[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79333-79335]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32026]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FLR-9940-43-Region 10]

Proposed Reissuance of NPDES General Permit for Discharges From
Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in
Indian Country Within the Boundaries of Washington State (Permit Number
WAG130000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reissuance of NPDES General Permit and
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, is proposing to reissue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for
Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in
Indian Country within the Boundaries of Washington State (General
Permit). The draft General Permit contains effluent limitations, along
with administrative reporting and monitoring requirements, as well as
standard conditions,

prohibitions, and management practices. A fact sheet is available that
explains the draft General Permit in detail.
    Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341, requires EPA to
seek a certification from the State of Washington, and Indian Tribes
with Treatment as a State for Water Quality Standards, that the
conditions of the General Permit are stringent enough to comply with
State water quality standards. The Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) and the Lummi, Makah, Spokane, and Tulalip Tribes have
provided draft certification that the draft General Permit complies
with applicable Water Quality Standards. EPA will seek final
certification from Ecology and tribes prior to issuing the General
Permit. This is also notice of the draft Sec.  401 certification
provided by Ecology and tribes. Persons wishing to comment on the draft
Sec.  401 certifications should send written comments to the contacts
in the fact sheet.

DATES: The public comment period for the draft General Permit will be
from the date of publication of this Notice until March 31, 2016.
Comments must be received or postmarked by no later than midnight
Pacific Standard Time on March 31, 2016. All comments related to the
draft General Permit and Fact Sheet received by EPA Region 10 by the
comment deadline will be considered prior to issuing the General
Permit.
    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by any of the
following methods. All comments must include the name, address, and
telephone number of the commenter.
    Mail: Send paper comments to Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and
Watersheds; USEPA Region 10; 1200 6th Ave., Suite 900, OWW-191;
Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Email: Send electronic comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Write
``Comments on the Draft Aquaculture General Permit'' in the subject
line.
    Fax: Fax comments to the attention of Catherine Gockel at (206)
553-1280.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Deliver comments to Catherine Gockel, EPA
Region 10, Office of Water and Watersheds, Mail Stop OWW-191, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-3140. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> before
delivery to verify business hours.
    Viewing and/or Obtaining Copies of Documents. A copy of the draft
General Permit and the Fact Sheet, which explains the proposal in
detail, may be obtained by contacting EPA at 1<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the documents are also available for viewing and
downloading at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/NPDES+Permits/General+NPDES+Permits#WA .Requests may also be made to Audrey
Washington at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Public Hearing: Persons wishing to request a public hearing should
submit their written request by March 31, 2016 stating the nature of
the issues to be raised as well as the requester's name, address, and
telephone number to Catherine Gockel at the address above. If a public
hearing is scheduled, notice will be published in the Federal Register.
Notice will also be posted on the Region 10 Web site, and will be
mailed to all interested persons receiving letters of the availability
of the draft General Permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information can be obtained
by contacting Catherine Gockel, Office of Water and Watersheds, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Contact information is
included above.
Other Legal Requirements
    Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.]. Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(the Services) if their actions have the potential
    to either beneficially or adversely affect any threatened or
endangered species. EPA has analyzed the discharges proposed to be
authorized by the draft General Permit, and their potential to
adversely affect any of the threatened or endangered species or their
designated critical habitat areas in the vicinity of the discharges.
Based on this analysis, EPA has determined that the issuance of this
permit is not likely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered
species in the vicinity of the discharge.
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et.seq.]
and Other Federal Requirements. Regulations at 40 CFR 122.49, list the
federal laws that may apply to the issuance of permits i.e., ESA,
National Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), NEPA, and Executive Orders, among
others. The NEPA compliance program requires analysis of information
regarding potential impacts, development and analysis of options to
avoid or minimize impacts; and development and analysis of measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. EPA determined that no Environmental
Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) are
required under NEPA. EPA also determined that CZARA does not apply.
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act requires EPA to consult with NOAA-NMFS
when a proposed discharge has the potential to adversely affect a
designated EFH. The EFH regulations define an adverse effect as ``any
impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH . . . [and] may
include direct (e.g. contamination or physical disruption), indirect
(e.g. loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or
habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic
consequences of actions.'' NMFS may recommend measures for attachment
to the federal action to protect EFH; however, such recommendations are
advisory, and not prescriptive in nature. EPA has evaluated the Draft
General Permit and has made the determination that issuance of the
General Permit will is not likely to adversely affect EFH.
    Executive Order 12866: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
exempts this action from the review requirements of Executive Order
12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that order.
    Economic Impact [Executive Order 12291]: The EPA has reviewed the
effect of Executive Order 12291 on this Draft General Permit and has
determined that it is not a major rule pursuant to that Order.
    Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.] The EPA has
reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities in the Draft
General Permit and finds them consistent with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that EPA prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for rules subject to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act [APA, 5 U.S.C. 553] that have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. However,
EPA has concluded that NPDES General Permits are not rulemakings under
the APA, and thus not subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the
RFA.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions (defined to be the same as rules subject to
the RFA) on tribal, state, and local governments, and the private
sector. However, General NPDES Permits are not rules subject to

