a
significant impact on the environment. Where significant adverse events
cannot be avoided, the Agency uses the submitted information as the
basis for preparing and circulating to the public an EIS, made
available through a Federal Register document also filed for comment at
the Environmental Protection Agency. The final EIS, including the
comments received, is reviewed by the Agency to weigh environmental
costs and benefits in determining whether to pursue the proposed action
or some alternative that would reduce expected environmental impact.
    Any final EIS would contain additional information gathered by the
Agency after the publication of the draft EIS, a copy or a summary of
the comments received on the draft EIS, and the Agency's responses to
the comments, including any revisions resulting from the comments or
other information. When the Agency finds that no significant
environmental effects are expected, the Agency prepares a finding of no
significant impact.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Human Drugs (Including Biologics
in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research)

    Under 21 CFR 312.23(a)(7)(iv)(3), 21 CFR 314.50(d)(1)(iii), and 21
CFR 314.94(a)(9)(i), each investigational new drug application (IND),
new drug application (NDA), and abbreviated new drug application (ANDA)
must contain a claim for categorical exclusion under 25.30 or 25.31 or
an EA under 25.40. In 2011, FDA received 2,818 INDs from 2,064
sponsors, 99 NDAs from 79 applicants, 3,247 supplements to NDAs from
376 applicants, 5 biologic license applications (BLAs) from 5
applicants, 287 supplements to BLAs from 50 applicants, 895 ANDAs from
195 applicants, and 5,348 supplements to ANDAs from 299 applicants. FDA
estimates that it receives approximately 12,699 claims for categorical
exclusions as required under 25.15(a) and (d), and 10 EAs as required
under 25.40(a) and (c). Therefore, over the next 3 years, FDA estimates
that approximately 3,175 respondents will submit an average of 4
applications for categorical exclusion and 10 respondents will submit
an average of 1 EA. Based on information provided by the pharmaceutical
industry, FDA estimates that it takes sponsors or applicants
approximately 8 hours to prepare a claim for a categorical exclusion
and approximately 3,400 hours to prepare an EA.

                         Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Human Drugs \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15(a) and (d)................           3,175               4          12,700               8         101,600
25.40(a) and (c)................              10               1              10           3,400          34,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         135,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Human Foods

    Under 21 CFR 71.1, 171.1, 170.39, and 170.100, food additive
petitions, color additive petitions, requests from exemption from
regulation as a food additive, and submission of a food contact
notification for a food contact substance must contain either a claim
of categorical exclusion under 25.30 or 25.32 or an EA under 25.40. In
2011, FDA received 97 industry submissions. FDA received an annual
average of 42 claims of categorical exclusions as required under
25.15(a) and (d), and 33 EAs as required under 25.40(a) and (c).
Therefore, over the next 3 years, FDA estimates that approximately 42
respondents will submit an average of 1 application for categorical
exclusion and 33 respondents will submit an average of 1 EA. FDA
estimates that, on average, it takes petitioners, notifiers, or
requestors approximately 3 hours to prepare a claim of categorical
exclusion and approximately 210 hours to prepare an EA.

                         Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Human Foods \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15(a) and (d)................              42               1              42               8             336

25.40(a) and (c)................              33               1              33             210           6,930
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           7,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Medical Devices

    Under 21 CFR 814.20(b)(11), premarket approvals (PMA) (original
PMAs and supplements) must contain a claim for categorical exclusion
under 25.30 or 25.34 or an EA under 25.40. In 2011, FDA received
approximately 52 claims (original PMAs and supplements) for categorical
exclusions as required under 25.15(a) and (d), and 0 EAs as required
under 25.40(a) and (c). Therefore, over the next 3 years, FDA estimates
that approximately 52 respondents will submit an average of 1
application for categorical exclusion. Based on information provided by
less than 10 sponsors, FDA estimates that it takes approximately 6
hours to prepare a claim for a categorical exclusion.

