[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47793-47794]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0424]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Temporary Marketing
Permit Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by September 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0133. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Temporary Marketing Permit Applications--21 CFR 130.17(c) and (i)

OMB Control Number 0910-0133--Extension

    Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
341) (FD&C Act) directs FDA to issue regulations establishing
definitions and standards of identity for food. Under section 403(g) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(g)), a food that is subject to a definition
and standard of identity prescribed by regulation is misbranded if it
does not conform to such definition and standard of identity. Section
130.17 (21 CFR 130.17) provides for the issuance by FDA of temporary
marketing permits that enable the food industry to test consumer
acceptance and measure the technological and commercial feasibility in
interstate commerce of experimental packs of food that deviate from
applicable definitions and standards of identity. Section 130.17(c)
enables the Agency to monitor the manufacture, labeling, and
distribution of experimental packs of food that deviate from applicable
definitions and standards of identity. The information so obtained can
be used in support of a petition to establish or amend the applicable
definition or standard of identity to provide for the variations.
Section 130.17(i) specifies the information that a firm must submit to
FDA to obtain an extension of a temporary marketing permit.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include private sector businesses including institutional
and/or industrial customers and food industry members such as
manufacturers, packers, or distributors desiring to apply for a
temporary marketing permit or permit extension.
    In the Federal Register of April 16, 2020 (85 FR 21247), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                     Number of       Number of     Total annual     burden  per
    21 CFR section; activity        respondents   responses  per     responses     response  (in    Total hours
                                                     respondent                       hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130.17(c); Request for temporary              13               2              26              25             650
 marketing permit...............
130.17(i); Request to extend                   1               2               2               2               4
 marketing permit...............
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: July 31, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17168 Filed 8-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 6224]
[DOCID:fr01fe08-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W; SEC File No. 270-40; OMB Control No.
3235-0313.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 203-2 (17 CFR
275.203-2) and Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).'' Rule 203-2 under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 establishes procedures for an investment adviser to
withdraw its registration with the Commission. Rule 203-2 requires
every person withdrawing from investment adviser registration with the
Commission to file Form ADV-W electronically on the Investment Adviser
Registration Depository (``IARD''). The purpose of the information
collection is to notify the Commission and the public when an
investment adviser withdraws its pending or approved SEC registration.
Typically, an investment adviser files a Form ADV-W when it ceases
doing business or when it is ineligible to remain registered with the
Commission.
    The potential respondents to this information collection are all
investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has
estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-W
imposes a total burden of approximately 0.75 hours (45 minutes) for an
adviser filing for full withdrawal and approximately 0.25 hours (15
minutes) for an adviser filing for partial withdrawal. Based on
historical filings, the Commission estimates that there are
approximately 500 respondents annually filing for full withdrawal and
approximately 500 respondents annually filing for partial withdrawal.
Based on these estimates, the total estimated annual burden would be
500 hours ((500 respondents x .75 hours) + (500 respondents x .25
hours)).
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W do not require recordkeeping or records
retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule
and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule
and Form ADV-W are filings with the Commission. These filings are not
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (iii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information

Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days

of this notice.

    Dated: January 28, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1843 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41487-41488]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2015-1118]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments; extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a public meeting to receive comments
on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Anchorage
Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA'' that was published in
the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 19, 2016. As stated in that
document, the Coast Guard is considering amending the regulations for
Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters anchorages by establishing a new
anchorage, near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.

DATES: A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, from 6
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on July 20, 2016, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. to provide
an opportunity for oral comments. Written comments and related material
may also be submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that
meeting. All comments and related material submitted after the meeting
must be received by the Coast Guard on or before Wednesday, August 31,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting on July 19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to 7:30
p.m. will be held at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume
St., Norfolk, VA 23510, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The public meeting on
July 20, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. will be held at Eastern Shore
Community College Lecture Hall, 29300 Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA,
23410.
    This document serves to inform the public that the Coast Guard has
extended the public comment period for advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM); Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape
Charles, VA to Wednesday, August 31, 2016. The public comment period
for this ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on Monday, July 18,
2016.
    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and related material must be received by
the Coast Guard on or before August 31, 2016. If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov,

contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments.
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a
Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in
the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning the
meeting or the advance proposed rule, please call or email LCDR Barbara
Wilk, Sector Hampton Roads Waterways Management Officer, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in
the Federal Register on April 19, 2016 (81 FR 22939), entitled
``Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA.'' In it we
stated our intention to hold two public meetings, and to publish a
notice announcing the location and date (81 FR 22940). This document is
the notice of that meeting.
    In the ANPRM, we stated that the Coast Guard is considering
amending the regulations for Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters
anchorages by establishing a new anchorage, near Cape Charles, VA on
the Lower Chesapeake Bay.
    You may view the ANPRM in our online docket, in addition to
supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard (Illustration
Contemplated Anchorage R), and comments submitted thus far by going to
http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert ``USCG-2015-1118'' in
the ``Search'' box and click ``Search.''
    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring
written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard
personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These
comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you have provided.
    Comments submitted before or after the meetings must reach the
Coast Guard on or before Wednesday, August 31, 2016. We encourage you
to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the March 24, 2005, issue of the
Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Agenda of Public Meeting

    The agenda includes the following:
    (1) Introduction of panel members.
    (2) Overview of meeting format.
    (3) Background on proposed anchorage regulation.
    (4) Comments from interested persons. Comments may be delivered in
written form at the public meeting and made part of the docket or
delivered orally not to exceed 10 minutes.

Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact LCDR Barbara Wilk at the telephone number or email address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.

Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting regarding its
``Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA'' advance
notice of proposed rulemaking on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume St.,
Norfolk, VA 23510, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The public meeting on July
20, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. will be held at Eastern Shore
Community College Lecture Hall, 29300 Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA,
23410. A written summary of the meeting and comments will be placed in
the docket.

    Dated: June 14, 2016.
Christopher S. Keane,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2016-15033 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42568-42572]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72630; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Section I and Section II of the Pricing Schedule

July 16, 2014.
    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 July 10, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I of the Pricing Schedule
which pertains to Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
SPY and Section II of the Pricing Schedule which pertains to Multiply
Listed Options fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Multiply Listed Options fees includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Section I of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in SPY'' to eliminate the $0.38 Customer Complex Order Rebate
for executions in SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY''), and to amend Section II
of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled ``Multiply Listed Options''
to: (i) amend the Firm \4\ Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
Options \5\ and non-Penny Pilot Options for electronic simple orders in
certain symbols and (ii) amend the Monthly Market Maker Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \5\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and was last
extended in May 2014. See Securities and Exchange Release No. 72245
(May 23, 2014), 79 FR 31164 (May 30, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Customer Complex Order
Rebate for executions in SPY.\6\ Currently, the Exchange does not
assess a Customer either a Fee for Adding or Removing Liquidity in
Complex Orders in SPY options. All market participants, other than a
Customer, are assessed a $0.10 per contract Complex Order Fee for
Adding Liquidity in SPY options. The Exchange also assesses Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for SPY options as follows: a
Specialist \7\ and Market Maker \8\ are assessed a $0.40 per contract
Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity and a Firm, Broker-