the requirements of the APA, and are, therefore, not subject to the
UMRA.

    Authority: This action is taken under the authority of Section
402 of the Clean Water Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby
provide public notice of the Draft General Permit for Federal
Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian
Country within the Boundaries of Washington State in accordance with
40 CFR 124.10.

    Dated: December 14, 2015.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-32026 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35017]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP13-964-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 06/03/13 Negotiated Rates--Tenaska Marketing Ventures
(RTS) 2835-15 & 16 to be effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130603-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-965-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Devon 34694-50) to be
effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130603-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-966-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (QEP 37657 to BP 40994) to be
effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130603-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 4, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13768 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7789]
[DOCID:fr11fe08-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

BNSF Railway Company

[Docket Number FRA-2007-28812]

    BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) seeks a waiver of compliance with
certain requirements of 49 CFR part 232--Brake System Safety Standards
for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of Train
Devices, and 49 CFR part 215--Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards.
Specifically, BNSF seeks relief to permit trains received at the U.S./
Mexico border at Eagle Pass, Texas (Eagle Pass), from the Ferrocarriles
de Mexico, to move from the interchange point without performing the
regulatory tests and inspections specified in CFR part 215 and Sec.
232.205(a)(1) at that location. BNSF proposes moving the trains from
the border at Milepost (MP) 34 on the Union Pacific Railroad Company's
Eagle Pass subdivision, to the Ryan's Ruin Horan Siding at MP 20, a
distance of 14 miles where required FRA inspections will be performed.
BNSF claims that granting the waiver would expedite train movements and
avoid blockages of crossings in Eagle Pass.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2007-28812) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
    Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-2395 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80886]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting: Airport Security
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 13, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, MacIntosh--NBAA Room and Hilton--ATA Room, Washington, DC
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access
Control Systems (Update to DO-230B):

Agenda

January 13, 2011

     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
     Review/Approve Summary--Second Meeting.
     Report on Security Construction Guidelines Process.
     Workgroup Reports.
     Credentialing.
     PACS.
     Biometrics.
     Communications.
     Video.
     Other Input from Members.
     Work Objectives for Next Plenary.
     Other Business.
     Establish Agenda for Next Meeting.
     Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-32245 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16984-16985]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0063]

Special Local Regulation; Fort Lauderdale Air Show, Atlantic
Ocean, Fort Lauderdale Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the Fort Lauderdale Air Show to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event. During the enforcement periods,
the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item
3, will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., each day from April 29, 2022
through May 1, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Omar Beceiro, Sector Miami
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: Telephone: 305-535-
4317, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local
regulation in 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item 3, for the
Fort Lauderdale Air Show, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., each day from Friday
April 29, 2022 through Sunday May 1, 2022. The Coast Guard is taking
this action to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways
during the event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Sector
Miami, 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item 3, specifies the
location of the regulated area which encompasses a portion of Atlantic
Ocean east of Fort Lauderdale Beach. Only event sponsor designated
participants and official patrol vessels will be allowed to enter the
regulated area. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in Sec.
100.702, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information
broadcasts.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
J. F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2022-06301 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44878-44881]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1240

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0639]

Turtles Intrastate and Interstate Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its
regulations regarding the prohibition on the sale, or other commercial
or public distribution, of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a
carapace length of less than 4 inches to remove procedures for
destruction as FDA believes it is not necessary to routinely demand
this destruction to achieve the purpose of the regulations. This action
will reduce

the need for investigator training and the time for the care and humane
destruction of these animals.

DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 2014. Submit either
electronic or written comments by October 8, 2013. If FDA receives no
significant adverse comments within the specified comment period, the
Agency will publish a document confirming the effective date of the
final rule in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment
period on this direct final rule ends. If timely significant adverse
comments are received, the Agency will publish a document in the
Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule before its
effective date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2013-
N-0639, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (For paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0639 for this rulemaking. All comments
received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dillard Woody, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-231), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA published regulations in 21 CFR 1240.62 on May 23, 1975 (40 FR
22543), that ban the sale and distribution of viable turtle eggs and
turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches to stop the spread
of turtle-associated salmonellosis in humans, especially in young
children.
    The regulations provide that viable turtle eggs and live turtles
with a carapace length of less than 4 inches shall not be sold, held
for sale, or offered for any other type of commercial or public
distribution. The ban does not apply to such distribution for bona fide
scientific, educational, or exhibitional purposes other than use as
pets; to such distribution not in connection with a business; and to
such distribution intended for export only. In addition, the turtle ban
does not apply to marine turtles and their eggs.
    The regulations further provide that any turtle eggs or live
turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches that are held for
sale or offered for any other type of commercial or public distribution
in violation of the regulations shall be subject to destruction in a
humane manner by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of
FDA, in accordance with specified procedures. Once a written demand for
destruction is served, the rule prohibits the selling, distributing, or
otherwise disposing of the viable turtle eggs or live turtles in a
manner other than destroying them under FDA supervision.
    FDA is amending the regulations to remove the provisions making
violative turtle eggs and live turtles routinely subject to destruction
by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA. FDA does
not believe that it is necessary to routinely demand destruction of
viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of less than
4 inches. FDA believes that other activities will achieve the purpose
of the regulations, which were enacted to prevent the spread of turtle-
associated salmonellosis, especially to young children. These other
alternatives include: Raising the turtles until the turtles achieve a
carapace length of 4 inches or greater; donating the viable turtle eggs
or live turtles to an entity that meets one of the bona fide
scientific, educational, or exhibitional exemptions, as provided in the
regulations; or exporting the turtles in compliance with all applicable
laws.
    Although FDA does not believe that it is necessary to routinely
demand destruction of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a
carapace length of less than 4 inches, as provided for in the
regulations, FDA recognizes that it has the authority and obligation to
take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of communicable
disease, especially in the face of widespread outbreaks or other public
health emergencies. FDA retains the authority to destroy or order the
destruction of viable turtle eggs or live turtles of any size under 21
CFR 1240.30, which provides that, ``[w]henever the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs determines that the measures taken by health authorities of
any State or possession (including political subdivision thereof) are
insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases
. . . he may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases
as he deems reasonably necessary, including . . . destruction of
animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.''
    This direct final rule does not affect the ban on the sale of
viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of less than
4 inches. Those provisions of the regulations remain in effect.
Violators are subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment
for not more than 1 year, or both, for each violation, in accordance
with section 368 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C.
271).

