[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72518-72519]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4733-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Burns Paiute Tribe; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Burns Paiute Tribe (FEMA-4733-DR), dated August 28,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 28, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 28, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Burns Paiute Tribe resulting from a severe storm, flooding,
landslides, and mudslides during the period of June 11 to June 12,
2023, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists for
the Burns Paiute Tribe.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation for the Burns Paiute Tribe. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Toney L. Raines, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    Burns Paiute Tribe for Public Assistance.
    The Burns Paiute Tribe is eligible to apply for assistance under
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling;

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23203 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6352-6356]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0006; FRL-8029-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Finding of
Attainment for Ajo Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or Less
(PM10) Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to determine that the Ajo
moderate PM10 nonattainment area in Arizona has attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10). This determination is based upon
monitored air quality data for the PM10 NAAQS during the
years 2002-2004. EPA also finds that the Ajo area has continued to
attain the PM10 NAAQS since 2004. Based on this
determination, EPA is also determining that certain Clean Air Act
requirements are not applicable for so long as the Ajo area continues
to attain the PM10 NAAQS.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on April 10, 2006 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 10, 2006.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2005-AZ-0006 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2005-AZ-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
 For additional instructions on submitting

comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are
Considered in Today's Finding?
    B. What Is the Designation and Classification of This
PM10 Nonattainment Area?
    C. How Do We Make Attainment Determinations?
II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Ajo Area Has
Attained the PM10 NAAQS?
III. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Ajo Area
as a Result of EPA's Attainment Determination?
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory And Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered
in Today's Finding?

    The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air pollutants
set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. Particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers,
or PM10, is the subject of this action. PM10 is
among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established health-
based standards.
    PM10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep
in the lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most
vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers. (See 40 CFR 50.6). The 24-hour primary PM10
standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) with
no more than one expected exceedance per year. The annual primary
PM10 standard is 50 [mu]g/m3 as an annual
arithmetic mean. The secondary PM10 standards, promulgated
to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical to the
primary standards.

B. What Is the Designation and Classification of This PM10
Nonattainment Area?

    Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the
Act), PM10 areas meeting the requirements of either (i) or
(ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment
for PM10 by operation of law and classified ``moderate.''
These areas included all former Group I PM10 planning areas
identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and further clarified in 55
FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other areas violating the NAAQS
for PM10 prior to January 1, 1989 (many of these areas were
identified by footnote 4 in the October 31, 1990 Federal Register
document). A Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated
nonattainment for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments, known as ``initial'' PM10 nonattainment areas,
was published on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). A subsequent Federal
Register document correcting some of these areas was published on
August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654). These nonattainment designations and
moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in a
Federal Register document published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).
All other areas in the nation not designated nonattainment at enactment
were designated unclassifiable (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the
Act).
    Ajo, Arizona was among the areas listed in the March 15, 1991
Federal Register action (see 56 FR at 11103) as meeting the
requirements of either (i) or (ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act
and was designated nonattainment for PM10 by operation of
law and classified ``moderate.'' In accordance with section 189(a)(2)
of the CAA, Arizona was to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) by
November 15, 1991 demonstrating attainment of the PM10
standards by December 31, 1994 for the Ajo area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Arizona submitted a moderate area plan for the Ajo area on
November 14, 1991 but EPA has not taken action on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How Do We Make Attainment Determinations?

    Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, we have the
responsibility of determining within six months of the applicable
attainment date whether, based on air quality data, PM10
nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS by that date. Determinations
under section 179(c)(1) of the Act are to be based upon an area's ``air
quality as of the attainment date.'' Section 188(b)(2) is consistent
with this requirement.
    Generally, we will determine whether an area's air quality is
meeting the PM10 NAAQS for purposes of section 179(c)(1) and
188(b)(2) based upon data gathered at established state and local air
monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring sites (NAMS) in
the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database. Data entered into the AQS has been determined to meet
federal monitoring requirements (see 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50,
appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B) and may
be used to determine the attainment status of areas. We will also
consider air quality data from other air monitoring stations in the
nonattainment area provided that the stations meet the federal
monitoring requirements for SLAMS. All data are reviewed to determine
the area's air quality status in accordance with our guidance at 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
    Attainment of the annual PM10 standard is achieved when
the annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration over a three-
year period is equal to or less than 50 [mu]g/m3. Attainment
of the 24-hour standard is determined by calculating the expected
number of days in a year with PM10 concentrations greater
than 150 [mu]g/m3. The 24-hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels above 150 [mu]g/m3
(averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. Three
consecutive years of air quality data are generally necessary to show
attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for PM10. See
40 CFR part 50 and appendix K. A complete year of air quality data, as
referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is comprised of all four
calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75
percent of the scheduled sampling days.

II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Ajo Area Has
Attained the PM10 NAAQS?

    The Ajo PM10 nonattainment area is located in western
Pima County in southern Arizona. The town of Ajo is

located approximately in the center of this 47 square mile
nonattainment area. Ajo is one of several early settlements in Arizona
in which mining and copper smelting was of prominent importance. When
the New Cornelia mine, operated by Phelps Dodge, closed in 1986, the
population of the Ajo area significantly declined. More recent growth
in the Ajo area may be attributed to additional employers in the local
economy, as well as retirees moving into the area. Employment is mainly
in the commercial, service, and tourism sectors.
    Ajo has one SLAMS monitor operated by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Table 1 summarizes the one-in-six day
PM10 data collected from 2002-2004. We deemed the data from
this site valid and the data has been submitted by the ADEQ to be
included in AQS.