Dealer \9\ and Professional \10\ are assessed $0.50 per contract.
Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity, applicable to Specialists
and Market Makers, are decreased by $0.02 per contract when the
Specialist or Market Maker transacts against a Customer Order directed
to that Specialist or Market Maker for execution. In addition, the
Exchange currently pays a Customer rebate of $0.38 per electronically-
delivered and executed contract in Complex Orders in SPY options,
including Customer executions that occur as part of a Complex
electronic auction. The Exchange is now proposing to eliminate this
$0.38 per contract Customer rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \7\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \8\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \9\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \10\ The term ``Professional'' means any 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). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange proposes to reduce the Firm Options Transaction
Charges in Penny Pilot Options and non-Penny Pilot Options for
electronic simple orders in Apple Inc. (``AAPL''), Bank of America
Corporation (``BAC''), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (``EEM''),
Facebook, Inc. (``FB''), iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), iShares
Russell 2000 ETF (``IWM''), PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ''), Twitter,
Inc. (``TWTR''), iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (``VXX'') and
Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLF'') to $0.25 per contract.
Currently, a Firm is assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge
for electronic simple orders in these symbols of $0.48 per contract
(Penny Pilot Options) or $0.70 (non-Penny Pilot Options).\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, VXX and XLF are
currently Penny Pilot options and TWTR is a non-Penny Pilot option.
The $0.25 per contract pricing proposed herein is symbol-specific
and will continue to apply to these symbols whether or not they are
deleted from or added to the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that offering Firms the opportunity to lower
the Options Transaction Charge from $0.48 to $0.25 (for Penny Pilot)
and from $0.70 to $0.25 (for non-Penny Pilot) for electronic simple
orders in these symbols will encourage the transaction of these types
of orders on Phlx, thereby increasing liquidity to the benefit of all
market participants.
Monthly Market Maker Cap
    Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange
Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii)
fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or
specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading activity of
separate Specialist and Market Maker member organizations is aggregated
in calculating the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is Common
Ownership between the member organizations.
    All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and
conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined
in Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In
addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side
of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii)
have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17 per
contract fee in symbols other than AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ.
    The Exchange now proposes to add EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF to the
list of symbols to which this $0.17 per contract fee does not apply.
The Exchange believes that assessing Specialists and Market Makers no
fee in these symbols if they are on the contra-side of an
electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and have reached
the Monthly Market Maker Cap will incentivize Specialists and Market
Makers to offer improved bids and offers on the Exchange in these
symbols.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\13\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Customer Complex Order
Rebate for executions in SPY is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Customers, unlike other market participants,
already are not assessed Fees for Adding Liquidity or Fees for Removing
Liquidity with respect to execution of Complex Orders in SPY. No other
market participant receives a rebate for executions of Complex Orders
in SPY. The elimination of the rebate will apply to all Customers
uniformly.
Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Firm Options Transaction
Charges for simple electronic orders from $0.48 per contract (in Penny
Pilot options) and $0.70 per contract (in non-Penny Pilot options) to
$0.25 per contract in AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX and
XLF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because
it will allow the Exchange to incentivize Firms to send electronic
simple orders in these symbols to the Exchange and because pricing by
symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means
to incentive order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution.\14\
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to use a pricing reduction to
provide additional opportunities for members to increase their
participation in the market. The Exchange's fees will be competitive
with fees at other options markets. Although the Exchange will still be
assessing Firms more than Customers (which do not pay the Option
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot or in non-Penny Pilot options),
Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit
of all market participants and benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Although Firms will still be charged more for Penny Pilot options than
Specialists and Market Makers who are charged $0.22, Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\15\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., the International Securities Exchange LLC
(``ISE'') Schedule of Fees.
    \15\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as proposed, Firms will be charged only $0.25 in these
symbols