II. Direct Final Rulemaking

    FDA has determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable
for a direct final rule. FDA is amending 21 CFR 1240.62 by removing the
provisions making viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace
length of less than 4 inches that are held for sale or offered for any
other type of commercial or public distribution in violation of the
regulations routinely subject to destruction and the associated
required procedures. This rule is intended to make noncontroversial
changes to existing regulations. The Agency does not anticipate
receiving any significant adverse comment on this rule.
    Consistent with FDA's procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are
publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a companion
proposed rule. The companion proposed rule and this direct final rule
are substantively identical. The companion proposed rule provides the
procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the
event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant
adverse comment. The comment period for this direct final rule runs
concurrently with the comment period of the companion proposed rule.
Any comments received in response to the

companion proposed rule will also be considered as comments regarding
this direct final rule.
    FDA is providing a comment period for the direct final rule of 75
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If FDA
receives a significant adverse comment, we intend to withdraw this
direct final rule before its effective date by publication of a notice
in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends. A
significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In
determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants
withdrawing a direct final rule, the Agency will consider whether the
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553).
    Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of
the direct final rule will not be considered significant or adverse
under this procedure. For example, a comment recommending a regulation
change in addition to those in the rule would not be considered a
significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule
would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a
significant adverse comment applies to an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and that provision can be severed from the
remainder of the rule, FDA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.
    If FDA does not receive significant adverse comment in response to
the direct final rule, the Agency will publish a document in the
Federal Register confirming the effective date of the final rule. The
Agency intends to make the direct final rule effective 30 days after
publication of the confirmation document in the Federal Register.
    A full description of FDA's policy on direct final rule procedures
may be found in a guidance document published in the Federal Register
of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466). The guidance document may be
accessed at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm.

III. Legal Authority

    FDA is issuing this direct final rule under the public health
provisions of the PHS Act. Section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264)
allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
make and enforce regulations that are necessary ``to prevent the
introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.''

IV. Environmental Impact

    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(g) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    FDA has examined the impacts of the direct final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The Agency believes that this direct
final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. This direct final rule would not affect the ban on
the sale of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length
of less than 4 inches. Since it would allow for, but not require, a
change in the disposition of any seized turtles or eggs, it would not
impose any additional compliance costs. Further, it may result in a
small savings to the Agency from reduced investigator training for the
care and humane destruction of these animals. The Agency certifies that
the direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ''any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $141 million, using the most current (2012) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
direct final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet
or exceed this amount.

VI. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that
the direct final rule does not contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly,
the Agency concludes that the direct final rule does not contain
policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive
order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not
required.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This direct final rule contains no collection of information.
Therefore, clearance by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
is not required.

VIII. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1240

    Communicable diseases, Public health, Travel restrictions, Water
supply.

    Therefore under the Public Health Service Act and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1240 is
amended as follows:

PART 1240--CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1240 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 264, 271.

Sec.  1240.62  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1240.62, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraphs
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively.

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-17751 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

May 12-15, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0104

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Ecological Significance of

Atrazine Effects on Primary Producers in Surface Water Streams in the
Corn

and Sorghum Growing Region of the United States (Part II)

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

 9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Sharlene
Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

 9:10 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair, Daniel Schlenk,
Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

 9:20 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA

 9:30 A.M.	Goals and Objectives – Donald Brady, Ph.D., Director,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), OPP, EPA

 9:40 A.M.	Introduction and Background – Mark Corbin, M.S., Senior
Environmental Scientist, EFED, OPP, EPA

10:10 A.M.	BREAK

10:25 A.M.  	Method for Assessing Ecological Levels of Concerns for
Atrazine Exposures in Freshwater Systems – Russell Erickson, Ph.D.,
Research Chemist, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and
Development, EPA

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

 1:00  P.M.	Analysis of the AEEMP: Characteristics and Extent of
Watersheds that Exceed the Atrazine LOC – Nelson Thurman, M.S., Senior
Science Advisor, EFED, OPP, EPA

 2:15 P.M.	BREAK

 2:30 P.M.  	PUBLIC COMMENTS

 5:30 P.M.     ADJOURN

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

May 12-15, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0104

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Ecological Significance of

Atrazine Effects on Primary Producers in Surface Water Streams in the
Corn

and Sorghum Growing Region of the United States (Part II)

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

  9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

  9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

  9:15 A.M.     PUBLIC COMMENTS

10:30 A.M.	BREAK

10:45 A.M. 	CHARGE TO PANEL: Model Effects Index (MEI) (Questions 1-3)