Table 1.--Summary of 24 Hour and Annual PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\)
                           for Ajo, 2002-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Year
                                                 -----------------------
                                                   2002    2003    2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24 hour concentration...................    50     139      43
Annual average..................................    18.7    22.7    19.3
                                                 ---------
3-year annual average...........................            21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM10 concentrations reported at the Ajo monitoring
site showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS between 2002 and 2004, or since 2004.\2\ Thus, the three-year
average was less than 1.0, which indicates Ajo has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We have received AQS data from ADEQ through September 30,
2005 and the Ajo nonattainment area continues to attain both
PM10 standards. States are required to report data to the
AIRS AQS on a rolling basis and have until 90 days from the end of a
given quarter to submit quality-assured monitoring data into AQS.
See 40 CFR 58.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of the annual standard for calendar years 2002, 2003, and
2004 reveals that Ajo also attained the annual PM10 NAAQS.
There was no violation of the annual standard for the three-year period
from 2002 through 2004, or since 2004. See footnote 2.

III. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Ajo Area as
a Result of EPA's Attainment Determination?

    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the
Act. We have issued guidance in a General Preamble \3\ describing our
views on how we will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under
title I of the Act, including those containing moderate PM10
nonattainment area SIP provisions. The General Preamble provides a
detailed discussion of our interpretation of the title I requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, as
supplemented 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrates that the
NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA has determined that certain
requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 2 of the Act do not apply.
Therefore we do not require certain submissions for an area that has
attained the NAAQS. These include reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirements, attainment demonstrations, and contingency measures,
because these provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment
of the NAAQS.
    This interpretation of the CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy
and is the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA also finalized the
statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (Phase 2 Final Rule).
See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645-71646
(November 29, 2005). EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in
detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John
S. Seitz, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' and our
December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Clean Data
Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1
and 4 applicable to PM10. Our interpretation that an area
that is attaining the standards is relieved of obligations to
demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment demonstration and
contingency measures pursuant to part D of the CAA, pertains whether
the standard is PM10, ozone or PM2.5.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld EPA
rulemakings applying its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 with
respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's
Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005)
(memorandum opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general
provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do
not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas
already attaining the ozone NAAQS because the stated purpose of RFP is
to ensure attainment by the applicable date. 57 FR at 13564. EPA
believes the same reasoning applies to the PM10 provisions
of part D, subpart 4. Section 189(c)(1), applicable to PM10
nonattainment areas, states that revisions shall contain milestones
which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment,
and such milestones are designed to show reasonable further progress
``toward attainment by the applicable date'', as defined by section
171. Thus it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no
further milestones are necessary or meaningful.
    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result.
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for ``a
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will
provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date. * * *'' As
with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment
of the standards, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a
further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble (57
FR at 13564), the December 14, 2004 memorandum and of the section
182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the May 10, 1995 memorandum.
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency
measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer
applying when an area has attained the standard, because those
``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date.'' (57 FR at 13564; May 10, 1995 memorandum at 5-
6.)
    Both Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. However, the Ajo area was able to
attain the PM10 NAAQS without any additional measures being
implemented. The General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560, states that EPA
interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a
``component'' of an area's attainment demonstration. Thus,

for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by
its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies.
    Here, as in both our Phase 2 final rule and ozone and
PM2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension
of a requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP,
attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements exists
only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor
attainment of the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of
the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no
longer exist. Therefore, should EPA at some future time determine that
an area that had clean data, but which has not yet been redesignated as
attainment for a NAAQS has violated the relevant standard, the area
would again be required to submit the pertinent CAA requirements for
the area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Note, however, that on December 20, 2005, EPA proposed
revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter. See 71 FR 2620,
January 17, 2006. The proposed revisions address two categories of
particulate matter: Fine particles which are particles 2.5
micrometers in diameter and smaller; and ``inhalable coarse''
particles which are particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers
(PM10-2.5). Upon finalization of a primary 24-hour
standard for PM10-2.5, EPA proposes to revoke the current
24-hour PM10 standard in all areas of the country except
in areas where there is at least one monitor located in an urbanized
area (as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) with a minimum
population of 100,000 that violates the current 24-hour
PM10 standard based on the most recent three years of
data. In addition, EPA proposes to revoke the current annual
PM10 standard upon finalization of a primary 24-hour
standard for PM10-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Based on quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, we find that the Ajo, Arizona nonattainment area
has attained the PM10 NAAQS. This action is not a
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have
not yet approved a maintenance plan as required under section 175(A) of
the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements
for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR
part 81 will remain moderate nonattainment for this area until such
time as Arizona meets the CAA requirements for redesignation of the Ajo
area to attainment. See footnote 5.
    EPA also finds that, because the Ajo area has continued to attain
the NAAQS, the following CAA requirements no longer apply: The part D,
subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant
to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(c), the RFP
provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment
demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions of part D,
subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal should adverse comments be filed. This
action will be effective April 10, 2006, without further notice unless
the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by March 10, 2006.
    If we receive such comments, then we will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on April 10, 2006, and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not
impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any
additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely makes a determination
based on air quality data and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 10, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 24, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 06-1174 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2219-2224]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00334]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71253; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-148]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.40 To Expand the Scope of the Existing Risk Limitation
Mechanism To Address Multiple, Successive Triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism

January 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 26, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.40 to
expand the scope of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism to address
multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.40 to
expand the scope of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism to address
multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism.
Overview
    The Exchange has in place a risk-limitation system that is designed
to help Market Makers and non-Market Maker OTP Firms and OTP Holders
(collectively, referred to herein as ``dealers'') better manage risk
during periods of increased and significant trading activity. The three
existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms (described below) are designed to
mitigate the potential risks of multiple executions against a dealer's
trading interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic
trading environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series
and multiple option classes. In operation, under current Rule 6.40,
when a dealer has triggered a Risk Limitation Mechanism in a given
option class (by breaching preset thresholds), the Exchange will cancel
all resting quotes and/or certain orders and will reject all subsequent
quotes and/or

certain orders in the affected option class (underlying symbol) until
the dealer submits a message to the Exchange requesting to re-enable
the entry of quotes or certain orders. This temporary suspension from
the market in the affected option classes (specifically as relates to
quoting or certain orders) is meant to operate as a safety valve that
forces dealers to re-evaluate their positions before requesting to re-
enter the market. As discussed below, the Exchange believes that the
majority of dealers that avail themselves of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism utilize automated, system-generated messages to request that
the Exchange re-enable the entry of their quotes or certain orders
after triggering the Risk Limitation Mechanism. Provided the dealer
does not experience multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism
in rapid succession, the Exchange believes the automated re-enable
message is sufficient.
    The goal of the current proposal is to address circumstances where
a dealer experiences multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism, which the Exchange believes would be indicative
of the dealer experiencing a bona fide problem (i.e., a potential
system error). Thus, when a dealer experiences multiple, successive
triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism, the Exchange proposes a two-
pronged remedial response. First, the Exchange would cancel all of the
dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders (defined below)--as opposed to
cancelling only those quotes or certain orders in the option class
(underlying symbol) in which the dealer triggered the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms. Second, the Exchange would require that the dealer make
non-automated contact with the Exchange to re-enable the submission of
the dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange will include as part of a Trader Update
appropriate contact information to be used by dealers when
requesting to re-enable the entry of quotes and orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed enhancement to current Rule
6.40 would help maintain a fair and orderly market because it would
suspend all of the dealers' quoting or trading in certain orders
following multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism and would require non-automated contact with the Exchange
before this suspension is lifted. The proposed modifications would
therefore encourage increased attention by dealers to their risk
tolerance and related controls. The Exchange is also proposing these
modifications in response to requests from its clients and believes the
changes will assist these clients in better managing their risks.
Existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
    The Exchange first adopted a risk-limitation system, as embodied in
Rule 6.40, to manage risk during periods of increased and significant
trading activity.\5\ The prior version of the Rule provided only a
Transaction-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism that applied solely to
Market Maker quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54238 (July 28,
2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, in response to an increasingly automated and electronic
trading environment, the Exchange adopted the risk protections afforded
under current Rule 6.40 (Risk Limitation Mechanism).\6\ Current Rule
6.40 expanded upon the earlier version by extending the transaction-
based limitation mechanism to orders from Market Makers as well as to
orders from non-Market Maker OTP Firms and OTP Holders (together,
``non-Market Makers'') \7\ and providing for two additional risk
limitation mechanisms--a volume-based mechanism and a percentage-based
mechanism (collectively, the ``Risk Limitation Mechanisms''). In
addition to applying to all Market Maker quotes, the existing Risk
Limitation Mechanisms apply to dealers' orders submitted via ArcaDirect
and those designated as one of three ``post no preference'' order
types--specifically, PNP, PNP-Blind and PNP-Light, or as Liquidity
Adding Orders (``ALO''), which account for upwards of ninety-five
percent of order flow to the Exchange (collectively, the ``Applicable
Orders'').\8\ Each Risk Limitation Mechanism is designed to measure a
dealer's risk exposure within a time period specified by the Exchange,
based on either the number of trades executed by the dealer (the
``Transaction-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism''); the number of
contacts entered by the dealer (the ``Volume-Based Transaction-Based
Risk Limitation Mechanism''); or the percentage of a dealer's quoted
size that gets traded (the ``Percentage-Based Risk Limitation
Mechanism'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67714 (August 22,
2012), 77 FR 167 (August 28, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-87). The Risk
Limitation Mechanisms as set forth in current Rule 6.40 (and the
proposal described herein) are only applicable to electronic trading
on the Exchange.
    \7\ The Exchange specified within Rule 6.40(a) that non-Market
Maker OTP Firms and OTP Holders would be referred to as ``non-Market
Makers'' for purposes of Rule 6.40.
    \8\ See paragraphs (p), (u), (v) and (t) of NYSE Arca Options
Rule 6.62 (Certain Types of Orders Defined), respectively. The
Exchange notes that the rule is currently silent as to the source
and order types that are subject to the Risk Limitation Mechanisms.
The Exchange therefore proposes to modify Commentary .07 to Rule
6.40 to identify the source and the order types to which the
existing (and modified) Risk Limitation Mechanisms apply and would
announce via Trader Update any changes to these source(s) or order
types. Similarly, for the sake of clarity, the Exchange proposes to
replace ``order'' with ``Applicable Order'' in existing paragraphs
(b), (c), (d) and (e) to Rule 6.40, and elsewhere in the rule as
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per current Rule 6.40(a), the Exchange utilizes Trade Counters,
based on trading permit identification (or ``TPID''), to determine when
a Risk Limitation Mechanism has been triggered. The dealer selects from
within a range specified by the Exchange individual risk parameters
that, if breached, will trigger the selected Risk Limitation
Mechanism.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Per current Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40, the Exchange will
not (i) specify a minimum setting of less than one or a maximum
setting of more than 100 for the Transaction-Based Risk Limitation
Mechanism; (ii) specify a minimum setting of less than 20 or a
maximum setting of more than 5,000 for the Volume-Based Risk
Limitation Mechanism; or (iii) specify a minimum setting of less
than 100 or a maximum setting of more than 2,000 for the Percentage-
Based Risk Limitation Mechanism. The Exchange proposes to amend
Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40 to reflect that any changes to these
settings would be announced to dealers via Trader Update, rather
than Regulatory Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per Commentary .08 to the Rule, while the existing Risk Limitation
Mechanisms apply to quotes and Applicable Orders from Market Makers and
non-Market Makers, use of this risk-limitation feature is mandated only
for Market Makers' quotes.\10\ Thus, Market Makers are required to
activate one of the three Risk Limitation Mechanisms at all times for
their quotes for each class in their appointment. However, the existing
Risk Limitation Mechanisms are entirely voluntary for Applicable Orders
submitted by Market Makers and non-Market Makers. With respect to the
Applicable Orders, Market Makers and non-Market Makers have the option
of availing themselves of one of the three Risk Limitation Mechanisms
for some or all of the option classes in which they trade/provide
quotes.\11\ A Market Maker