which is less than the Professional and Broker-Dealer charge of $0.48
(for Penny Pilot options) or $0.70 (for non-Penny Pilot options). The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee differential between Firms and
Broker-Dealers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
is similar to the pricing offered by another options exchange.\16\
Moreover, the proposed differential does not misalign pricing, in that
Firms already benefit from certain pricing advantages that Broker-
Dealers do not also enjoy (for example, the Firm Monthly Fee Cap \17\).
The proposed fee reduction that will apply to Firms but not to Broker-
Dealers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same
reasons that the Firm Monthly Fee Cap which applies to Firms and not to
Broker-Dealers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The fee
reduction proposed herein, like the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, provides an
incentive for Firms to transact order flow on the Exchange, which order
flow brings increased liquidity to the Exchange for the benefit of all
Exchange participants. To the extent the purpose of the proposed Firm
fee reduction is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants,
including Broker-Dealers, should benefit from the improved market
liquidity. Further, competitive forces are influencing the price
reduction in these symbols for Firm orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'') Fee Schedule, non-
member Broker-Dealers are assessed a $0.45 per contract standard
options transaction fee and a Firm is assessed a $0.25 per contract
standard options transaction fee.
    \17\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC
Transaction Fees, in the aggregate, for one billing month may not
exceed the Monthly Firm Fee Cap per member organization when such
members are trading in their own proprietary account. All dividend,
merger, and short stock interest strategy executions (as defined in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule) are excluded from the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap. Reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread
strategy executions (as defined in Section II) are included in the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap. QCC Transaction Fees are included in the
calculation of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange desires to incentivize Firms that receive reduced
rates at other options exchanges to select Phlx as a venue by offering
competitive pricing to these market participants. Such competitive,
differentiated pricing exists today on other options exchanges. The
Chicago Board of Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') assesses a
reduced fee to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary \18\
participants of $0.35 per contract for electronic Penny and Non-Penny
Pilot options. CBOE assesses Broker-Dealers/Professionals/Non-Trading
Permit Holder Market Makers a $0.45 per contact fee for electronic
Penny Pilot options and a $0.60 per contract fee for electronic Non-
Penny Pilot options classes.\19\ CBOE has a differential as between
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary participants (the equivalent
of Firm on Phlx) and other non-Customer, non-Market Maker participants
of $0.10 per contract in electronic Penny Pilot options and $0.25 per
contract in Non-Penny Pilot options. Further, CBOE assesses Broker-
Dealers/Professionals/Non-Trading Permit Holder Market Makers between
$0.35--$0.44 per contract for SPX executions (a singly listed CBOE
proprietary product) versus the Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary (the equivalent of Firm on Phlx) who is assessed between
$0.25--$0.01 per contract in SPX for a maximum differential of $0.43
per contract in a CBOE proprietary product.\20\ Phlx's differential as
between a Firm on the one hand and other non-Customer, non-Specialist/
Market Makers on the other is not as wide as CBOE's pricing and
moreover a competitive offering given current pricing differentials on
other options exchange such as MIAX and CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This market participant clears in the Firm range at OCC.
See CBOE's Fees Schedule at note 11. See also Regulatory Circular
RG13-038.
    \19\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes there is nothing impermissible about Phlx
offering a discount solely to Firm since this is consistent with the
above examples and longstanding differentials between Firm, other
broker-dealers and professionals. The options exchanges have
differentiated between retail customers and professional customers,
broker/dealers clearing in the ``Firm'' range at The Options Clearing
Corp, broker/dealers registered as market makers, away market makers,
early-adopting market makers, and many others; and the Commission has
permitted price differentiation based on whether an order is processed
manually versus electronically. The proposal is consistent with
previously accepted pricing proposals accepted by the Commission.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge a Professional the same rate as a Broker-
Dealer, as it can be argued that Professionals have the same
technological and information advantages as Broker-Dealers trading for
their own account,\21\ and as such receive similar rates. The proposed
differentiation as between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and
other Firms recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66668 (March 28,
2012), 77 FR 20090 (April 3, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-35) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Equity Options Fees and Singly Listed Options Fee) at page
20091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Market Maker Cap
    The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or
Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-
delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap in EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF as well as in
AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange desires to incentivize Specialists
and Market Makers to transact more options in these symbols and bring
additional liquidity to the Exchange. All market participants will
benefit from the increased Customer liquidity brought to the Exchange.
The Exchange today differentiates pricing by option symbols.\22\
Specialists and Market Makers will continue to pay the same fee of
$0.17 per contract in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options, when the cap
is satisfied, except for the symbols noted above. Specialists and
Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations \23\ to the market
that do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-
Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers serve an important role on the
Exchange with regard to order interaction and they provide liquidity in
the marketplace. Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur
costs unlike other market participants including, but not limited to,
Payment for Order Flow (``PFOF'') \24\ and other costs associated with
market making activities, which results in a higher average cost per
execution as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals. The
proposed differentiation as between Specialists and Market Makers as
compared to other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the trading environment on the Exchange by

