[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11251-11252]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03297]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32478; File No. 812-14724]

Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

February 14, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption
from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections
6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered
open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered
open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment
companies, business development companies, as defined in section
2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

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

Applicants: Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, a Delaware statutory
trust that is registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series, and Brinker Capital, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 8, 2016 and
amended on February 1, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on March 14, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Jason B. Moore,
Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, 1055 Westlakes Drive, Berwyn, PA
19312; and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-5786, or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) a Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) the
Underlying Funds that are registered open-end investment companies or
series thereof, their principal underwriters and any broker or dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to sell shares of
the Underlying Fund to the Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in
section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants also request an order of
exemption under

sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from the prohibition on certain
affiliated transactions in section 17(a) of the Act to the extent
necessary to permit the Underlying Funds to sell their shares to, and
redeem their shares from, the Funds of Funds.\4\ Applicants state that
such transactions will be consistent with the policies of each Fund of
Funds and each Underlying Fund and with the general purposes of the Act
and will be based on the net asset values of the Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to each existing and
future series of Brinker Capital Destinations Trust and to each
existing and future registered open-end investment company or series
thereof that is advised by Brinker Capital, Inc. or its successor or
by any other investment adviser controlling, controlled by or under
common control with Brinker Capital, Inc. or its successor and is
part of the same ``group of investment companies'' as Brinker
Capital Destinations Trust (each, a ``Fund''). For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization. For purposes of the request for
relief, the term ``group of investment companies'' means any two or
more registered investment companies, including closed-end
investment companies and business development companies, that hold
themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of
investment and investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants do not request relief for Funds of Funds to
invest in reliance on the order in business development companies
and registered closed-end investment companies that are not listed
and traded on a national securities exchange.
    \4\ A Fund of Funds generally would purchase and sell shares of
an Underlying Fund that operates as an ETF through secondary market
transactions rather than through principal transactions with the
Underlying Fund. Applicants nevertheless request relief from section
17(a) to permit a Fund of Funds to purchase or redeem shares from
the ETF. A Fund of Funds will purchase and sell shares of an
Underlying Fund that is a closed-end fund through secondary market
transactions at market prices rather than through principal
transactions with the closed-end fund. Accordingly, applicants are
not requesting section 17(a) relief with respect to transactions in
shares of closed-end funds (including business development
companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help
prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that
is not in the same ``group of investment companies'' as the Fund of
Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
    3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may
exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section
12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the
proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve
overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered
investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the
Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from
any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03297 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 5 Phenol/ Sodium Phenate Summary September 15, 2004 USES Phenol is registered for use as a sanitizer, bacteriostat, fungicide/ fungistat, Tuberculocide, disinfectant, and Virucide. Further, phenol has a number of use sites including indoor food uses in eating establishments on equipment and utensils, non food indoor uses in commercialtransportation facilities, institutional/ industrial floors, industrial premises/ equipment, laundry equipment, paints, latex, and specialty industrial products. Indoor residential uses of phenol encompass the bathroom premises, hard surfaces, diaper pails, dogs/ canines, household/ domestic dwellings, and solid waste containers ( garbage cans). Phenol also has indoor, medical uses on surgical instruments and pacemakers ( critical items), catheters and inhalation equipment ( semicritical items), bedpans and furniture ( noncritical items), non conductive floors, critical premises ( burn wards), noncritical premises, and institutional premises ( human, veterinary).

FORMULATIONS Phenol/ Sodium Phenate is formulated as a pressurized liquid ( aerosol spray), as a liquid concentrate, as a ready to use liquid, and as an impregnated towelette.

HEALTH EFFECTS Phenol/ Sodium Phenate has a moderate order of acute toxicity via the oral and dermal routes of exposure ( Toxicity Category II or III) and produces severe and marked irritation to the eyes and skin ( Toxicity Category I or II). Phenol concentrations used in acute inhalation studies failed to induce mortality in the study animals. Therefore, toxicity endpoints and a toxicity category could not be established.

Phenol/ Sodium Phenate was administered in two developmental guideline studies in the rat and mouse at concentrations of 30, 60, or 120 mg/ kg/ day and 70, 140, or 280 mg/ kg/ day, respectively. There was no evidence of toxicity in these animals at concentrations below the high dose. Fetal body weight was significantly reduced at 120 and 280 mg/ kg/ day in both rat and mouse studies. Additionally, female mice experienced increased mortality and clinical signs of central nervous system toxicity ( tremors, ataxia, lethargy) at the high dose ( 280 mg/ kg/ day). In a non guideline developmental study ( Kavlock, 1990), there were decreases in rat maternal body weight gain in maternal and offspring. Page 2 of 5 In a 2 generational reproductive study in rats exposed to 200, 1000, or 5000 ppm phenol in drinking water for 10 weeks/ generation, there were decreases in water and food consumption, body weight and body weight gain at the high dose ( potential reduced palatability). Offspring toxic effects including decreases in body weight and litter survival were observed at 5000. This occurred concurrently with maternal toxicity ( decreased maternal body weight); believed to be secondary to the animals' aversion to the flavor of phenol treated water and resulted in decreased maternal as well as offspring body weight. In a non guideline reproductive study ( Bishop, et al. 1997) phenol was administered to mice at a concentration of 350 mg/ kg. There were no treatment related clinical signs or mortality observed in maternal, reproductive, and developmental parameters sand the LOAEL was not established ( highest dose tested, 350 mg/ kg).

Two carcinogenicity studies performed by the National Cancer Institute did not exhibit an incidence of neoplasms in male and female mice or rats following administration of phenol, with the exception of a statistically significant increase in the occurrence of leukemia, lymphoma, or interstitial cell tumors in low dose male rats. Due to the lack of significant tumors in high dose males and the absence of significant neoplasms in mice and female rats, phenol was found to be non carcinogenic in the 2 year drinking water studies. Although phenol treated rats and mice experienced a decrease in mean body weight and body weight gain, the reduction was not significantly different from the respective controls and chronic toxicity was not observed at phenol concentrations up to 5000 ppm. A 20 week dermal study exhibited effects of chronic irritation and hair growth inhibition with administration of 3 mg phenol ( in 200 uL acetone). A single papilloma was found 7 weeks into the study, but there was no evidence that it was significantly increased or treatment related. In a special, mechanistic study there was no evidence of tumor initiation or hepatocyte GSH depletion following administration of 100 mg/ kg/ day phenol. Phenol is classified as a Group D carcinogen; there is inadequate or no human or animal evidence of carcinogenicity.

RISKS Food Risk  the Antimicrobials Division Toxicity Endpoint ( ADTC) committee determined that for acute dietary risk, there was no appropriate endpoint for assessment of acute dietary exposure. AS a result acute dietary estimates were not calculated.