                                           Table 3--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Medical Devices \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15 (a) and (d)..................................................              52                1               52                6              312
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Biological Products, Drugs, and
Medical Devices in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

    BLAs under 21 CFR 601.2(a), as well as INDs (21 CFR 312.23), NDAs
(21 CFR 314.50), ANDAs (21 CFR 314.94), and PMAs (21 CFR 814.20), must
contain either a claim of categorical exclusion under 25.30 or 25.32 or
an EA under 25.40. In 2011, FDA received 14 BLAs from 14 applicants,
831 BLA supplements to license applications from 153 applicants, 288
INDs from 210 sponsors, 1 NDA from 1 applicant, 37 supplements to NDAs
from 9 applicants, 1 ANDA from 1 applicant, 12 supplements to ANDAs
from 2 applicants, and 45 PMA supplements from 11 applicants. FDA
estimates that approximately 10 percent of these supplements would be
submitted with a claim for categorical exclusion or an EA.
    FDA estimates that it received approximately 481 claims for
categorical exclusion as required under 25.15(a) and (d), and 2 EAs as
required under 25.40(a) and (c). Therefore, over the next 3 years, FDA
estimates that approximately 247 respondents will submit an average of
2 applications for categorical exclusion and 2 respondents will submit
an average of 1 EA. Based on information provided by industry, FDA
estimates that it takes sponsors and applicants approximately 8 hours
to prepare a claim of categorical exclusion and approximately 3,400
hours to prepare an EA for a biological product.

                     Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Biological Products \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15 (a) and (d)...............             247               2             494               8           3,952
25.40 (a) and (c)...............               2               1               2           3,400           6,800
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          10,752
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Animal Drugs

    Under 21 CFR 514.1(b)(14), new animal drug applications (NADAs) and
abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs), 21 CFR 514.8(a)(1)
supplemental NADAs and ANADAs, 21 CFR 511.1(b)(10) investigational new
animal drug applications (INADs), and 21 CFR 571.1(c) food additive
petitions must contain a claim for categorical exclusion under 25.30 or
25.33 or an EA under 25.40. In 2011, FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine has received approximately 698 claims for categorical
exclusion as required under 25.15(a) and (d), and 10 EAs as required
under 25.40(a) and (c). Therefore, over the next 3 years, FDA estimates
that approximately 70 respondents will submit an average of 10
applications for categorical exclusion and 10 respondents will submit
an average of 1 EA. FDA estimates that it takes sponsors/applicants
approximately 3 hours to prepare a claim of categorical exclusion and
an average of 2,160 hours to prepare an EA.

                         Table 5--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Animal Drugs \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15 (a) and (d)...............              70              10             700               3           2,100
25.40 (a) and (c)...............              10               1              10           2,160          21,600
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          23,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Tobacco Products

    Under sections 905, 910, and 911 of the Federal Food, Drugs, and
Cosmetic Act, premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs), applications for
substantial equivalence (SEs), Exemption from SEs, and modified risk
tobacco products must contain a claim for categorical exclusion under
25.30 or 25.34 or an EA under 25.40. In 2011, FDA estimated it will
receive approximately 20 PMTAs and supplements from 20 respondents, 150
reports intended to demonstrate the SE of a new tobacco product from
150 respondents, 500 exemption from SE requirements applications from
500 respondents, and 3 modified risk Tobacco product applications from
3 respondents for a total of 673 responses from 673 respondents. FDA
estimates that there were 538 claims from 538 respondents for
categorical exclusions as required under 25.15(a) and (d), and 135 EAs
from 135 respondents as required under 25.40(a) and (c). Therefore,
over the next 3 years, FDA estimates that approximately 538 respondents
will submit an average of 1 application for categorical exclusion and
135 respondents will submit an average of 1 EA. Based on FDA's
experience and previous information provided by potential sponsors, FDA
estimates that it takes approximately 12 hours to prepare a claim for a
categorical exclusion and 12 hours to prepare an EA.

                       Table 6--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Tobacco Products \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15 (a) and (d)...............             538               1             538              12           6,456
25.40 (a) and (c)...............             135               1             135              12           1,620
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           8,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                      Table 7--Estimated Annual Total Reporting Burden for All Centers \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
           CFR Section               Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.15 (a) and (d)...............           4,124  ..............          14,526  ..............         114,756
25.40 (a) and (c)...............             190  ..............             190  ..............          70,950
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         185,706
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-23838 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23191-23192]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9438]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R9-OAR-2011-0130; FRL-9661-4]

State of Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation
Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is holding a public hearing on May 3, 2012 for the
proposed rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating
Station.''