these market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. The Exchange believes that offering Specialists
and Market Makers the opportunity to cap fees in certain highly liquid
Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for
the reasons noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule which differentiates
pricing in SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY'') options. See also Securities
Exchange Release No. 66757 (April 6, 2012), 77 FR 22034 (April 12,
2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-45).
    \23\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders''.
    \24\ Specialists and Market Makers, as compared to other market
participants, are assessed PFOF when transacting Customer electronic
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Customer Complex Order
Rebate for executions in SPY will not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition because all Exchange members will
be treated uniformly with respect to the elimination of Customer
Complex Order Rebate in SPY.
    The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Firm Options Transaction
Charges for simple electronic orders in Penny Pilot Options from $0.48
per contract (in Penny Pilot options) and $0.70 per contract (in non-
Penny Pilot options) to $0.25 per contract in AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI,
IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX and XLF will not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition because the $0.25 assessed to Firms
under this proposal is similar to rates offered by other options
exchanges, chiefly MIAX ($0.25), Chicago Board Options Exchange ($0.35)
and NYSE AMEX Options ($0.32).
    Specialists and Market Makers will be offered the opportunity to
pay no fees, after they have satisfied the obligations related to the
Monthly Market Maker Cap, in EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF as well as in
AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ. As noted above Specialists and Market
Makers have burdensome quoting obligations to the market that do not
apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers.
Specialists and Market Makers serve an important role on the Exchange
with regard to order interaction and they provide liquidity in the
marketplace. Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs
unlike other market participants including, but not limited to, PFOF
and other costs associated with market making activities, which results
in a higher average cost per execution as compared to Firms, Broker-
Dealers and Professionals. The proposed differentiation as between
Specialists and Market Makers as compared to other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase
in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates
tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants. For these reasons noted
above, the Exchange does not believe that offering Specialists and
Market Makers the opportunity to cap fees in certain symbols imposes an
undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are
influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain
competitive with fees charged by other venues and therefore must
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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-2014-47, and should be
submitted on or before August 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17154 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10584-10585]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0069]

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Diesel Outboard
Engine Development

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Mack Boring
& Parts Co (hence forth referred to as Mack) to evaluate and test the
advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements,
performance, costs, and other issues associated with diesel outboard
engine technology. A test schedule has been proposed in which Mack will
provide and install two of their diesel outboard engines onto a
selected Coast Guard boat platform; the Coast Guard Research and
Development Center (R&D Center) will outfit the platform with the
necessary instrumentation to monitor power, speed, and fuel
consumption; and a Coast Guard field unit will operate the boat for
performance testing over a six-month period to collect information on
reliability, maintenance requirements, and availability data. While the
Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with Mack the agency is
soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation
of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard
also invites other potential non-Federal participants to propose
similar CRADAs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before March 16, 2017.
    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast
Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before March 16,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov
following Web site instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact LT Carlon F.
Brietzke, Project Official, Surface Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research
and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan
to respond to comments in the Federal Register, we will respond
directly to commenters and may modify our proposal in light of
comments.
    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2017-0069 and
should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all
comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that
any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR
3316, Jan. 17, 2008). We also accept anonymous comments.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents mentioned in this
notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket
Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).\1\ A CRADA promotes
the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as
well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent
with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party
or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research
resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statute confers this authority on the head of each
Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the
Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation
No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that
CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have
a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement
contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.
    Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one
non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal
participant will collect information/data for performance, reliability,
maintenance requirements, and other data on diesel outboard engines.
After an initial performance test, the Coast Guard plans to operate to
test and evaluate the designated platform outfitted with the diesel
outboard engine technology for a period of six months.
    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the
proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Work with non-Federal participant to develop the test plan to
be executed under the CRADA;
    (2) Provide the test platform, test platform support, facilities,
and seek all required approvals for testing under the CRADA;
    (3) Prepare the test platform for diesel outboard engine install
and operations;
    (4) Provide fuel and test platform operators for the performance
and reliability, maintenance, and availability testing;

    (5) Collect and analyze data in accordance with the CRADA test
plan; and
    (6) Work with non-Federal participant to develop a Final Report,
which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of this CRADA work.
    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions
under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Work with R&D Center to develop the test plan to be executed
under the CRADA;
    (2) Provide the technical data package for all equipments,
including dimensions, weight, power requirements, and other technical
considerations for the additional components to be utilized under this
CRADA;
    (3) Provide for shipment, delivery, and install of diesel outboard
engines required for testing under this CRADA;
    (4) Provide technical oversight, technical engine, and operator
training on the engines provided for testing under this CRADA; and
    (5) Provide/pay for travel and other associated personnel costs and
other required expenses.
    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants
all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard
will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development
costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this
notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be
unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding
cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select
proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to
meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
    (2) How well they address the following criteria:
    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party
contributions described; and
    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party
contributions described.
    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Mack for participation in
this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that Mack has
demonstrated its technical ability as a U.S. Distributor of diesel
outboard engines. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable
participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
    This is a technology assessment effort. The goal of the Coast Guard
for this CRADA is to better understand the advantages, disadvantages,
required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues
associated with diesel outboard engines. Special consideration will be
given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given
to business units located in the U.S. This notice is issued under the
authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: January 30, 2017.
Captain Dennis C. Evans, USCG,
Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-02935 Filed 2-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1760-1762]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0782; FRL-9766-7]