Dietary Exposure: The Agency has conducted a dietary exposure and risk assessment for use of phenol in a ready to use disinfecting solution. A counter top that is treated with product may come in contact with food, which in turn may be digested. An acute RfD/ PAD value was not selected, thus acute dietary risk was not evaluated. For chronic dietary exposure, children have highest percent of chronic PAD, at 36%. For adult males and females, te dietary exposure is 9%, and 7.5% respectively, which is below the Agency's level of concern ( 100% of the PAD).

Water Exposure and Risk: Phenol's use in the production of resins and other manufacturing industries and as a general disinfectant allows for the possibility of ground and surface water contamination. Despite phenol's high water solubility and poor sorption to soil, Page 3 of 5 biodegradation of phenol is sufficiently rapid so that the probability of ground water contamination will be low. Because phenol absorbs light in the region of 290 330 nm, phenol might photo degradate directly in surface water. Phenol is not expected to absorb to sediment in the water column.

Acute/ Chronic Risk: The acute and chronic aggregate risk assessments generally include both dietary and drinking water exposure. Drinking water exposure is not expected from the use of phenol and phenol salt.

Dietary exposure was aggregated with dermal and incidental exposures from use of phenol cleaning products on carpet. The aggregate margin of Exposure ( MOE) was found to be acceptable ( aggregate MOE of 273, acceptable 100).

Short and Intermediate Term Aggregate Risk: In accordance with the policy of the Office of Pesticide Programs, short, intermediate and long term aggregate risk typically includes dietary exposures ( food and water) and residential exposures that can be thought of as occurring together. For homeowner residential scenarios, exposures are interpreted as only short or intermediate term only; exposures are not felt to be long term. Based on the above, for adults, chronic dietary exposure is aggregated with the dermal exposure from cleaning scenario. ( The painting scenario was not chosen to aggregate since dermal MOEs for both airless sprayer and brush/ roller already exceed the Agency's level of concern for handlers ( i. e., an individual who paints his/ her house). For toddlers, aggregate exposure would involve dietary exposure and dermal plus oral exposures to treated carpets.

Occupational Exposure and Risk: Six commercial/ institutional premises scenarios have been considered in this assessment: 1) use as a material preservative as a liquid pour; 2) use of disinfectant solutions in hemodialysis machines; 3) application of paint treated with a material preservative using airless sprayer; 4) application of paint treated with a material preservative using paint brush/ roller; 5) use of disinfectant/ deodorizing spray on hard non porous surfaces; and 6) use of disinfectant towelette on hard non porous surfaces.

The calculated dermal MOEs for the following scenarios are below the target MOE of 100, and therefore are of concern: 1) painting using airless sprayer ( MOE = 21), and 2) wiping hard surfaces using a towelette ( MOE = 70)

The calculated inhalation MOEs for use of airless sprayer in painting ( MOE = 88) was below the target MOE for a short and intermediate term exposure ( target MOE = 300). The MOEs for the inhalation exposure to vapors also exceed the Agency's level of concern.

Environmental Risk: Based on the low likelihood of environmental exposure from registered indoor uses, coupled with phenol's rapid degradation in air, water and soil, as well as low toxicity of phenol to fish, aquatic invertebrates, phenol and salt are not of environmental Page 4 of 5 concern at this time.

Ecological Risk: No submitted ecological hazard data were available to perform a risk assessment for phenol or sodium phenate; instead, data from published literature were sued where available.

Terrestrial Animals  For indoor uses, an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of phenol to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). No avian acute toxicity studies were identified in the reviewed literature for phenol and its salts. Avian acute oral toxicity testing ( 850.2100/ 71 1) is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. Avian dietary toxicity studies using the TGAI of phenol and sodium phenate are not required for the indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

Freshwater Fish  Freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI to establish the toxicity of phenol to fish. Data generally are required for only one species. Testing in two fish species is required for stable chemicals with high volume effluents ( e. g., including, but not limited to, egg washing, fruit and vegetable rinses, swimming pools or materials preservatives) and if the LC 50 in the first species is greater than(> 1 ppm. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish), although other test species identified in OPPTS Guideline ( i. e., 850.1075 ( e)( 4)( i)( A)) also may be used. Many freshwater fish acute toxicity studies were identified from peer reviewed literature, but no studies have been submitted to support registration of phenol/ sodium phenate. Freshwater fish acute toxicity testing ( 850.1075/ 72 1) on one species is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

Acute toxicity for freshwater fish ranged from 5 mg/ L ( rainbow trout) to 23.9 mg/ L ( bluegill), with average values of 9.1 mg/ L for rainbow trout and 17.1 mg/ L for bluegill. These data indicate the phenol is moderately toxic to coldwater species, such as the rainbow trout, and slightly toxic to warmwater species, such as the bluegill.

Incidence Report Assessment: A total of 10 individual incidence cases submitted to the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs are associated with exposure to phenol and / or sodium phenate containing products. Dermal and inhalation ate the two primary route of exposure.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of dermal exposure were skin irritation/ burning, rash, itching, skin discoloration/ redness.

The most common symptoms reported for cases of inhalation exposure were respiratory irritation/ burning, asthma/ difficult breathing, throat/ chest congestion and sore throat. Headache drowsiness, night sweats and heart palpitation have also been reported when exposed to the chemical through both dermal and inhalation exposure routes. Page 5 of 5 HOW THE RISK PICTURE MAY CHANGE Changes and refinements to the risk assessment may occur after consideration of the public comments.


Table 1 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Certification Application Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @ 64.28/ hr Manager @

$ 96.96/ hr Legal @

$ 108.84/ hr Clerical@

$ 31.06/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 1) Applications/

respondent ( 2) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of regulations and guidance 60 1 5 0 66 $ 4,498 0 0 1 7 462 31,486 Developing engine families 21 0 0 0 21 $ 1,350 0 0 1 7 147 9,449 Testing ( manufacturers)( 1) 40 0 0 8 48 $ 2,820 0 60,000 1 2 96 125,639 Testing ( remanufacturers)

( 1) 0 0 0 4 4 $ 124 0 13,333 6 3 72 242,230 Developing deterioration factors 10 0 0 0 10 $ 643 0 0 4 5 200 12,856 Data Entry 16 0 0 2 18 $ 1,091 0 1 9 7 1,134 68,739 Preparing and submitting certification application 15 1 0 2 18 $ 1,075 0 826 4 5 350 38,016 Preparing and submitting " carry over" applications 1 0 0 2 3 $ 126 0 826 8 6 144 45,715 Preparing and supporting running changes 5 0 0 2 7 $ 384 0 2 1 1 7 386 Store, file and maintain records 2 0 0 10 12 $ 439 0 2 9 7 756 27,793 Total per manufacturer 170 2 5 26 203 $ 12,425 0 61,657 varies N/ A N/ A N/ A Total per remanufacturer 130 2 5 22 159 $ 9,729 0 14,990 varies N/ A N/ A N/ A Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 185,988 0 $ 416,322 65 7 3,368 602,310 ( 1) Includes diskettes, photocopying, postage expenses, lab maintenance and testing. See section 6( b)( ii) for details.