DATES: The public hearing will be held on May 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: We will hold a public hearing at Moapa Valley Empowerment
High School, 2400 St. Joseph Street, Overton, Nevada 89040. The hearing
will begin at 6:30 p.m. and continue until 8:30 p.m., if necessary. An
open house will precede the public hearing at the same location from 5
p.m.-6 p.m. The EPA Region 9 Web site for the rulemaking, which
includes the proposal and information about the public hearing, is at
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#reid.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the public

hearings, please contact Thomas Webb, EPA Region IX at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you require a reasonable accommodation, please
contact Terisa Williams, EPA Region IX Reasonable Accommodations
Coordinator at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public hearing is to provide the public
with an opportunity to present oral comments regarding a proposed
Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans for the BART
Determination at the Reid Gardner Generating Station in the State of
Nevada. The BART determinations require the Reid Gardner Generating
Station to meet an emissions limit for oxides of nitrogen at Units 1, 2
and 3 of 0.20 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
    Public hearing: The proposed rule for which EPA will hold the
public hearing is available at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#reid and also in the docket identified below. The public
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal. EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not
respond to the presentations at that time. We will consider written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing.
    At the public hearing, the hearing officer may limit the time
available for each commenter to address the proposal to five minutes or
less if the hearing officer determines it is appropriate. We will not
provide equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written or
oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public
hearing. We will include verbatim transcripts, in English, of the
hearing and written statements in the rulemaking docket.
    EPA has established a docket for the proposed rule under Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130 (available at http://www.regulations.gov).

    Dated: April 11, 2012.
Deborah Jordan,
Air Division Director, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-9438 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5360-5362]
[DOCID:fr02fe10-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61426; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Professional Orders

 January 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on January 12, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``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 its priority rules to give certain
non-broker-dealer orders the same priority as broker-dealer orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, 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 adopt the new term
``professional'' for purposes of the Exchange's priority rules.
Currently, pursuant to Rule 1014(g), a customer account is an account
other than a controlled account; a controlled account is an account
controlled by or under common control with a broker-dealer. Rule
1014(g) governs, among other things, the allocation of orders and,
thus, the priority over and parity among orders and quotations.
    Customer priority is one of the marketplace advantages provided to
customer orders on the Exchange; customer priority means that customer
orders are given execution priority over non-customer orders and
quotations of specialists and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') at
the same price. Another marketplace advantage afforded to customer
orders on the Exchange is that member organizations are generally not
charged transaction fees for the execution of customer orders. The
purpose of these marketplace advantages is to attract retail order flow
to the Exchange by leveling the playing field for retail investors over
market professionals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Market professionals have access to sophisticated trading
systems that contain functionality not available to retail
customers, including things such as continuously updated pricing
models based upon real-time streaming data, access to multiple
markets simultaneously and order and risk management tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to these Phlx marketplace advantages, the Exchange
does not believe that the current definition of customer account versus
controlled account properly distinguishes between non-professional
retail investors and certain professionals. According to the Exchange,
providing marketplace advantages based upon whether the order is for
the account of a participant that is a registered broker-dealer is no
longer appropriate in today's marketplace, because some non-broker-
dealer individuals and entities have access to information and
technology that enables them to professionally trade listed options in
the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities.\4\ These