Determination of Attainment for the San Francisco Bay Area
Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California;
Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to determine that the San Francisco
Bay Area nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour
fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured,
and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. Based on the above determination,
the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines are suspended for so long
as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0782 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g.,
Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials,
please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65521), EPA proposed to determine that
the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area\1\ has attained the 2006
24-hour NAAQS \2\ for fine particles (generally referring to particles
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5 nonattainment
area includes southern Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San
Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and the western part of
Solano counties.
    \2\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we explained how EPA makes an attainment
determination for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by reference
to complete, quality-assured data gathered at State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and entered into EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database and by reference to 40 CFR 50.13 (``National primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5'') and
appendix N to [40 CFR] part 50 (``Interpretation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5''). EPA proposed the
determination of attainment for the San Francisco Bay Area based upon a
review of the monitoring network operated by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) and the data collected at the 10
monitoring sites operating during the most recent complete three-year
period (i.e., 2009 to 2011). Based on this review, EPA found that
complete, quality-assured and certified data for the San Francisco Bay
Area showed that the 24-hour design value for the 2009-2011 period was
equal to or less than 35 [micro]/m\3\ at all of the monitor sites. See
the data summary table on page 65523 of the October 29, 2012 proposed
rule. We also noted that preliminary data available in AQS for 2012
indicates that the San Francisco Bay Area continues to attain the
NAAQS.
    In our proposed rule, based on the proposed determination of
attainment, we also proposed to apply EPA's Clean Data Policy to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and thereby suspend the requirements for
this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP)
plan, and contingency measures for so long as the area continues to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See pages 65524-65525
of our October 29, 2012 proposed rule. In proposing to apply the Clean
Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we explained how we are
applying the same statutory interpretation with respect to the
implications of clean data determinations that the Agency has long
applied in regulations for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS and in individual rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone,
PM10 and lead NAAQS.
    Please see the October 29, 2012 proposed rule for more detailed
information concerning the PM2.5 NAAQS, designations of
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the regulatory basis for
determining attainment of the NAAQS, BAAQMD's PM2.5
monitoring network, EPA's review and evaluation of the data, and the
rationale and implications for application of the Clean Data Policy to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA's Final Action

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and summarized
herein, EPA is taking final action to determine that the San Francisco
Bay Area

nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured, and certified data in AQS for 2009-2011.
Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 show that this area
continues to attain the standard.
    EPA is also taking final action, based on the above determination
of attainment, to suspend the requirements for the San Francisco Bay
Area nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA's final action is consistent and in keeping with its long-
held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's
regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918)
and the 1997 fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)).
    Today's final action does not constitute a redesignation of the San
Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have
not yet approved a maintenance plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 remain nonattainment for this area until such time as EPA determines
that California has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the San
Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area to attainment.
    If the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area continues to
monitor attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements
for the area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM,
a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will remain
suspended. If after today's action EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the area
has violated the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the
suspension of the attainment planning requirements for the area would
no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address such
requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final action makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality and suspends certain federal requirements, and thus, this
action would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For this reason, the final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes, and thus this action will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 18, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.247 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.247  Control Strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.

    (a) Determination of Attainment: Effective February 8, 2013, EPA
has determined that, based on 2009 to 2011 ambient air quality data,
the San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5 nonattainment area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination
suspends the requirements for this area to submit an

attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment for as long as this area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that this area no
longer meets the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the corresponding
determination of attainment for that area shall be withdrawn.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2013-00170 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76387-76389]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In July 2013,
there were seven applications approved. This notice also includes
information on one application, approved in April 2013, inadvertently
left off the April 2013 notice. Additionally, 12 approved amendments to
previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority, New Haven,
Connecticut.
    Application Number: 13-06-C-00-HVN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1,240,855.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2020.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators nonscheduled/on demand air carriers.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
Property acquisition.
    Decision Date: April 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Scott, New England region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Mercer, West Trenton, New Jersey.
    Application Number: 13-03-C-00-TTN.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $2,913,645.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Trenton Mercer Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Acquire snow removal equipment.
    Rehabilitate taxiways A, C and J.
    Improve runways 6/24 and 16/34 runway safety areas (engineered
materials arresting system).
    Rehabilitate taxiways H, B, and F.
    Airfield marking.
    Acquire and install wildlife fence.
    Airport security fencing.
    Replace aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles 343 and 344.
    Terminal building modifications.
    PFC program administration.
    Decision Date: July 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Counties of Lackawanna and Luzerne, Avoca,
Pennsylvania.
    Application Number: 13-10-C-00-AVP.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $10,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2029.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2031.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Acquire quick response aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
    Decision Date: July 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Garden City, Kansas.
    Application Number: 13-01-C-00-GCK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $770,628.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2022.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on demand air taxi operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Garden City Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Security enhancements.
    Rehabilitate runway.
    Snow removal equipment--broom.
    Design and rehabilitate taxiway and runway lighting.
    Rehabilitate taxiway--phase I.
    Install runway vertical/visual guidance system.
    Rehabilitate taxiway.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
    Rehabilitate taxiway--phase II.
    Rehabilitate taxiway--phase III.
    Rehabilitate taxiway--phase IV.
    Rehabilitate taxiway--phase V.
    Airport master plan.
    Wildlife fence--phase 1.
    Decision Date: July 15, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Bridges, Central Region
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Pocatello, Idaho.
    Application Number: 13-07-C-00-PIH.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $210,835.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2015.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2018.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Snow removal equipment acquisition (broom).
    Terminal jet bridge modification (design).
    Pavement condition index maintenance update.
    Taxilane construction/conversion.
    Terminal jet bridge and gate modification (construction).
    General aviation ramp rehabilitation (phase I).
    Taxiway E relocation.
    Runway 03 precision approach path indicator installation.
    General aviation apron rehabilitation (phase II).
    Snow removal equipment acquisition (tractor).
    PFC administration.
    Decision Date: July 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of San Joaquin, Stockton, California.
    Application Number: 13-06-C-00-SCK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $792,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: June 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Stockton Metropolitan Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal building renovations.
    Americans with Disabilities Act access improvements.
    Rehabilitation of runway 11L/29R lighting system.
    Decision Date: July 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Kumar, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
    Application Number: 13-06-C-00-CLL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1,233,207.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2018.

    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Construct apron.
    Rehabilitate taxiway H.
    Improve airport drainage.
    Rehabilitate runway 10/28.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Construct taxiway G.
    Master plan update study.
    Rehabilitate apron.
    PFC application and administration costs.
    Decision Date: July 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Cooks, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Durango and County of La Plata, Durango,
Colorado.
    Application Number: 13-08-C-00-DRO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $10,400,800.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate vehicle service road.
    Update terminal area master plan.
    Commercial ramp utility relocation.
    Terminal building expansion design.
    Terminal building expansion.
    Rehabilitate taxiway A.
    Rehabilitate taxiway A1 to A6 (design).
    Decision Date: July 30, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Lyman, Denver Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original        Amendment       estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-04-C-01-HGR, Hagerstown, MD..        07/08/13         $12,298         $12,303        04/01/13        04/01/13
06-10-C-02-SLC, Salt Lake City,         07/10/13      72,172,545      71,783,176        07/01/09        10/01/08
 UT.............................
05-08-C-03-COS, Colorado                07/12/13       7,756,638       7,404,661        10/01/05        09/01/05
 Springs, CO....................
05-09-C-02-COS, Colorado                07/12/13       6,255,000       6,116,216        01/01/08        10/01/07
 Springs, CO....................
06-04-C-03-UNV, State College,          07/19/13       1,283,662       1,282,967        02/01/09        02/01/09
 PA.............................
07-05-C-01-PIH, Pocatello, ID...        07/23/13         405,300         419,295        06/01/11        02/01/10
99-01-C-06-ACY, Atlantic City,          07/23/13       8,380,852       8,224,054        02/01/06        02/01/06
 NJ.............................
03-02-C-05-ACY, Atlantic City,          07/24/13       1,363,575       1,347,095        06/01/07        11/01/06
 NJ.............................
06-04-U-01-ACY, Atlantic City,          07/24/13              NA              NA        06/01/07        11/01/06
 NJ.............................
08-06-C-01-ACY, Atlantic City,          07/24/13       5,515,092       5,490,092        04/01/11        04/01/11
 NJ.............................
07-06-C-02-GCC, Gillette, WY....        07/24/13          91,395         116,169        11/01/10        01/01/11
10-06-C-01-BIL, Billings, MT....        07/25/13       2,856,620       2,223,924        09/01/11        01/01/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 6, 2013.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2013-29927 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 39650-39651]
[DOCID:fr19jy07-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56067; File No. SR-NSX-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Effective Period for Rule 2.12 Regarding Third-Party Routing
Services in Respect of Orders Entered Into NSX BLADE