( 2) See section 6( d) for details.

( 3) There are 7 companies affected by this collection: 4 engage in engine manufacturing and 6 in rebuilding. Table 2 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Average, Banking and Trading Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @ 64.28/ hr Manager @

$ 96.96/ hr Legal @

$ 108.84/ hr Clerical@

$ 31.06/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 1) Number of Respon. ( 2) Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of regulations and guidance 92 20 5 20 137 $ 9,018 0 0 3 411 27,055 Other precertification activities 30 6 0 4 40 $ 2,634 0 0 3 120 7,903 Submit AB& T info with cert application 9 0 0 2 11 $ 641 0 0 3 33 1,922 Gather information about credit sources/ recipients 30 10 5 20 65 $ 4,063 0 0 3 195 12,190 Develop and submit quarterly reports ( 3) 28 0 0 4 32 $ 1,924 0 4 3 96 5,784 Develop and submit end of the year report 25 0 0 5 30 $ 1,762 0 1 3 90 5,290 Store, file and maintain records 4 0 0 24 28 $ 1,003 0 2 3 84 3,014 Total per respondent 218 36 10 79 343 $ 21,046 0 varies N/ A N/ A N/ A Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 63,137 0 $ 21 3 1,029 63,158 ( 1) Some O& M costs are the same as in certification. See section 6( b)( ii) for details.

( 2) See section 6( d) for details.

( 3) Numbers reflect one activity performed four times a year. Information Collection Activity Engineer @ 64.28/ hr Manager @

$ 96.96/ hr Legal @

$ 108.84/ hr Clerical@

$ 31.06/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost Engine families/

respon Times/

engine family ( 1) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of instructions and regulations 60 2 5 0 67 4595 0 0 1 1 7 469 32,164 Training 16 0 0 0 16 1028 0 30 1 1 7 112 7,409 Projecting testing needs and planning test schedules 11 1 0 0 12 804 0 0 1 1 7 84 5,628 Engine selection 4 0 0 4 8 381 0 0 10 1 7 560 26,695 Engine inspection ( manufacturers) 4 0 0 1 5 288 0 0 2 5 4 200 11,527 Engine inspection and installation audit ( remanufacturers) 15 0 0 5 20 1120 0 10 8 3 7 3,360 189,756 Testing ( manufacturers only) 40 0 0 8 48 2820 0 0 2 5 4 1,920 112,787 Data entry and analysis ( manufacturers) 16 0 0 2 18 1091 0 1 2 1 4 144 8,733 Data entry and analysis ( remanufacturers) 8 0 0 4 12 638 0 1 8 1 7 672 35,811 Preparing and submitting report ( manufacturers) 11 1 1 4 17 1037 0 3 2 4 4 544 33,284 Preparing and submitting report ( remanufacturers) 6 0 0 2 8 448 0 2 8 4 7 1,792 100,755 Store, file and maintain records 2 0 0 10 12 439 0 1 10 1 7 840 30,811 Total per manufacturer 164 4 6 29 203 12,484 0 35 varies varies N/ A N/ A N/ A Total per remanufacturer 122 3 5 25 155 188 0 44 varies varies N/ A N/ A N/ A Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 592,794 0 2568 65 varies 7 10,697 595,362 ( 1) Manufacturers must test a minimum of 5 locomotives per engine family.

Remanufacturers only need to audit the installation of one remanufactured locomotive engine or 5% of their production, whichever is less.

Table 3 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Locomotive Production Line Testing Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Table 4 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  In useTesting Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @ 64.28/ hr Manager @

$ 96.96/ hr Legal @

$ 108.84/ hr Clerical@

$ 31.06/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor Cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost( 1) In use tests/

respondent ( 2) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total Cost/ yr Review of instructions and regulations 10 1 1 0 12 $ 849 0 0 1 7 84 5,940 Training 4 0 0 1 5 $ 288 0 30 1 7 35 2,227 Procure locomotives 4 2 0 4 10 $ 575 0 20 1 7 70 4,167 Testing ( manufacturers) ( 3) 40 0 0 8 48 $ 2,820 0 666 3 4 576 41,828 Testing ( remanufacturers) 0 0 0 4 4 $ 124 0 13,666 10 7 280 965,317 Data entry and analysis ( manufacturers) 16 0 0 2 18 $ 1,091 0 1 3 4 216 13,099 Data entry and analysis ( remanufacturers) 2 0 0 5 7 $ 284 0 1 10 7 490 19,940 Preparing and submitting report 6 1 1 2 10 $ 654 0 3 3 7 210 13,789 Store, file and maintain records 2 0 0 10 12 $ 439 0 1 1 7 84 3,081 Total per manufacturer 82 4 2 27 115 5,313 0 721 varies varies N/ A N/ A Total per remanufacturer 28 4 2 26 60 2,778 0 13,721 varies varies N/ A N/ A Total for the industry N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 104,275 0 $ 965,114 varies 7 2,045 1,069,389 ( 1) Includes diskettes, photocopying, postage expenses, phone calls to procure locomotives, testing and the expense of stopping a locomotive for testing, annualized.

See section 6( b)( iii) for details.

( 2) A minimum of two locomotives per new engine family ( but only one per carry over family) must be tested every year.

Engine families of less than 10 locomotives need not be tested. Nineteen of twenty families have over 10 locomotives.

( 3) Lab maintenance costs are not included here because they were accounted for in the certification burden table ( Table 1). Table 5 Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Certification Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @$ 62.66/

hr Senior @

$ 17.65 Attorney @

$ 66.34/ hr Manager @

$ 76.85/ hr Respon.

hr/ yr Labor cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 1) Applications / respon Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total cost/ yr Review of regs and standards 6 1 4 3 14 890 0 0 1 7 98 6,227 Entering data from applications into database 1 2 0 0 3 89 0 0 10 7 175 6,239 Reviewing applications,

asking questions 7 3 0 0 10 492 0 10 10 7 700 35,110 Verifying that the correct engines have been tested 0.3 0.3 0 0 1 20 0 0 10 7 35 1,405 Answering manufacturers'

questions 6 2 3 2 13 764 0 10 10 7 910 54,179 Issuing appropriate certificates 1 1 0 0 2 71 0 2 10 7 105 5,144 Storing data 2 2 0 0 4 129 0 1 10 7 245 9,120 Answering questions from the public 10 5 3 3 21 1,144 0 10 1 1 21 1,154 Upgrading and maintaining the database 5 2 0 0 7 349 0 2 1 1 7 351 Handling requests for confidentiality 1 1 2 1 5 290 0 3 10 7 350 20,499 Making information available to the public 5 3 0 1 9 443 0 3 1 1 9 446 Total 44 21 12 10 87 4,681 0 41 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Total for the agency N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 138,039 0 1,835 10 7 2,655 139,874 ( 1) Includes photocopying, postage expenses and calls. Table 6 Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Average, Banking and Trading Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @$ 62.66/

hr Senior @

$ 17.65 Respon.