may activate one Risk Limitation Mechanism for its quotes and a
different Risk Limitation Mechanism for its Applicable Orders, even if
both are activated for the same class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When first implemented, Rule 6.40 was entitled ``Market
Maker Risk Limitation Mechanism-- OX'', and applied solely to--and
was mandated for--Market Maker quotes. However, when the rule was
revised in 2012, and the risk-limitation functionality was expanded
to cover Applicable Orders as well as quotes, the changes to the
title of the rule and the accompanying rule text did not make
entirely clear that the Risk Limitation Mechanism is required for
all Market Maker quotes. Thus, as proposed, new Commentary .04 will
state that use of the Risk Limitation Mechanism is mandated only for
Market Maker quotes and is otherwise optional.
    \11\ With respect to Applicable Orders submitted by dealers, the
Exchange has included in current Rule 6.40 the concept of a
``specified class'' to indicate the option class for which a Risk
Limitation Mechanism is activated; if a dealer does not identify any
``specified class,'' none of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms will be
activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per current Rule 6.40(e), and Commentary .01 to the Rule, once a
dealer's specified risk exposure is exceeded within the time period
specified by the Exchange (as tracked by the Trade Counter), the Risk
Limitation Mechanism is triggered and the NYSE Arca System (``System'')
automatically cancels electronic Applicable Orders or quotes by
generating a ``bulk cancel'' message.\12\ Per Commentary .01, the bulk
cancel message is processed in time priority with any other quote,
order or other message received by the System.\13\ Thus, any quotes or
orders that match with a Market Maker's quote or with a dealers' [sic]
Applicable Orders that were received by the System prior to the receipt
of the bulk cancel message would be automatically executed. Similarly,
quotes or orders received by the System after receipt of the bulk
cancel message would not be executed against the cancelled quotes or
Applicable Orders. In this regard, Rule 6.40--in its current form and
as proposed--would not relieve dealers of their ``firm quote''
obligations under Rule 602 of Regulation NMS \14\ or NYSE Arca Options
Rule 6.86. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would not relieve
Market Makers of their quoting obligations under the Exchange's
Rules.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.40(b)(1)-(3); (c)(1)-(3); and
(d)(1)-(3).
    \13\ As previously noted, for the sake of clarity, the Exchange
proposes to revise the rule text to utilize ``Applicable Order''
rather than ``order'' where necessary.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.602.
    \15\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.37B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A dealer that has been suspended from quoting or submitting
Applicable Orders in the affected class, pursuant to current Rule
6.40(e), may only re-enter the market by submitting a message to the
Exchange requesting re-entry and, until such message is submitted, any
subsequent quotes or Applicable Orders will be rejected by the
Exchange.\16\ The intended purpose of this forced suspension from
quoting and from certain trading in the affected class is to afford the
dealer an opportunity to evaluate its positions before opting to re-
enter the market. In practice, the Exchange has received responses to
bulk cancel messages from dealers requesting to re-enter the market
within as few as two milliseconds. This rapid response time leads the
Exchange to conclude that the messages being submitted in response to
the bulk cancel messages are automated, system-generated messages. The
effect of this apparent automation is that dealers that are effectively
kicked out of the market (for their quotes or Applicable Orders) in the
affected class for triggering the Risk Limitation Mechanism can re-
enter the market within milliseconds. The Exchange believes that an
automated response is sufficient, provided the dealer does not
experience multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism in rapid
succession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.40(e), and Commentary .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 6.40 there is no mechanism for addressing
multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms within
a time period specified by the Exchange, which could be particularly
problematic for dealers if the markets turns in an unexpected
direction.
Proposed Changes to Risk Limitation Mechanism
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.40 to address circumstances
where a dealer experiences multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism. The Exchange proposes a two-pronged remedial
response. First, the Exchange would cancel all of the dealer's quotes
or Applicable Orders (defined below)--as opposed to cancelling only
those quotes or certain orders in the option class (underlying symbol)
in which the dealer triggered the Risk Limitation Mechanism. Second,
the Exchange would require that the dealer make non-automated contact
with the Exchange to re-enable the submission of the dealer's quotes or
certain orders.
    Proposed Rule 6.40(a)(2) would provide for a ``trigger counter''
that (similar to the Trade Counter, which serves as the basis for
determining whether a Risk Limitation Mechanism has been triggered)
would track the number of times that a dealer has triggered any of the
Risk Limitation Mechanisms pursuant to current Rule 6.40(b), (c), or
(d).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This proposed addition would require that current Rule
6.40(a) be renamed from ``Trade Counter'' to ``Counters,'' and
renumbered such that ``Trade Counter'' would be numbered as proposed
Rule 6.40(a)(1). The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (a)
to refer to ``Applicable Orders,'' as referenced in Commentary .07
to the Rule (instead of ``orders'') to make clear which orders are
subject to the Risk Limitation Mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 6.40(f) outlines the actions that the System would
take if the trigger counter indicates that any of the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms have been triggered in excess of the number of times
specified by the dealer (within a parameter set by the Exchange, as
noted below) within the time period specified by the Exchange. In
short, once a dealer has exceeded the number of triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanisms, pursuant to paragraph (f) of Rule 6.40, all
Applicable Orders or quotes by a Market Maker or all Applicable Orders
by a non-Maker Maker would be cancelled.
    Specifically, per proposed Rule 6.40(f)(1), if the Risk Limitation
Mechanism is triggered pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (c)(1) or (d)(1)
to this Rule, the System would automatically cancel all of the non-
Market Maker's Applicable Orders, regardless of which specified class
caused the underlying trigger of the Risk Limitation Mechanism. Per
proposed Rule 6.40(f)(2), if the Risk Limitation Mechanism is triggered
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2), (c)(2) or (d)(2) to this Rule, the System
would automatically cancel all of the Market Maker's Applicable Orders,
regardless of which specified class caused the underlying trigger of
the Risk Limitation Mechanism. And, per proposed Rule 6.40(f)(3), if
the Risk Limitation Mechanism is triggered pursuant to paragraph
(b)(3), (c)(3) or (d)(3) to this Rule, the System would automatically
cancel all of the Market Maker's quotes, regardless of which appointed
class caused the underlying trigger of the Risk Limitation Mechanism.
    The difference between the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
versus the proposed enhancement is the cancellation of all of a
dealer's Applicable Orders or quotes upon breach of proposed paragraph
(f) to Rule 6.40. Thus, if a dealer triggers a Risk Limitation
Mechanism, pursuant to paragraph (e) of current Rule 6.40, only the
dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders in the option class that triggered
the Risk Limitation Mechanism would be cancelled by the Exchange;
whereas if a dealer breaches proposed paragraph (f) of Rule 6.40, by
engaging in multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism in a
time period specified by the Exchange, all of that dealer's Applicable
Orders or quotes in any option class(es) submitted that day would be
cancelled--not just the Applicable Orders or quotes in the option
class(es) that led to the most recent trigger of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism.\18\ The Exchange believes