 July 13, 2007.
    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 June 29, 2007, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NSX. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to extend the effective period for Rule
2.12, which describes the terms under which the Exchange provides
routing services procured from a third party with respect to orders
entered into its new state of the art trading system, NSX BLADE. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at NSX, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nsx.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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. NSX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rules 2.11 and 2.12 to
extend the effective period for Rule 2.12 (relating to the Exchange's
use of a third party to provide outbound routing of orders from the
Exchange to other trading centers (``Routing Services'')) through
September 30, 2007, and to delay the effectiveness of Rule 2.11
(relating to the outbound routing function of the Exchange's affiliate,
NSX Securities, LLC (``NSX Securities'')) until October 1, 2007.
    Rule 2.11 provides for certain terms and conditions under which NSX
Securities, an affiliate of the Exchange, will provide Routing
Services. Rule 2.11 was approved by the Commission in connection with
the approval of the Exchange's new trading rules relating to NSX BLADE
on August 31, 2006.\5\ The Exchange filed and received approval for the
addition of Rule 2.12, which provides for terms and conditions of the
Exchange's use of a third party to provide Routing Services.\6\ The
Exchange subsequently filed and received approval to extend the
effective period for Rule 2.12.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54808 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69163 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-15).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55624 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19732 (April 19, 2007) (SR-NSX-2007-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2.12 currently provides that it is effective through June 30,
2007, with Rule 2.11 becoming effective on July 1, 2007. In connection
with the rule filing adding Rule 2.12,\8\ the Exchange requested this
finite period of effectiveness so that the Exchange could offer routing
services through NSX BLADE while NSX Securities completed its
registration process as a broker-dealer with the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (and thus became available to provide
routing services),\9\ and while the Exchange evaluated its options for
providing routing services to ETP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ In January 2007, NSX Securities' application for
registration as a broker-dealer was approved by the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. To date, the Exchange has
not used NSX Securities for routing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant rule filing, the Exchange is proposing to extend the
effectiveness of Rule 2.12 through September 30, 2007, and to delay the
effectiveness of Rule 2.11 until October 1, 2007, in order to allow the
Exchange more time to evaluate its options for providing routing
services to ETP Holders. The ability to route orders entered into NSX
BLADE to away markets for execution at the best available prices is a
key feature of NSX's new system.
    The Exchange intends to provide routing services in accordance with
Rule 2.12 until September 30, 2007, unless the Exchange, with the
Commission's approval, amends Rule 2.12 before such date. During such
time period, the Exchange intends to evaluate its options for providing
routing services. At the conclusion of such time period, the Exchange
may decide to (i) continue the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 on a
permanent basis, and not use NSX Securities as the outbound router (by
filing a proposed rule change

to delete Rule 2.11 and renumbering Rule 2.12); (ii) use the Exchange's
original approach of NSX Securities as an outbound router and
discontinue the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 (by filing a
proposed rule change to delete Rule 2.12); or (iii) file a proposed
rule change to allow ETP Holders to use either NSX Securities or the
approach provided for in proposed Rule 2.12 for outbound routing.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of an exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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 either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit the Exchange to immediately update the effective dates for
NSX Rules 2.11 and 2.12. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written 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. NSX has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice
requirement.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NSX-2007-08 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-NSX-2007-08. 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, 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 NSX. 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-NSX-2007-08 and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13957 Filed 7-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P