individual traders and entities (collectively, ``professionals'') have
the same technological and informational advantages over retail
investors as broker-dealers trading for their own account, which
enables them to compete effectively with broker-dealer orders and
market maker quotes for execution opportunities in the Phlx
marketplace.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, some broker-dealers provided their professional
customers with multi-screened trading stations equipped with trading
technology that allows the trader to monitor and place orders on all
six options exchanges simultaneously. These trading stations also
provide compliance filters, order managements tools, the ability to
place orders in the underlying securities, and market data feeds.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59287 (January 23, 2009),
74 FR 5964 (January 30, 2009) (SR-ISE-2006-26) (order approving
International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') proposal to introduce
priority customer and professional orders) and 57254 (February 1,
2008), 73 FR 7345 (February 7, 2008) (SR-ISE-2006-26) (notice of ISE
proposal to introduce priority customer and professional orders) at
note 8.
    \5\ Specialists and ROTs enter quotes based upon the theoretical
value of the option, which moves with various factors in their
pricing models, such as the value of the underlying security.
Professional customers place and cancel orders in relation to an
option's theoretical value in much the same manner as specialists
and ROTs. This is evidenced by the entry of limit orders that join
the best bid or offer and by a very high rate of orders that are
cancelled. In contrast, retail customers who enter orders as part of
an investment strategy (such as covered write or directional trade)
most frequently enter marketable orders or limit orders that they do
not cancel and replace. See, e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57254 at note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Exchange does not believe it is consistent with fair
competition for the professional account holders to continue to receive
the same marketplace advantages as retail investors over broker-dealers
trading on the Phlx. Moreover, because customer orders at the same
price are executed in time priority, retail investors are prevented
from benefitting fully from the priority advantage when professionals
are afforded customer priority.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is seeking to adopt a new term that will
be used to more appropriately provide Phlx marketplace advantages to
retail investors on the Phlx. Under the proposal, a ``professional''
will be defined in Rule 1000 as a person or entity that (i) is not a
broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). Under the proposal, a professional account will
be treated in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer (controlled
account) for purposes of Phlx Rule 1014(g)(except with respect to all-
or-none orders, which will be treated like customer orders), 1064(b),
1064.02, and 1080.08.
    The proposal will not otherwise affect non-broker-dealer
individuals or entities under Phlx rules, and all customer orders will
continue to be treated equally for purposes of the linkage-related
rules, including non-broker-dealer orders included in the definition of
``professional'' orders.\6\ The Exchange, which currently routes only
eligible customer orders, would route eligible professional orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phlx Rule 1080(m), 1083, 1084, and 1086. These rules are
not included by the proposed rule change in the list of rules,
supra, for which the professional designation would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to properly represent orders entered on the Exchange
according to the new definition, member organizations will be required
to indicate whether customer orders are ``professional'' orders.\7\ To
comply with this requirement, member organizations will be required to
review their customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to
determine whether orders that are not for the account of a broker-
dealer should be represented as customer orders or professional
orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 1000(b)(14). The Exchange intends to
utilize a special order origin code for professional orders. The
Exchange also proposes to disseminate the professional designator
over its new Top of Phlx Options Plus Orders (``TOPO Plus Orders''),
which includes disseminated Exchange top-of-market data (including
orders, quotes and trades) together with all of the data currently
available on the Specialized Order Feed (``SOF''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60877 (October 26, 2009), 74 FR 56255
(October 30, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-92).
    \8\ Orders for any customer that had an average of more than 390
orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be
represented as professional orders for the next calendar quarter.
Member organizations will be required to conduct a quarterly review
and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are
representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar
quarter. While member organizations will only be required to review
their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the
Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being
represented as customer orders but that has averaged more than 390
orders per day during a month, the Exchange will notify the member
organization and the member organization will be required to change
the manner in which it is representing the customer's orders within
five days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 1063(e) and the
corresponding Options Floor Procedure Advice (``Advice'') C-3, Options
Floor Broker Management System, to require Floor Brokers to record the
``professional'' designator in the Floor Broker Management System.
Advice C-3 is part of the Exchange's minor rule plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the fees applicable to professional orders, the
Exchange is not proposing to charge differently for professionals at
this time, such that professional orders would be subject to the same
transaction fees as customers today.
    The Exchange believes that identifying professional accounts based
upon the average number of orders entered for a beneficial account is
an appropriately objective approach that will reasonably distinguish
such persons and entities from retail investors. The Exchange proposes
the threshold of 390 orders per day on average over a calendar month,
because it believes that this number far exceeds the number of orders
that are entered by retail investors in a single day,\10\ while being a
sufficiently low number of orders to cover the professional account
holders that are competing with broker-dealers in the Phlx marketplace.
In addition, basing the standard on the number of orders that are
entered in listed options for a beneficial account(s) assures that
professional account holders cannot inappropriately avoid the purpose
of the rule by spreading their trading activity over multiple
exchanges, and using an average number over a calendar month will
prevent gaming of the 390 order threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 390 orders is equal to the total number of orders that a
person would place in a day if that person entered one order every
minute from market open to market close. Many of the largest retail-
oriented electronic brokers offer lower commission rates to
customers they define as ``active traders.'' Publicly available
information from the Web sites of Charles Schwab, Fidelity, TD
Ameritrade and optionsXpress all define ``active trader'' as someone
who executes only a few options trades per month. The highest
required trading activity to qualify as an active trader among these
four firms was 35 trades per quarter. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57254 at note 11 (which also notes that a study of one
of the largest retail-oriented options brokerage firms indicated
that on a typical trading day, options orders were entered with
respect to 5,922 different customer accounts. There was only one
order entered with respect to 3,765 of the 5,922 different customer
accounts on this day, and there were only 17 customer accounts with
respect to which more than ten orders were entered. The highest
number of orders entered with respect to any one account over the
course of an entire week was 27.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. In particular, the proposal should assure that retail
investors continue to receive the appropriate marketplace advantages in
the Phlx marketplace, while furthering fair competition among
marketplace professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