The foundation of the US EPA methodology for specifying levels of
concern (LOCs) for atrazine exposures in natural freshwater systems is
the relationship of atrazine exposure to effects on aquatic plant
community structure and function in microcosm and mesocosm (cosm)
studies.  Comparing effects among the different atrazine exposure
time-series in the cosm studies and extrapolating effects to other
exposure time-series in natural systems requires an effects model that
can be applied to any exposure time-series to provide a consistent,
quantitative index for toxic effects on the plant community (Model
Effects Index, MEI).  MEI values for cosm exposures are used to develop
an LOC for the MEI (LOCMEI) that best discriminates between cosm
exposures with and without significant effects.  MEI values for
exposures in natural systems can then be evaluated relative to this
LOCMEI.

Question 1:  The effects models considered in this document require
effects concentrations (ECs) from single-species plant toxicity tests
with atrazine that are consistent with respect to the nature and
magnitude of the toxic effects.  Reports on and reviews of such tests
provide ECs that vary widely in meaning, so a new review was conducted
and test results were used to develop a compilation of plant specific
growth rate vs. concentration relationships (Section IV.B).  Please
comment on the strengths and limitations of this review and synthesis of
plant toxicity tests for providing toxicity sensitivity distributions
for use in the atrazine assessment methodology.

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

  1:30 P.M.	CHARGE TO PANEL: QUESTION 2

Question 2:  One source considered for the desired MEI is the
Comprehensive Aquatic Systems Model (CASM), a community simulation
model.  In response to a previous SAP review, this model was modified to
give a more realistic, dynamic simulation of a Midwestern stream
(CASMATZ2).  Sensitivity analyses for this revised model were conducted,
including some additional analyses suggested in the previous SAP review.
 These analyses indicated considerable sensitivity of risk
determinations to the selection of species toxicity parameters and to
various physicochemical variables (Section IV.C).  This indicates that
CASMATZ2 is more suitable for a site-specific, data-intensive assessment
than the generic application that is desired for these atrazine
assessments.  Please comment on the advisability and value of using
CASMATZ2 for generic assessments given these findings and on the nature
and feasibility of additional development efforts that would be needed
to implement this model.

  2:45 P.M.	BREAK

  3:00 P.M.	CHARGE TO PANEL: QUESTION 3

Question 3:  An alternative source considered for the desired MEI was an
index of the severity of toxic impact on a plant assemblage (Plant
Assemblage Toxicity Index, PATI) based directly on single-species plant
toxicity relationships (Section IV.D).  Please comment on the merits and
limitations of this source for the MEI.  Based on the coherence of risk
evaluations between the PATI-based and the CASM-based methodologies, EPA
has concluded that the additional processes included in CASM are not
needed for the assessment methodology and that the PATI-based
methodology should be adopted.  Please comment on the merits of this
conclusion.

  5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

May 12-15, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0104

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Ecological Significance of

Atrazine Effects on Primary Producers in Surface Water Streams in the
Corn

and Sorghum Growing Region of the United States (Part II)

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, May 14, 2009

  9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

  9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

  9:10 A.M. 	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

	Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA

  9:30 A.M.	CHARGE TO PANEL: Agency’s Watershed Analysis (Questions
4-5)

The Agency identified three sites that exceeded the PATI LOCMEI in
multiple years and six sites that exceeded the LOCMEI in one year
(Section V).  Based on the results of the Agency’s watershed analysis
in Section VI to identify additional sites that might exceed the
atrazine LOC, US EPA proposes two questions for the SAP:

Question 4: Based on an analysis of watershed characteristics of the 40
monitoring sites, the US EPA concluded that the presence of soils that
either have a high runoff potential or are in hydrologic soil group C or
D, and have a shallow layer with a moderately low saturated hydraulic
conductivity best distinguish sites that exceed the LOC in multiple
years from those that do not exceed the LOC.  Please comment on the
merits of the watershed criteria the Agency used to identify watersheds
that might exceed the atrazine LOC.