hr/ yr Labor cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 1) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total cost/ yr Answer respondent questions 5 1 6 331 0 5 1 6 336 Review submitted reports 5 0 5 313 0 0 3 15 940 Enter data from reports into database 2 0 2 125 0 0 1 2 125 Audit reports and records 5 1 6 331 0 0 3 18 993 Total 17 2 19 1,101 0 5 3 N/ A N/ A Total for the agency N/ A N/ A N/ A 2,389 0 5 3 41 2,394 ( 1) O& M costs includes phone calls to manufacturers. Table 7 Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Production Line Testing Program Hours and cost per application ( 1) Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @$ 62.66/

hr Senior @

$ 17.65 Respon.

hr/ yr Labor cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 2) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total cost/ yr Answer respondent questions 12 0 12 752 0 7 1 12 759 Review submitted reports 28 0 28 1,754 0 0 7 196 12,281 Enter data from reports into database 4 8 12 392 0 0 7 84 2,743 Audit reports and records 20 4 24 1,324 0 10 7 168 9,337 Total 64 12 76 4,222 0 17 7 N/ A N/ A Total for the agency N/ A N/ A N/ A 25,043 0 77 7 460 25,120 ( 1) Numbers reflect every activity performed four times per year.

( 2) Includes phone calls to manufacturers. Table 8 Annual Agency Burden and Cost  In use Testing Program Hours and cost per application Total hours and cost Information Collection Activity Engineer @$ 62.66/ hr Senior @

$ 17.65 Respon.

hr/ yr Labor cost/ yr Capital Startup Cost O & M Cost ( 1) Number of Respon. Total hr/ yr Total cost/ yr Answer respondent questions 8 0 8 501 0 7 7 56 3,558 Review submitted reports 20 0 20 1,253 0 0 7 140 8,772 Enter data from reports into database 1 2 3 98 0 0 7 21 686 Audit reports and records 15 3 18 993 0 10 7 126 7,020 Total 44 5 49 2,845 0 17 7 N/ A N/ A Total for the agency N/ A N/ A N/ A 19,917 0 119 7 343 20,036 ( 1) Includes photocopying, postage expenses and calls.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73066-73070]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-OST-2022-0131]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Departmental Chief Information Officer, Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) proposes to establish a new system of records
(hereafter referred to as ``Notice'') titled, ``Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA 855 Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Aviation and Space Education
(AVSED) Outreach Program.'' This system of records allows the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to collect, use, maintain, and
disseminate the records needed for students, parents, teachers, and
other similar educators to register for outreach events and contests
that are hosted by the FAA. This includes collecting, using,
maintaining, and disseminating information when complying with the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), 15 U.S.C.
6501-6506 (2001) requirement to obtain parental consent. Additionally,
this system of records will provide FAA with a means to document
participation, and completion of FAA outreach events and contests.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 28, 2022. The Department

may publish an amended Systems of Records Notice considering any
comments received. This new system will be effective immediately upon
publication. The routine uses will be effective December 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number OST-
2022-0131 by any of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number OST-2022-0131. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in 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.).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions, please contact Karyn
Gorman, Acting Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office,
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; [email protected]; or
202-366-3140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the DOT
FAA proposes to issue a new system of records notice titled, ``DOT/FAA
855 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Aviation and
Space Education (AVSED) Outreach Program.'' The STEM AVSED Program has
been an integral part of FAA outreach and the national education system
for decades. The program was established to expose students to aviation
and aerospace careers and to promote STEM education and outreach
events.
    One example of these outreach events is the recently established
Airport Design Challenge (ADC). The ADC is a program that teaches
children how to build an airport to FAA specifications using Minecraft
gaming software as an online design platform. The program, like many of
the FAA's STEM education and outreach programs, is open to children in
grades K-12. In order to enter into an outreach event or contest,
students, parents or legal guardians, teachers, and other similar
educators need to create a user account, for themselves or for students
they wish to register. The student's name, username, and password,
grade category (kindergarten through 6th or 7th through 12th), email
address, and country that the student resides in will be provided by
student, parent, teachers or other similar educators. The parent or
legal guardian of the minor student will provide the information and in
addition to the child's information, provide their name, email address,
home address, and phone number (optional).
    Some of STEM AVSED's outreach events, including the ADC, may
involve collection of personal information from children; in these
instances, the FAA collects additional information from parents and
legal guardians in accordance with the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 6501-6506 (2001).
Specifically, under COPPA, parents or legal guardians of children under
thirteen years of age must provide consent for the collection, use, or
disclosure of the personal information of their children collected on
FAA websites and other online services. To ensure parents are aware of
and have control of information collected from their children, the FAA
obtains verifiable parental consent from the child's parent prior to
collecting any information online from the child. At times, to ensure
full transparency, the FAA obtains verifiable parental consent for
student users who are thirteen and over as well as those under
thirteen.
    The FAA at times may use third party vendors to verify parents'
identities and facilitate the process of obtaining parental consent.
The third-party vendor's platform streamlines the consent process by
using automated process to verify the identity of a person designated
as the parent of any child enrolled in our program. The FAA will
collect the parent's email address, student grade category
(kindergarten through 6th or 7th through 12th), and country the child
currently resides in, and provide the information to the third-party
vendor. The third-party vendor will use the information provided to
send the parent an email in order to confirm the identity of the
parent/legal guardian and verify that the parent/legal guardian
consents to the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal
information of any child that they wish to enroll in the STEM AVSED
Program. The third-party vendor will notify the FAA if verifiable
parental consent is confirmed.
    Parents and legal guardians can opt out of having their identity
verified by the third-party vendor. In those instances, the FAA will
obtain the parent's or legal guardian's consent through a form that
parents will print, sign, and then scan and email back to the FAA. No
information in addition to what is referenced above will be collected.
    Once verifiable parental consent is confirmed, all students will
complete the outreach event or contest in which they have selected to
attend. However, this system of record will maintain records on contest
completion, the students' placement in the contest, awards earned and/
or received, and certificate of completion.

Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the
Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses personally
identifiable information (PII) in a System of Records. A ``System of
Records'' is a group of any records under the control of a Federal
agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or
other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to
publish in the Federal Register a System of Records Notice (SORN)
identifying and describing each System of Records the agency maintains,
including the purposes for which the agency uses PII in the system, the
routine uses for which the agency discloses such information outside
the agency, and how individuals to whom a Privacy Act record pertains
can exercise their rights under the Privacy Act (e.g., to determine if
the system contains information about them and to contest inaccurate
information). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOT has provided a
report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget
and to Congress.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/
FAA 855 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Aviation and
Space Education (AVSED) Outreach Program.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Sensitive, unclassified

SYSTEM LOCATION(S):
    FAA Office of Human Resource Management (AHR) 1350 Duane Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95054. Blackboard Managed Hosting (BMH) facility in the
Chantilly, VA backup site at Equinix, c/o Blackboard, Inc., 1350 Duane
Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
    Office of Human Resource Management (AHR) 1350 Duane Avenue Santa
Clara, CA 95054. Contact information for system manager is
[email protected].