    In addition, Section 11(a) of the Act prohibits any member of a
national securities exchange from effecting transactions on that
exchange for its own account, the account of an associated person, or
an account over which it or its associated persons exercises
discretion, unless an exemption applies.\13\ Section 11(a)(1) contains
a number of exceptions for principal transactions by members and their
associated persons. One such exception, set forth in subparagraph (G)
of Section 11(a)(1) and in Rule 11a1-1(T),\14\ permits any transaction
for a member's own account provided, among other things, that the
transaction yields priority, parity, and precedence to orders for the
account of persons who are not members or associated with members of
the exchange. Exchange rules, therefore, may require members to yield
priority to non-members, including public customers, to satisfy this
exception to Section 11(a).\15\ Another exception, found in Section
11(a)(1)(A), permits market makers to effect transactions on exchanges
in which they are members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T).
    \15\ See Phlx Rule 1014.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the exceptions noted above, Rule 11a2-2(T) under the
Act \17\ provides exchange members with an exception from the
prohibitions in Section 11(a). Rule 11a2-2(T), known as the ``effect
versus execute'' rule, permits an exchange member, subject to certain
conditions, to effect transactions for his own account, the account of
an associated person or an account with respect to which it or an
associated person thereof exercises investment discretion
(collectively, ``covered accounts'') by arranging for an unaffiliated
member to execute the transaction on the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the ``effect versus execute'' rule's conditions, a
member: (i) Must transmit the order from off the exchange floor; (ii)
may not participate in the execution of the transaction once it has
been transmitted to the member performing the execution; \18\ (iii) may
not be affiliated with the executing member; and (iv) with respect to
an account over which the member has investment discretion, neither the
member nor its associated person may retain any compensation in
connection with effecting the transaction except as provided in the
rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The member may, however, participate in clearing and
settling the transaction. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
14563 (March 14, 1978), 43 FR 11542 (March 17, 1978).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As applied to the Exchange's electronic trading platform, Phlx XL
II, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal relating to
professional orders would affect the availability of the exceptions to
Section 11(a) of the Act, including the exceptions in subparagraph (G)
of Section 11(a) and in Rules 11a1-1(T) and 11a2-2(T), as are currently
available.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-05 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-Phlx-2010-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\21\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-2010-05 and should be
submitted on or before February 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at
Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2092 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47731-47734]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle
Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its Acura RDX
vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2022. The petition is granted
because the agency has determined that the antitheft device to be
placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2022 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-

marking for specified passenger motor vehicles and light trucks.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are subject to the
parts-marking requirements may petition the Secretary of Transportation
for an exemption for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with
an antitheft device as standard equipment that the Secretary decides is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. In accordance with
this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which establishes the
process through which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the
theft prevention standard.
    49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
    (1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
    (2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
    (3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
    (4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence,
the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of part 541.
    Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
    This grant of petition for exemption considers American Honda Motor
Co., Inc.'s (Honda) petition for its Acura RDX vehicle line beginning
in MY 2022.