that this modification--to temporarily suspend quoting or Applicable
Orders in all classes actively traded by the dealer--would strengthen
the efficacy of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms by providing
dealers with increased sensitivity in setting risk tolerance and
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The cancellation will only apply to those quotes or
Applicable Orders submitted by the dealer that trading day. With
respect to the cancellation of all Applicable Orders, pursuant to
proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 6.40, this would include a
cancellation of Applicable Orders in option classes for which the
dealer may not have opted to utilize a Risk Limitation Mechanism.
Thus, even though dealers are not required to subject all option
classes traded to this risk-limitation feature, a breach of proposed
paragraph 6.40(f) would affect all Applicable Orders in all option
classes traded that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40, upon breaching
proposed paragraph (f) of Rule 6.40, the System would automatically
cancel electronic Applicable Orders or quotes by generating a ``bulk
cancel'' message--just as the system currently does in the event of a
breach of the Risk Limitation Mechanism (i.e., current paragraph (e) of
Rule 6.40).\19\ In addition to the bulk cancel message, the System
would generate an alert message providing notice that the dealer has
exceeded the number of triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms,
pursuant to paragraph (f) of Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Relatedly, the Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary
.08 to Rule 6.40 regarding the cancellation of Applicable Orders to
make it pertinent to paragraph (f), in addition to its current
application to paragraph (e) to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend current Commentary .02 to Rule
6.40 to reflect that the Exchange would (and does) accept automated
messages from dealers requesting the re-enabling of quotes or
Applicable Orders, following a breach of paragraph (e). The Exchange
believes that this proposed change would add transparency to the
functioning of the Exchange and the types of messages it would accept
when a Risk Limitation Mechanism is triggered pursuant to paragraph (e)
of the Rule.
    The Exchange proposes to further amend current Commentary .02 to
Rule 6.40 to require that, upon a dealer's breach of proposed paragraph
(f) to current Rule 6.40, the dealer would have to make non-automated
contact with the Exchange to enable the entry of all new Applicable
Orders or quotes, which had been cancelled pursuant to proposed
paragraph (f).\20\ The Exchange believes that requiring this
additional, non-automated contact will strengthen the efficacy of the
existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms by providing dealers with increased
sensitivity in setting risk tolerance and controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Specifically, proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40 provides
that ``[i]f any of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms are triggered
pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of Rule 6.40, any Applicable
Orders sent by the non-Market Maker or Market Maker, respectively,
in any class, shall be rejected until the non-Market Maker or Market
Maker makes non-automated contact with the Exchange to enable the
entry of new Applicable Orders. If any of the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms are triggered pursuant to Rule 6.40(f)(3), any quotes
sent by the Market Maker, in any class, shall be rejected until the
Market Maker makes non-automated contact with the Exchange to enable
the entry of new quotes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40, the Exchange
would specify via Trader Update the applicable range within which
dealers could select the number of times the Risk Limitation Mechanism
could be triggered before breaching proposed paragraph (f) to Rule
6.40, but this setting would not be less than a minimum of one and a
maximum of 100. The Exchange believes that setting the parameters
within this broad range would provide dealers with ample flexibility in
setting their tolerance for risk. Those dealers with a lower risk
tolerance or those that may be prone to multiple, successive triggers
of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms in shorter periods of time, may opt
to select a number of triggers on the lower end of the range, thereby
optimizing the protection afforded by this proposed rule change, while
those dealers with a higher risk tolerance or that are less likely to
experience multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism, may select the maximum allowable triggers to decrease the
protections afforded by the proposed rule change. Moreover, while the
Exchange retains discretion with respect to the levels at which it
could adjust these settings, the Exchange would not be permitted to
adjust the settings below the minimum or maximum proposed, which, the
Exchange believes would reasonably ensure that the settings are at all
times within a reasonable range.
    Consistent with current Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40, the applicable
time period within which dealers would select the number of triggers
before breaching proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 6.40 would not be less
100 milliseconds, unless otherwise announced by the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that specifying the applicable minimum, maximum and/
or default settings via Trader Update, including any changes thereto in
the future designed to ensure that the mechanisms work as intended,
would be consistent with the manner in which the Exchange has
communicated any changes to the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
settings and is consistent with the manner in which the Commission
currently permits option exchanges to communicate settings or
parameters for various exchange mechanisms to their members other than
through the rule filing process, i.e., via notices, bulletins or
circulars.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-70038
(July 25, 2013), 78 FR 147 (July 31, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-72)
(NYSE Arca Rule 6.60, which applies a trade collar mechanism to
prevent the immediate execution of certain incoming orders outside
of a specified parameter (referred to as a ``Trading Collar'') and
provides that changes to the Trading Collar may be announced by
Trader Update. See also BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule
8140, which provides that, related to BOX's Quote Removal Mechanism
Upon Technical Disconnect, BOX Market Makers will be notified of the
value that ``n'' seconds represents via Regulatory Circular. See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58140 (July 10, 2008), 73
FR 41384 (July 18, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-40), in which the Commission
noted that ``n'' seconds would be configurable by BOX and any
subsequent re-configurations will be announced to Market Makers via
Regulatory Circular. See also Interpretation and Policy .05 to
Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.74A, which provides
that any determinations made by CBOE regarding CBOE's Automated
Improvement Mechanism, such as eligible classes, order size
parameters and the minimum price increment for certain responses,
shall be communicated in a Regulatory Circular. See also CBOE Rule
6.13(b)(i)(C)(2)(a), which provides that CBOE may establish certain
maximum order size eligibility requirements with respect to
automatic executions and announce such determinations via Regulatory
Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes at this time to make a procedural change
for making announcements regarding functionality associated with the
Risk Limitation Mechanism. Presently the Exchange issues Regulatory
Bulletins when making such announcements. Going forward, the Exchange
proposes to issue a Trader Update in lieu of a Regulatory Bulletin.
Regulatory Bulletins generally contain information regarding legal and
regulatory matters while Trader Updates deal with issues such as
trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements. The
Exchange believes that it is more appropriate to make announcements
regarding the Risk Limitation Mechanism via Trader Update. Trader
Updates, like Regulatory Bulletins, are electronically distributed to
all OTP Holders and OTP Firms and are posted on the Exchange's Web
site. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes amended current Commentaries
.03 and .07 to Rule 6.40 by replacing references to ``Regulatory
Bulletin'' with ``Trader Update.'' Should the Exchange make a change to
the Risk Limitation Mechanism settings, for example to accommodate
changes in market conditions or the technology needs and considerations
of dealers, the Exchange would issue a Trader Update at least one
trading day in advance of the settings becoming effective, which would
give dealers notice and