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), 15 U.S.C.
6501-6506 (2001); Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, Public
Law 94-353; National and Community Service Act of 1990, 49 U.S.C.
12501; and Title VI: Aviation Workforce of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254).

PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:
    The purpose of this system of record notice is for students,
parents, teachers, and other similar educators to register students for
outreach events and contests that are hosted or organized by the FAA;
document participation, and completion of FAA outreach events and
contest; and obtain verifiable parental consent so that the FAA
complies with COPPA requirements.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    This system contains information on individuals and participants
that are enrolled or wishing to participate in FAA contests and events,
such as the Airport Design Challenge Contest, to include but are not
limited to the students, parents, legal guardians, or teachers of minor
children enrolled.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
    Categories of records include name, username and password, grade
category (kindergarten through 6th or 7th through 12th), email address,
student's country of residence, home address, and phone number
(optional). In addition, course completions, grade (pass/fail), and
certificate of completion will also be included in the categories of
records.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Sources of records includes students, parents, legal guardians,
teachers or other similar educators and third-party vendors.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted 5 U.S.C.
552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or
information contained in this system may be disclosed outside of DOT
FAA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
    System Specific Routine Uses:
    1. The FAA will share the parent or legal guardian's email address,
student grade category (kindergarten through 6th or 7th through 12th)
and country that the student lives with any vendor performing
verifiable parental consent. This information will be used to identify,
verify, and obtain consent of the parent or legal guardian for their
child to attend an educational program. If parents or legal guardians
opt out of using the third-party vendor for this process, the FAA will
not disclose their information to the third party vendor.
    2. To other individuals or organizations, including Federal, State,
or local agencies, and nonprofit, educational, or private entities, who
are participating in FAA STEM programs as necessary for the purpose of
assisting FAA in the efficient administration of its program.
    3. To educational institutions or training providers as evidence of
participation or successful completion, as needed to continue
education.
    Departmental Routine Uses:
    4. In the event that a system of records maintained by DOT to carry
out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law,
whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by
general statute or particular program pursuant thereto, the relevant
records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to
the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local or foreign,
charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such
violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or
rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
    5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a
routine use, to a Federal, State, or local agency maintaining civil,
criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent
information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain
information relevant to a DOT decision concerning the hiring or
retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the
letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other
benefit.
    6. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a
routine use, to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in
connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of
a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee,
the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or
other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the
information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's
decision on the matter.
    7a. Routine Use for Disclosure for Use in Litigation. It shall be a
routine use of the records in this system of records to disclose them
to the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting
litigation when (a) DOT, or any agency thereof, or (b) Any employee of
DOT or any agency thereof, in his/her official capacity, or (c) Any
employee of DOT or any agency thereof, in his/her individual capacity
where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee,
or (d) The United States or any agency thereof, where DOT determines
that litigation is likely to affect the United States, is a party to
litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such
records by the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting
the litigation is deemed by DOT to be relevant and necessary in the
litigation, provided, however, that in each case, DOT determines that
disclosure of the records in the litigation is a use of the information
contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which
the records were collected.
    7b. Routine Use for Agency Disclosure in Other Proceedings. It
shall be a routine use of records in this system to disclose them in
proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body
before which DOT or any agency thereof, appears, when (a) DOT, or any
agency thereof, or (b) Any employee of DOT or any agency thereof in
his/her official capacity, or (c) Any employee of DOT or any agency
thereof in his/her individual capacity where DOT has agreed to
represent the employee, or (d) The United States or any agency thereof,
where DOT determines that the proceeding is likely to affect the United
States, is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in such
proceeding, and DOT determines that use of such records is relevant and
necessary in the proceeding, provided, however, that in each case, DOT
determines that disclosure of the records in the proceeding is a use of
the information contained in the records that is compatible with the
purpose for which the records were collected.
    8. The information contained in this system of records will be
disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget,

OMB in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set
forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative
coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
    9. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record
of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional
office made at the request of that individual. In such cases, however,
the Congressional office does not have greater rights to records than
the individual. Thus, the disclosure may be withheld from delivery to
the individual where the file contains investigative or actual
information or other materials which are being used, or are expected to
be used, to support prosecution or fines against the individual for
violations of a statute, or of regulations of the Department based on
statutory authority. No such limitations apply to records requested for
Congressional oversight or legislative purposes; release is authorized
under 49 CFR 10.35(9).
    10. One or more records from a system of records may be disclosed
routinely to the National Archives and Records Administration in
records management inspections being conducted under the authority of
44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
    11. DOT may make available to another agency or instrumentality of
any government jurisdiction, including State and local governments,
listings of names from any system of records in DOT for use in law
enforcement activities, either civil or criminal, or to expose
fraudulent claims, regardless of the stated purpose for the collection
of the information in the system of records. These enforcement
activities are generally referred to as matching programs because two
lists of names are checked for match using automated assistance. This
routine use is advisory in nature and does not offer unrestricted
access to systems of records for such law enforcement and related
antifraud activities. Each request will be considered on the basis of
its purpose, merits, cost effectiveness and alternatives using
Instructions on reporting computer matching programs to the Office of
Management and Budget, OMB, Congress, and the public, published by the
Director, OMB, dated September 20, 1989.
    12a. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DOT
suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of
records; (2) DOT has determined that as a result of the suspected or
confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOT (including
its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal
Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such
agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in
connection with DOT's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed
breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
    12b. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOT
determines that information from this system of records is reasonably
necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to
a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or
remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or
entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations),
the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a
suspected or confirmed breach.
    13. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
the Office of Government Information Services for the purpose of (a)
resolving disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies and (b)
reviewing agencies' policies, procedures, and compliance in order to
recommend policy changes to Congress and the President.
    14. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
contractors and their agents, experts, consultants, and others
performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or
other assignment for DOT, when necessary to accomplish an agency
function related to this system of records.
    15. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing
audit or oversight operations related to this system of records, but
only such records as are necessary and relevant to the audit or
oversight activity. This routine use does not apply to intra-agency
sharing authorized under Section (b)(1) of the Privacy Act.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:
    Records are stored in a hard copy format and electronically in
databases.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:
    Records are primarily retrievable by name and email address.

POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
    Personal information collected by FAA for the purpose of
participating in contests and outreach events are maintained only as
long as necessary for participation in and administration of the
outreach activity. Student, parent or legal guardian, or teacher
account registration information is maintained in accordance with
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records
Schedules (GRS) 6.5 item 20 (DAA-GRS-2017-0002-0002) and is destroyed
after six months after account inactivity. Other information collected
for participation in an outreach program is maintained in accordance
with NARA schedule GRS 5.2 item 10 (DAA-GRS-2017-0003-0001). These
records are typically destroyed no more than 90 days after the
conclusion of the outreach program. Information collected from children
may be deleted at the request of their parent or guardian.
Additionally, the FAA is developing a new records retention and
disposition schedule for STEM AVSED Program de-identified statistical
records. FAA proposes to maintain these records for 10 years. The new
records retention and disposition schedule is pending approval of NARA,
and FAA will maintain the records indefinitely until NARA's approval.

ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:
    Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with
applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DOT FAA
automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have
been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that
is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records
in this system is limited to individuals who have a need to know the
information for the performance of their official duties and who have
appropriate clearances or permissions.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Individuals seeking notification of whether this system of records
contains information about them may contact the System Manager at the
address provided in the section ``System Manager''. When seeking
records about yourself from this system of records or any other
Departmental system of records your request must conform to the Privacy
Act regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 10. You must sign your request
and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28
U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of
perjury as a substitute for notarization. If your request is seeking
records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a
statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to
access his/her records.

CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURE:
    See ``Record Access Procedures'' above.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
    See ``Record Access Procedures'' above.

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    None.

HISTORY:
    None.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Karyn Gorman,
Acting Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-25847 Filed 11-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23922-23923]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179; FRL-9910-05-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc.--Richmond Bakery Located in Henrico
County, Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consist of a revised Federally
enforceable state operating permit containing terms and conditions for
the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the
Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc. (Mondel[emacr]z)--Richmond Bakery
located in Henrico County, Virginia. This SIP revision establishes
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the control of VOC
emissions from Mondel[emacr]z--Richmond Bakery. In the Final Rules
section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's
SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. A more detailed description of the state submittal
and EPA's evaluation is included in the notice of direct final
rulemaking and the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support
of this rulemaking action. The TSD is available on www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0179 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0179. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically

captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, entitled Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC,
Inc.--Richmond Bakery located in Henrico County, Virginia, that is
located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register publication.

    Dated: April 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-09657 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 79201-79203]
[DOCID:fr24de08-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25755]

Operating Limitations at New York Laguardia Airport; Proposed
Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed Amendments and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has tentatively
determined that it is necessary to amend further its December 12, 2006
Order that temporarily caps scheduled operations at New York's
LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia), pending the implementation of a longer-
term regulation to manage congestion at the airport. In particular, we
now propose to accept from air carriers voluntary reductions in
scheduled operations at the airport to a targeted average of 71 hourly
scheduled operations for the duration of the Order. This proposed
reduction in flight operations at LaGuardia would not affect the number
of unscheduled operations at the airport. The FAA is separately
extending the Order's expiration until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on
October 24, 2009.

DATE: Send your comments on this proposed amendment to the Order on or
before January 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number FAA-
2006-25755, using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons wishing to receive
confirmation of receipt of their written submission should include a
self-addressed stamped postcard.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile: Fax comments to the docket operations personnel
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: We will post all comments that we receive, without change,
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information that
you provide. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone
can find and read the electronic form of all comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment or
signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
or other entity or organization. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477-78 (April
11, 2000), or you may find it at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.
    Reviewing the docket: To read background documents or comments
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket; or go to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry Shakley, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone--(202) 267-9424; e-mail_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    As a result of the limited capacity of LaGuardia's two-runway
configuration, the airport cannot accommodate the number of scheduled
flights that airlines would like to operate there without causing
significant congestion-related delays. This circumstance long ago led
the FAA to limit the number of scheduled arrivals and departures at
LaGuardia during the peak hours of demand.\1\ The FAA ultimately relied
on the High Density Rule \2\--its initial mechanism to control
congestion at LaGuardia--for nearly 40 years. The High Density Rule
limited the number of scheduled operations at the airport to 62 per
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 FR 17896, 17898 (Dec. 3, 1968); 34 FR 2603 (Feb. 26,
1969).
    \2\ 14 CFR part 93, subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a statute enacted in April 2000, Congress began to phase out the
High Density Rule at LaGuardia and other airports.\3\ Before fully
extinguishing the High Density Rule at LaGuardia on January 1, 2007,
the statute immediately authorized a number of exemptions from the High
Density Rule for specific types of scheduled operations.\4\ Demand for
exemptions to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia soared. By
November 2000, the debilitating delays that resulted from the surging
demand required the FAA to roll back and cap the number of scheduled
operations at LaGuardia.\5\ The FAA did not roll back the scheduled
operations to the number that airlines conducted before the surge,
instead capping the operations at a more elevated total of 75 hourly
departures and arrivals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 41715(a)(2).
    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 41716.
    \5\ 65 FR 69126, 69127-28 (Nov. 15, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ensuing years, the FAA examined and proposed various
alternatives to the High Density Rule in an effort to control
congestion at LaGuardia.\6\ When it became apparent that the FAA would
not have a replacement rule in place before the High Density Rule
expired at LaGuardia, and recognizing that LaGuardia is prone to
overscheduling, the FAA proposed and finalized an interim Order that
capped the number of operations at the airport until the FAA could
finalize a rule.\7\ The interim Order, which is the subject of this
proposed amendment, retained the cap of 75 hourly scheduled

operations that originally took effect in November 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 71 FR 51,360 (Aug. 29, 2006) (Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking); 73 FR 20,846 (April 17, 2008) (Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking).
    \7\ 71 FR 77,854 (Dec. 27, 2006). The FAA previously amended the
original order in November 2007 (72 FR 63,224) and August 2008 (73
FR 48,428).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA published a final rule with respect to LaGuardia on October
10, 2008.\8\ As a result of the continued and aggravated congestion-
related delays at LaGuardia, the rule, in part, reduced the hourly cap
on scheduled operations at LaGuardia. In this respect, the rule
specifically identified a reduced cap of 71 hourly scheduled operations
at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. until 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, effective March
8, 2009.\9\ This number is substantially higher than the 62 hourly
scheduled operations permitted under the High Density Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 73 FR 60,574.
    \9\ Id. at 60,576, 60,599 (to be codified at 14 CFR 93.37(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued an order staying the effectiveness
of the LaGuardia final rule, pending the outcome of litigation over
disputed elements of the final rule.\10\ The FAA is now proposing this
amendment to the LaGuardia Order to reduce scheduled operations to an
average of 71 hourly departures and arrivals should carriers currently
allocated operating authorizations under the Order choose to
voluntarily reduce operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order Granting Motions for Stay at 1, Port Auth. of New
York & New Jersey v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 08-1329 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 8, 2008) (per curiam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Amendment