I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6

    Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Honda petitioned for an exemption for its specified vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard, beginning in MY 2022. Honda petitioned under 49 CFR 543.6,
Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described above,
requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
    More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other
than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
    \5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe Honda's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Honda's petition
is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that

information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Honda's Petition for Exemption

    In a petition dated January 12, 2021, as supplemented with
additional information submitted on June 22, 2021,\7\ Honda requested
an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard for the Acura RDX vehicle line beginning with MY
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As discussed above, per 49 CFR 543.8(a), NHTSA processes the
petition once the manufacturer submits all the information required
by 49 CFR part 543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, Honda provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Acura RDX vehicle line. Honda stated that its
MY 2022 Acura RDX vehicle line will be installed with an engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Honda stated that it will offer a ``smart entry remote'' (keyless key)
system on its vehicle line. Honda also stated that the Acura RDX
vehicle line will offer two types of remotes, one with remote engine
start and one without remote start. Key components of the ``smart entry
remote'' system will include a passive immobilizer, ``smart entry''
remote, powertrain control module (PCM), and body control module (BCM).
Honda further stated that its vehicle line will be installed with a
vehicle security alarm system as standard equipment which will activate
a visible and audible alarm whenever unauthorized access is attempted.
    Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), Honda explained that its ``smart
entry and start'' system is part of the normal operation of the
ignition key and activates automatically when the ignition switch is in
the ``OFF'' position. Honda further explained that if a smart entry
remote without a matching code is within operating range and the engine
start/stop button is pressed, the PCM will prevent fueling of the
engine and the engine will not start. Honda also stated that the
immobilizer system is deactivated when a valid smart entry remote and
matching codes are verified, allowing the engine to continue normal
operations. Honda further stated that the security indicator flashes
continuously when the immobilizer is activated, and turns off when it
is deactivated.
    Honda stated that the audible and visible vehicle security alarm
system installed on its Acura RDX vehicles will monitor any attempts of
unauthorized entry and attract attention to an unauthorized person
attempting to enter its vehicles without the use of a ``smart entry''
remote or its built-in mechanical door key. Specifically, Honda stated
that whenever an attempt is made to open one of its vehicle doors, hood
or trunk without using the ``smart entry'' remote or turning a key in
the key cylinder to disarm the vehicle, the vehicle's horn will sound
and its lights will flash. Honda stated that its vehicle security
system is activated when all of the doors are locked and the hood and
trunk are closed and locked. Honda further stated that its vehicle
security system is deactivated by using the key fob buttons to unlock
the vehicle doors or having the ``smart entry'' remote within operating
range when the operator grabs either of the vehicle's front door
handles.
    Honda also stated that in addition to the standard security system
on all 2022 MY Acura RDX models, additional security features include
counterfeit resistant vehicle identification number (VIN) plates,
secondary VINs, a hood release located inside the vehicle, and its
smart entry remote will utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock
functions of its vehicles.
    As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), Honda provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Honda provided a list of
requirements for the characteristics and durability testing along with
its results. Honda stated that its device does not require the presence
of a ``smart entry'' remote battery to function nor does it have any
moving parts (i.e., the PCM, BCM, ``smart entry'' remote and the
corresponding electrical components found within its own housing
units), which it believes reduces the chance for deterioration and wear
from normal use.
    Honda believes that installation of the antitheft immobilizer
device as standard equipment reduces the vehicle theft rate by making
conventional methods of theft obsolete, i.e., punching out the steering
column or hot-wiring the ignition. Additionally, Honda stated that the
proposed immobilizer system was first installed on its MY 2007 Acura
RDX as standard equipment which was the first year of its introduction.
Honda referenced NHTSA's theft rate information for the Acura RDX
showing theft rates for MYs 2007-2014 were below the theft rate median.
Also, Honda stated that its proposed immobilizer system is similar to
the design offered on its Lexus RX vehicles which have been granted an
exemption by the agency. Honda also referenced NHTSA's theft rate
information for its Lexus RX showing theft rates for MYs 2012-2014 that
were below the theft rate median.

III. Decision To Grant the Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for its vehicle line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. This
conclusion is based on the information Honda provided about its
antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on Honda's supporting evidence,
the antitheft device described for its vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    The agency concludes that Honda's antitheft device will provide the
five types of performance features listed in section 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of
unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than
a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    If Honda decides not to use the exemption for its requested vehicle
line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6

(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for
the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use
of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified
in the exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if
Honda contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda's
petition for exemption for the Acura RDX vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 2022
vehicles.
    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-18419 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P