10:45 A.M.	BREAK

11:00 A.M.	CHARGE TO PANEL: QUESTION 5

Question 5: Neither atrazine use intensity or rainfall data (annual or
monthly) correlate positively with watersheds that exceed the LOC. The
Agency noted that the monitoring site selection already focused on areas
with sufficient atrazine use to potentially result in high atrazine
exposures in streams.  Please comment on the Agency’s proposed
approach to establish a minimum criteria for atrazine use intensity (>
0.1 lb ai/A) and rainfall (>23 inches annually).

12:30 P.M.	LUNCH

  1:30 P.M.	Panel Discussion

  3:00 P.M. 	BREAK

  3:15 P.M.  	Panel Discussion

  5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Sharlene Matten, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(202) 564-8382; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6606-6607]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

January 31, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1731-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Oneok Energy Services Company, L.P. to BG Energy
Merchants, LLC., Negotiated Rate Agreement to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1732-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: J-W 34689 to Q-West Capacity Release Negative Rate
Agreement to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1733-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: JW 34690 to Q-West Capacity Release Negative Rate
Agreement to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1734-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Brazos' Non-Conforming Agreement to be
effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1735-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Big
Sandy Pipeline Semi-Annual Retainage Rate Filing to be effective 3/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1736-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Pro Forma GTC Section 18 Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1737-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: CP11-34-000 Amended Initial Rates to be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5245.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1738-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: Capacity Release Agreement Update to be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110128-5266.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 09, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1739-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Medford Lateral Annual Report Year Ending 10-31-10
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110131-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1740-000
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC
    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Kinder Morgan
Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110131-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1741-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing 2011 02-01--Hess to be effective 2/
1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110131-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1742-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Enerquest to Sequent Capacity Release Negotiated Rate
Agreement Filing to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110131-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2626 Filed 2-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 71605-71607]
[DOCID:fr11de06-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54859; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Performance
Evaluations for Streaming Quote Traders and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders

December 1, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 22, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Phlx. 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 Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to adopt Phlx Rule 510, SQT and RSQT
Performance Evaluation, to establish performance requirements for
Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \5\ and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders (``RSQTs'').\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Phlx's