A. Authority

    The FAA's authority to limit the number of operations at congested
airports is an essential component of the FAA's statutory
responsibilities. The FAA holds broad authority under 49 U.S.C.
40103(b) to regulate the use of the navigable airspace of the United
States. This provision authorizes the FAA to develop plans and policy
for the use of the navigable airspace and, by order or rule, to
regulate the use of the airspace as necessary to ensure its efficient
use.
    The FAA originally issued the Order to take effect on the
expiration of the High Density Rule on January 1, 2007. The FAA
intended the Order to serve as a temporary bridge to a final rule that
would manage congestion at the airport over a longer term. As a result,
the Order initially grandfathered the previously conducted operations
at the previous hourly rate with few changes and few administrative
constraints.
    As the FAA continued to work toward a final rule to replace the
Order, it became apparent at various junctures that amendments to the
order were necessary in the interest of operational efficiency. The FAA
has amended the Order, for example, to facilitate the transfer of
operating authority among affiliated and regional carriers for
operational need and to align the number of unscheduled operations with
such operators' historical usage of LaGuardia.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 72 FR 63,224 (Nov. 8, 2007); 73 FR 48,428 (Aug. 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

    The FAA believes that the Order's present hourly cap on scheduled
operations at LaGuardia is too high. According to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, through October 31 of calendar year 2008,
LaGuardia ranked last among the 32 major U.S. airports in on-time
arrival performance, with an on-time arrival rate of 61.64%. LaGuardia
also ranked last in this category over the same period in calendar year
2007. The airport fared little better in the category of on-time
departure performance, in which LaGuardia, at 74.37 %, ranked 28th out
of 32 over the first ten months of calendar year 2008.
    In relation to the final rule that is currently stayed, MITRE
Corporation's Center for Advanced Aviation System Development modeled
the effect of reducing the hourly cap on scheduled operations at
LaGuardia from 75 to 71. The MITRE queuing model reflected that the
reduction could generate an average delay savings of 41%.\12\ The FAA
calculated the resulting annual benefit from this delay reduction at
LaGuardia to be $178 million.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Congestion Management Rule for New York LaGuardia Airport,
Docket FAA-2006-25709, Document 161 at 29 (Sept. 10, 2008) (Final
Regulatory Evaluation).
    \13\ Id. at 30 & n.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to capture some or all of these delay reduction and
economic benefits while the Order remains in effect, the FAA now
proposes to accept, on a strictly voluntary basis, a limited number of
targeted flight reductions from the carriers now conducting scheduled
service at LaGuardia. We anticipate that any voluntary flight
reductions under this proposal would take effect no later than April
19, 2009, although we will entertain offers to reduce scheduled
operations after that date.
    The FAA intends to amend the Order to change the hourly cap for
scheduled operations at the airport to 71 during the peak hours of 6
a.m. until 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time. If the flight reductions help the
FAA in attaining its hourly target, the FAA intends to retire those
operating authorizations for the balance of the Order.\14\ If the final
rule published on October 10, 2008, and currently stayed pending the
outcome of on-going litigation ultimately goes into effect, then
consistent with that rule, the FAA will use the carriers' base of
operations during the week of September 28, 2008, as the basis for any
flight reductions called for in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In a separate action, the FAA is extending the Order's
expiration until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on October 24, 2009.
Further extensions or revisions to the Order may prove necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although carriers can voluntarily relinquish more operating
authorizations than are necessary to achieve an average of 71 hourly
operations, the FAA intends to treat these returns in the same manner
as operating authorizations returned to the FAA under the usage
provisions of the Order. Accordingly, the FAA may elect to reallocate
any operating authorization that a carrier relinquishes in excess of
the number needed to achieve the average hourly target of 71. The FAA
will notify a carrier if any operating authorization it is offering to
relinquish could be subject to reallocation under this principle. A
carrier's identification of operating authorizations for voluntary
reduction may not be contingent on specific flight reductions made by
other carriers.
    The Order will continue to contain a minimum usage requirement and
the associated principles for reallocation in paragraphs six and seven.
This minimum usage requirement will continue to apply to all operating
authorizations that are not retired under this proposal.
    This proposal to amend the hourly cap on scheduled operations at
LaGuardia to 71 would result in a cap that exceeds the cap that existed
under the High Density Rule. Just recently, the FAA issued a Letter of
Intent to provide AIP funding for port surface improvements at JFK
International Airport. In addition, the FAA has aggressively pursued
implementing 77 recommended operational improvements at the three New
York City Metropolitan area airports. The FAA intends to continue its
aggressive pursuit of operational improvements at LaGuardia and at the
other New York-area airports, with a goal of increasing operational
efficiency across the region.
    If a carrier wishes to offer a voluntary reduction in scheduled
operations under this proposal, an authorized representative of the
carrier should contact the individual identified in the ``For More
Information Contact'' section of this document. Please initiate such
contact on or before January 2, 2009.

III. Request for Comments

    The FAA invites all interested persons to submit written comments
on this proposal by filing their written views in Docket FAA-2006-25755
on or before January 5, 2009.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2008.
Rebecca B. Macpherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-30703 Filed 12-22-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43950-43953]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17468]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69989; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of a Pilot Program Regarding Price Improvement XL

July 16, 2013.
    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 12, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(n), Price
Improvement XL (``PIXL\SM\'') to extend, through July 18, 2014, a pilot
program (the ``pilot'') concerning (i) the early conclusion of the PIXL
Auction (as described below), and (ii) permitting orders of fewer than
50 contracts into the PIXL Auction. The current pilot is scheduled to
expire July 18, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The extension of the pilot relates to several subparagraphs
of Rule 1080(n) in respect of PIXL and Complex Order PIXL, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed new text is italicized. Deleted text is [bracketed].
* * * * *

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Rules

Options Rules

* * * * *

Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II

    (a)-(m) No change.
    (n) Price Improvement XL (``PIXL'')
    A member may electronically submit for execution an order it
represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-dealer, or
any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal interest or against
any other order (except as provided in sub-paragraph (n)(i)(F) below)
it represents as agent (an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits
the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction
(``Auction'') pursuant to this Rule. The contract size specified in
Rule 1080(n) as applicable to PIXL Orders shall apply to Mini Options.
    (i) Auction Eligibility Requirements. All options traded on the
Exchange are eligible for PIXL. A member (the ``Initiating Member'')
may initiate an Auction provided all of the following are met:
    (A) if the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the
account of a public customer:
    (1) No change.
    (2) and is for a size of less than 50 contracts, the Initiating
Member must stop the entire PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex
Order) at a price that is the better of: (i) the Exchange's Best Bid or
Offer (``PBBO'') price on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL
Order improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment, or
(ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order),
provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO,
and at least one minimum price improvement increment better than any
limit order on the book on the same side