opportunity to make any necessary adjustments to their risk settings.
    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40, those dealers
that utilize any of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms would be
automatically subject to proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 6.40. Thus,
while the Risk Limitation Mechanism is optional for each dealer's
Applicable Orders, once a dealer avails itself of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism for some of the option classes in which it trades, all of the
option classes in which that dealer trades would be subject to the
proposed rule change.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Market Makers are required to utilize the Risk Limitation
Mechanism for all of their quotes and therefore all quotes would be
subject to the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 6.40, absent a breach
pursuant to Rule 6.40(f), the trigger counter (which would serve as the
basis for determining a breach of proposed paragraph (f)) would be
automatically reset and would commence a new count for dealers (1) when
a time period specified by the Exchange elapses; or (2) following any
intraday update to configurable thresholds, as provided in Commentary
.03 to this Rule 6.40. Per proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 6.40, in the
event of a breach pursuant to proposed Rule 6.40(f), the trigger
counter would be reset and would commence a new count when the affected
dealer makes non-automated contact with the Exchange to enable the
entry of new Applicable Orders or quotes, as provided in proposed
Commentary .02 to Rule 6.40.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to current Rule 6.40
will enhance the existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms and enable the
Exchange to aid in mitigating the potential risks of multiple
executions against a dealer's trading interest that, in today's highly
automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously
across multiple series and multiple option classes.
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date
will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Trader
Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \23\ which requires the
rules of an exchange to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
providing dealers with greater control and flexibility over setting
their risk tolerance and more protection over risk exposure, if the
market moves in an unexpected direction.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that cancelling all quotes or
Applicable Orders and requiring dealers to make non-automated contact
with the Exchange following multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism allows dealers to be sensitive to the rapid
trading that occurs in today's highly automated and electronic trading
environment. This increased sensitivity will enable dealers to avoid
transacting against their interests and will help to ensure that
executions will not occur at erroneous prices, thereby removing
impediments to and promoting a fair and orderly market.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interests because it
will permit dealers to better manage the potential risks of multiple
executions against a dealer's proprietary interest that, in today's
highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur
simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes.
Consistent with the ability to better manage risk, the Exchange
anticipates that the proposed enhancement to the existing Risk
Limitation Mechanism could likewise enhance the Exchange's overall
market quality as a result of narrowed quote widths and increased
liquidity for series traded on the Exchange, which would benefit
investors and the public interest. As with the intent of the existing
Risk Limitation Mechanism, the Exchange believes that the proposed
modifications to Rule 6.40 would further assist dealers in providing
aggressive quotes and increased liquidity, thus improving overall
market quality on the Exchange for the benefit of all investors and the
public.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a
market enhancement that would provide dealers with greater control and
flexibility over setting their risk tolerance and more protection over
risk exposure, if the market moves in an unexpected direction. The
Exchange believes the proposal would provide market participants with
additional protection from erroneous executions. The proposal is
structured to offer the same enhancement to all dealers, regardless of
size, and would not impose a competitive burden on any participant. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the existing
risk limitation mechanism would impose a burden on competing options
exchanges. Rather, the availability of this mechanism may foster more
competition. Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality
that distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it
useful, it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges
will move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes
that this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the
market place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes,
functionality, and technologies.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the

Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \26\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-148 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-148. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-148 and should
be submitted on or before February 3, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00334 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36820-36822]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Application for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2013.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials, Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2013.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special
  Application No.       Docket No.            Applicant        Regulation(s) affected        permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               New Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15862-N...........  ..................  Veolia ES Technical   49 CFR 173.12(b)(3).....  To authorize the
                                         Solutions, L.L.C.                               transportation in
                                         Flanders, NJ.                                   commerce of Division
                                                                                6.1, PG I materials in
                                                                                lab packs by motor
                                                                                vehicle, rail freight
                                                                                and cargo vessel.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3)

15863-N...........  ..................  Baker Hughes          49 CFR (173.301(a),       To authorize the
                                         Oilfield Operations   173.301(f) and 173.302a.  transportation in
                                         Inc. Houston, TX.                               commerce of compressed
                                                                                nitrogen in a non-DOT
                                                                                specification cylinder
                                                                                that is not equipped
                                                                                with a pressure relief
                                                                                device. (modes 1, 2, 3,
                                                                                4)
15864-N...........  ..................  Agfa HealthCare       49 CFR 173.213..........  To authorize the
                                         Corporation                                     transportation of an
                                         Greenville, SC.                                 Environmentally
                                                                                hazardous substance in
                                                                                non-DOT specification
                                                                                packaging. (modes 1, 4)
15866-N...........  ..................  General Motors LLC    49 CFR 173.185..........  To authorize the
                                         Warren, MI.                                     transportation in
                                                                                commerce of certain
                                                                                damaged or defective
                                                                                lithium batteries.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3)
15867-N...........  ..................  FIBA Technologies,    49 CFR 180.501(b),        To authorize the
                                         Inc. Millbury, MA.    180.505 and               requalification of DOT
                                                               180.509(d)(1) and         Specification 107A tank
                                                               (f)(1).                   car tanks by the
                                                                                acoustic emission test
                                                                                method on a mobile
                                                                                basis. (mode 1)
15869-N...........  ..................  Mercedes-Benz USA,    49 CFR 172.102, Special   To authorize the
                                         LLC (MBUSA).          provision A54.            transportation in
                                                                                commerce of lithium
                                                                                batteries exceeding the
                                                                                35 Kg maximum weight
                                                                                authorized for
                                                                                transportation by cargo
                                                                                air. (mode 4)
15870-N...........  ..................  Ram Systems           49 CFR 49 CFR Table Sec.  To authorize the
                                         Jefferson, OR.          172.101, Column (9B),   transportation in
                                                               Sec.   172.204(c)(3),     commerce of certain
                                                               Sec.   173.27(b)(2)       hazardous materials by
                                                               Sec.   175.30(a)(1)       14 CFR Part 133
                                                               Sec.   172.300, and       Rotorcraft External
                                                               172.400.                  Load Operations
                                                                                transporting hazardous
                                                                                materials attached to
                                                                                or suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft, in remote
                                                                                areas of the US only,
                                                                                without being subject
                                                                                to hazard communication
                                                                                requirements, quantity
                                                                                limitations and certain
                                                                                loading and stowage
                                                                                requirements. (mode 4)
15872-N...........  ..................  KMG Electronic        49 CFR 173.158(f)(1)....  To authorize the
                                         Chemicals Pueblo,                               transportation in
                                         CO.                                             commerce of 69.5%
                                                                                Nitric acid in non-DOT
                                                                                specification one-time
                                                                                use HDPE plastic drums.
                                                                                (mode 1)
15873-N...........  ..................  JiangXi Oxygen Plant  49 CFR 178.274(b) and     To authorize the
                                         Co., Ltd. Jiangxi     178.276(b)(1).            manufacture, marking,
                                         Province.                                       sale and use of UN
                                                                                portable tanks
                                                                                conforming to portable
                                                                                tank code T50 that have
                                                                                been designed,
                                                                                constructed and stamped
                                                                                in accordance with
                                                                                Section VIII, Division
                                                                                2 of the ASME Code for
                                                                                the transportation in
                                                                                commerce Division 2.1
                                                                                and 2.2 materials.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
15874-N...........  ..................  Summit Helicopter,    49 CFR 49 CFR Table Sec.  To authorize the
                                         Incorporated            172.204(c)(3), Sec.     transportation in
                                         Pacoima, CA.          173.27(b)(2) Sec.         commerce of certain
                                                               175.30(a)(1) Sec.         hazardous materials by
                                                               172.200, 172.300, and     14 CFR Part 133
                                                               172.400.                  Rotorcraft External
                                                                                Load Operations
                                                                                transporting hazardous
                                                                                materials attached to
                                                                                or suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft, in remote
                                                                                areas of the US only,
                                                                                without being subject
                                                                                to hazard communication
                                                                                requirements, quantity
                                                                                limitations and certain
                                                                                loading and stowage
                                                                                requirements. (mode 4)
15875-N...........  ..................  Point of View         49 CFR 49 CFR Table Sec.  To authorize the
                                         Helicopter Services.    172.101, Column (9B),   transportation in
                                                               Sec.   172.204(c)(3),     commerce of certain
                                                               Sec.   173.27(b)(2)       hazardous materials by
                                                               Sec.   175.30(a)(1)       14 CFR Part 133
                                                               Sec.   172.200,           Rotorcraft External
                                                               172.300, and 172.400.     Load Operations
                                                                                transporting hazardous
                                                                                materials attached to
                                                                                or suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft, in remote
                                                                                areas of the US only,
                                                                                without being subject
                                                                                to hazard communication
                                                                                requirements, quantity
                                                                                limitations and certain
                                                                                loading and stowage
                                                                                requirements. (mode 4)
15876-N...........  ..................  JiangXi Oxygen Plant  49 CFR 178.274(b) and     To authorize the
                                         Co., Ltd. Jiangxi.    178.276(b)(1).            manufacture, marking,
                                                                                sale and use of UN
                                                                                portable tanks
                                                                                conforming to portable
                                                                                tank code T50 that have
                                                                                been designed,
                                                                                constructed and stamped
                                                                                in accordance with
                                                                                Section VIII, Division
                                                                                1 of the ASME Code with
                                                                                a design margin of
                                                                                3.5:1 for the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce Division 2.1
                                                                                and 2.2 materials.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-14356 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 77160]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31240]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68522; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Deleting NYSE Rules 95(c) and (d) and Related
Supplementary Material

December 21, 2012.
    On October 26, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
delete NYSE Rules 95(c) and (d) and related Supplementary Material. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 15, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68185 (November 8,
2012), 77 FR 68188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is December 30, 2012. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, which would
delete NYSE Rules 95(c) and (d) and related Supplementary Material, and
the potential issues raised by this proposal.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates February 13, 2013 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-NYSE-2012-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31240 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P