Web site at http://www.phlx.com, at the Phlx's Office of the Secretary,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See Phlx
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A). AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order
delivery, routing, execution and reporting system, which provides
for the automatic entry and routing of equity option and index
option orders to the Exchange trading floor. Orders delivered
through AUTOM may be executed manually, or certain orders are
eligible for AUTOM's automatic execution features, AUTO-X, Book
Sweep and Book Match. AUTOM is today more commonly referred to as
Phlx XL. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 46612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59) and Phlx Rule
1080.
    \6\ An RSQT is a participant in Phlx XL who has received
permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his own
account, and to generate and submit option quotations electronically
from off the floor of the Exchange through AUTOM in eligible options
to which such RSQT has been assigned. See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 new Phlx Rule
510 to (1) Establish performance requirements for SQTs and RSQTs, (2)
authorize the Exchange to conduct performance evaluations periodically,
and (3) authorize the Exchange's Options Allocation, Evaluation and
Securities Committee (``OAESC'') \7\ to take corrective action where
minimum requirements are not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Phlx By-Law Article X, Section 10-7. OAESC has
jurisdiction over, among other things: the appointment of
specialists on the options and foreign currency options trading
floors; allocation, retention and transfer of privileges to deal in
options on the trading floors; and administration of the 500 series
of the Phlx rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Phlx Rule 510 provides for monthly performance evaluations
of SQTs and RSQTs to determine whether they have fulfilled performance
standards relating to, among other things, quality of markets,
efficient quote submission to the Exchange (including quotes submitted
through a third party vendor), competition, observance of ethical
standards, and administrative factors.
    The proposal would permit the Exchange to consider requests for
relief from established quote spread parameters on the Exchange \8\ and
efficiency of quote submission through the Specialized Quote Feed
(``SQF''), as defined in Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .01. Failure to
meet established minimum performance requirements could result in
restriction by the OAESC of additional options assignments; suspension,
termination, or restriction of an existing assignment on one or more
options; or suspension, termination, or restriction of an SQT's or
RSQT's status as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Rule 1014(c)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Phlx Rule 510 would establish specific criteria for each option
assigned to an SQT or RSQT that would be regularly evaluated by the
Exchange. First, the Exchange would evaluate the percentage of total
quotes submitted by the SQT or RSQT that represent the NBBO. If the
percentage of the total quotes that represent the NBBO is in the lowest
quartile of all SQTs or RSQTs for two or more consecutive months, this
may be considered sub-standard performance.
    Second, the Exchange would evaluate the SQT or RSQT's adherence to
the Exchange's established quoting requirements pursuant to Phlx Rule
1014.\9\ If an SQT or RSQT fails to meet the quoting requirements as
prescribed by the rule, this may be considered sub-standard
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) provides that an SQT and an RSQT
shall be responsible to quote continuous, two-sided markets in not
less than 60% of the series in each option in which such SQT or RSQT
is assigned, provided that, on any given day, a Directed SQT
(``DSQT'') or a Directed RSQT (``DRSQT'') (as defined in Phlx Rule
1080(l)(i)(C)) shall be responsible to quote continuous, two-sided
markets in not less than 99% of the series listed on the Exchange in
at least 60% of the options in which such DSQT or DRSQT is assigned.
Whenever a DSQT or DRSQT enters a quotation in an option in which
such DSQT or DRSQT is assigned, such DSQT or DRSQT must maintain
continuous quotations for not less than 99% of the series of the
option listed on the Exchange until the close of that trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange would consider the number of requests for quote
spread parameter \10\ relief for the purposes of evaluating performance
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Phlx Rule 1034 establishes maximum allowable bid/ask
differentials on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to evaluate efficient quote submission to the Exchange,
the Exchange will consider how an SQT or RSQT optimizes the submission
of quotes through the SQF, as defined in Phlx Rule 1080, by evaluating
the number of individual quotes per quote ``block'' received by the
Exchange.
    A quote ``block'' is a component of the Exhange's SQF application
that allows for delivery of a set of multiple quotations from the SQT
or RSQT to the Exchange. Within a single ``block,'' the SQT or RSQT can
deliver quotes for any number of option series ranging from 1 to 99.
    An SQT or RSQT is assigned a number of ports or lines on which they
can send quote blocks. The number of lines assigned dictates the number
of blocks that may be sent simultaneously by the SQT or RSQT. The
number of lines assigned to an SQT or RSQT is generally a function of
the number of products being quoted, taking into account the throughput
required to minimize quote latency risk.
    The Exchange intends to evaluate the average number of quotes (1-
99) submitted within the SQT or RSQT's quote blocks. The number of
quotes delivered in each block would generally be a measure of the SQT
or RSQT's quoting efficiency. For example, a firm sending an average of
1 quote in each block may be considered inefficient while a firm
sending an average of 99 quotes in each block would be considered very
efficient.
    In general, the expenditure of systemic resources required to
process an inefficient block is nearly equal to the expenditure of
systemic resources required to process an efficient block. Therefore,
an efficient SQT or RSQT can achieve a much higher level of quote
submission than an inefficient SQT or RSQT using nearly the same amount
of exchange system resources. The Exchange believes that the regular
monitoring of quoting efficiency in this fashion will result in more
efficient quoting on the Exchange (i.e., more quotes submitted per
block), thus preserving and maximizing Exchange system capacity for
handling quote traffic.
    In conclusion, the Exchange believes that the proposed performance
requirements for SQTs and RSQTs should, among other things, promote
quoting efficiency and preserve system capacity, increase competition,
minimize requests for relief from quote spread parameters, and
encourage efficient adherence to quoting obligations, to the benefit of
customers and the marketplace in general.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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, by establishing performance
standards for SQTs and RSQTs, which should, in turn, improve the
quality of markets on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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 Phlx 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-2006-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Phlx. 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-2006-51 and should be submitted on or before January 2, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20963 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P