of the market as the PIXL Order. This sub-paragraph (A)(2) shall be
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[3]4.
    (B) If the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the
account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a
public customer:
    (1) No change.
    (2) and is for a size of less than 50 contracts, the Initiating
Member must stop the entire PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex
Order) at a price that is the better of: (i) the PBBO price improved by
at least one minimum price improvement increment on the same side of
the market as the PIXL Order, or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if
the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is
at or better than the NBBO and at least one minimum improvement
increment better than the PBBO on the opposite side of the market from
the PIXL Order. This sub-paragraph (B)(2) shall be effective for a
pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[3]4.
    (C) If the PIXL Order is a Complex Order and of a conforming ratio,
as defined in Commentary.08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080, the
Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL order at a price that is
better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i) available on the
Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and (ii)
achievable from the best Phlx bids and offers for the individual
options (an ``improved net price''), provided in either case that such
price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price. Complex
Orders consisting of a ratio other than a conforming ratio will not be
accepted. This sub-paragraph (C) shall apply to all Complex Orders
submitted into PIXL. This sub-paragraph (C), where applied to Complex
Orders where the smallest leg is less than 50 contracts in size, shall
be effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[3]4.
    (D)-(G) No change.
    (ii) Auction Process. Only one Auction may be conducted at a time
in any given series or strategy. Once commenced, an Auction may not be
cancelled and shall proceed as follows:
    (A) No change.
    (B) Conclusion of Auction. The PIXL Auction shall conclude at the
earlier to occur of (1) through (4) below, with the PIXL Order
executing pursuant to paragraph (C)(1) through (3) below.
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) Sub-paragraphs (B)(2), (B)(3) and (B)(4) above shall be
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[3]4.
    (C) No change.
    (D) An unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the
PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order received
during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will
execute against interest outside of the Auction. In the case of a
Complex PIXL Auction, an unrelated market or marketable limit Complex
Order on the opposite side of the market from the Complex PIXL Order as
well as orders for the individual components of the Complex Order
received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and
will execute against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts
remain from such unrelated order at the time the Auction ends, they
will be considered for participation in the order allocation process
described in sub-paragraph (E) below. This sub-paragraph shall be
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire on July 18, 201[3]4.
    (E)-(J) No change.
    (iii)-(vi) No change.
    (vii) Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July
18, 201[3]4, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be
eligible for the Auction. During this Pilot Period, the Exchange will
submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to
provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is
meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active
and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction
mechanism. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be
provided on a confidential basis.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through July 18, 2014.
Background
    The Exchange adopted PIXL in October 2010 as a price-improvement
mechanism on the Exchange.\4\ PIXL is a component of the Exchange's
fully automated options trading system, PHLX XL[supreg] that allows an
Exchange member (an ``Initiating Member'') to electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public
customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against
principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PIXL Order for
electronic execution into the PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to
the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108) (Order
Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Proposed
Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL); 65043 (August 5,
2011), 76 FR 49824 (August 11, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-104) (Order
Extending Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL);
67399 (July 11, 2012), 77 FR 42048 (July 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-94)
(Order Extending Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price
Improvement XL); and 69845 (June 25, 2013), 78 FR 39429 (July 1,
2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-46) (Order Granting Approval To Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding Complex Order
PIXL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a
PIXL Order, which is not a Complex Order, in one of three ways:
     First, the Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying a single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order
(a ``stop price'').
     Second, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as
agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all
trading interest and responses to the PIXL Auction Notification
(``PAN,'' as described below) (``auto-match''), in which case the PIXL
Order will be stopped at the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') on the
Initiating Order side of the market (if 50 contracts or greater) or, if
less than 50 contracts, the better of: (i) The PHLX Best Bid/Offer
(``PBBO'') price on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order
improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment, or (ii)
the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order),

provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO
and that such price is at least one increment better than the limit of
an order on the book on the same side as the PIXL Order.
     Third, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a
single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, as described below,
together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the
stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating
Member will not trade (a ``Not Worse Than'' or ``NWT'' price); (ii)
stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN
responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or
(iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side
(if 50 contracts or greater) or the better of: (A) The PBBO price on
the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order improved by one
minimum price improvement increment, or (B) the PIXL Order's limit
price (if the order is a limit order) on the Initiating Order side
provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO
(if for less than 50 contracts), and auto-match PAN responses and
trading interest are at a price or prices that improve the stop price
up to the NWT price. In all cases, if the PBBO on the same side of the
market as the PIXL Order represents a limit order on the book, the stop
price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment better
than the booked limit order's limit price.
    In addition, an Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by
submitting a Complex Order which is of a conforming ratio, as defined
in Commentary .08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080. When submitting a
Complex Order, the Initiating Member must stop the PIXL order at a
price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i)
available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order
book size; and (ii) achievable from the best PHLX bids and offers for
the individual options (an ``improved net price''), provided in either
case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit
price.
    After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast and a one-
second blind Auction ensues. Anyone may respond to the PAN by sending
orders or quotes. At the conclusion of the Auction, the PIXL Order will
be allocated at the best price(s).
    Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for
processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled. Under any
of the above circumstances, the Initiating Member's stop price or NWT
price may be improved to the benefit of the PIXL Order during the
Auction, but may not be cancelled.
    After a PIXL Order has been submitted, a member organization
submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the
execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's PHLX
XL[supreg] automated options trading system and pricing is determined
solely by the other orders and quotes that are present in the Auction.
The Pilot
    Three components of the PIXL system were approved by the Commission
on a pilot basis: (1) Paragraphs (n)(i)(A)(2),\5\ (n)(i)(B)(2), and
(n)(i)(C) of Rule 1080, relating to auction eligibility requirements;
(2) paragraphs (n)(ii)(B)(5) and (n)(ii)(D) of Rule 1080, relating to
the early conclusion of the PIXL Auction; and (3) paragraph (n)(vii) of
Rule 1080, stating that there shall be no minimum size requirement of
orders entered into PIXL. The pilots were approved for a pilot period
expiring on July 18, 2013.\6\ The Exchange notes that during the pilot
period it has been required to submit, and has been submitting, certain
data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.\7\ The
Exchange will continue to provide such data. The Exchange believes
that, because the pilot has been operating for a relatively short
amount of time, the proposed extension should afford the Commission
additional time to evaluate the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On March 9, 2012, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change
to clarify Exchange Rule 1080(n)(i)(A)(2). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 66583 (March 13, 2012), 77 FR 16108 (March 19, 2012)
(SR-Phlx-2012-032) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Price Improvement System, Price
Improvement XL). The amendment reflected the correct price--at or
better than the NBBO--at which an Initiating Member must guarantee
the execution of a PIXL Order that the Initiating Member submits
into a PIXL Auction.
    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1080(n)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through July 18, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \10\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that PIXL, including the rules
to which the pilot applies, results in increased liquidity available at
improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating
Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that PIXL promotes and
fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement
to more options contracts. The extension proposal allows additional
time for the Commission to evaluate the pilot.

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 proposal extends an
existing pilot that applies to all Exchange members, and enables the
Exchange to be competitive in respect of other option exchanges that
have similar programs.

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 proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant

burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that such waiver will permit the PIXL pilot to continue without
interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the PIXL pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18,
2013.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-2013-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-74. 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2013-74 and should be submitted on or before August 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-17468 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P