[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42484-42486]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0009]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from six individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0009 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0009. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0009), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0009. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0009 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The six individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the
procedures

established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon
application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of
Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced
monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver
program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the
same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are
also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will
continue to operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven, and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Heath G. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 41, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Brown has sufficient vision to perform the
driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brown
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating
9,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating
1.35 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Frederick V. Hanks

    Mr. Hanks, 65, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In our opinion, Mr. Hanks has
sufficient vision to continue driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hanks
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating
3.3 million miles, and buses for 6 years, accumulating 22,500 miles. He
holds a Class BM CDL from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

David T. Lembke

    Mr. Lembke, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye 20/25.
Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, I believe he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lembke
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years,
accumulating 595,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David W. McVicar

    Mr. McVicar, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2020 his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. McVicar has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McVicar
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years,
accumulating 2.7 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Anthony M. Millard

    Mr. Millard, 38, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, light perception only. Following an
examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, ``I believe that in my
medical opinion Anthony has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Millard reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 30,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 308,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Paul B. Overman

    Mr. Overman, 65, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2020,
his optometrist stated, ``Paul's vision in unchanged, therefore he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Overman reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 27 years, accumulating 701,190 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 27 years, accumulating 701,190 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
one crash and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before

the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-15155 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62852-62853]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24639]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70629; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the
Implementation of the Options Floor Broker Management System

October 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 2, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of its new
Options Floor Broker Management System.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to delay the implementation of the
Exchange's enhancements to the Options Floor Broker Management System
(``FBMS''). The Exchange received approval to implement the
enhancements as of June 1, 2013,\3\ and delayed implementation until
July 2013 \4\ and again until September 2013.\5\ At this time, the
Exchange needs additional time in order to complete the applicable
technology work. The delay is not as a result of major technology
changes from the original proposal and no rule changes are being made;
rather, the Exchange has been working to, generally, provide more
useful interfaces for the ultimate user, the Floor Broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69471 (April 29, 2013),
78 FR 26096 (May 3, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-09).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69811 (June 20, 2013),
78 FR 38422 (June 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-67).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70141 (August 8, 2013),
78 FR 49565 (August 14, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to be able to implement the changes
by the end of December 2013; the Exchange will announce the specific
date in advance through an Options Trader Alert.
    Today, FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or their employees to enter,
route, and report transactions stemming from options orders received on
the Exchange. FBMS also establishes an electronic audit trail for
options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange. Floor
Brokers can use FBMS to submit orders to Phlx XL, rather than executing
the orders in the trading crowd.
    With the new FBMS, all options transactions on the Exchange
involving at least one Floor Broker would be required to be executed
through FBMS. In connection with order execution, the Exchange will
allow FBMS to execute two-sided orders entered by Floor Brokers,
including multi-leg orders up to 15 legs, after the Floor Broker has
represented the orders in the trading crowd. FBMS will also provide
Floor Brokers with an enhanced functionality called the complex
calculator that will calculate and display a suggested price of each
individual component of a multi-leg order, up to 15 legs, submitted on
a net debit or credit basis.
    The Exchange still intends to implement these enhancements with a
trial period of two to four weeks, to be determined by the Exchange,
during which the new FBMS enhancements and related rules would operate
along with the existing FBMS and rules. The Exchange will announce the
beginning and end of the trial period in advance.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by enhancing FBMS to make the Exchange's markets more efficient, to the
benefit of the investing public. Although the Exchange needs additional
time to finalize the enhancements, the delay is expected to be short
and will involve advance notice to the Exchange membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange continues to
believe, as it stated when proposing these enhancements, that these
enhancements to FBMS should result in the Exchange's trading floor
operating in a more efficient way, which should help it compete with
other floor-based exchanges and help the Exchange's Floor Brokers
compete with floor brokers on other options exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\10\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.\11\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can implement the
enhancements once they are ready from a technology perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as it will clarify that the delayed implementation of the FBMS
will be effective and operative immediately. In addition, because the
proposal only delays the implementation date of the FBMS and does not
make any additional changes to the FBMS itself, it does not raise any
novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\13\ If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-100. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-100,
and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24639 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27641-27643]
[DOCID:fr18my10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0333]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Marathon Oil Refinery Construction, Rouge River,
Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Rouge River, Detroit, Michigan. This zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of the Rouge River during the Marathon Oil
Refinery Construction project. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect mariners and construction personnel from the hazards
associated with moving large pieces of equipment in a high traffic
maritime environment.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR from May 18,
2010 until 7 p.m. on November 30, 2010. This rule is effective with
actual notice for purposes of enforcement beginning 7 a.m. on May 1,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0333 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0333 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail CDR Joseph Snowden, Prevention
Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because delaying this rule would be contrary
to the public interest of ensuring the safety of vessels during the
construction, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible
loss of life and property. The Coast Guard has not received any
complaints or negative comments previously with regard to events of
this type and duration.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of vessels
during the construction, and immediate action is necessary to prevent
possible loss of life and property.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels from hazards associated with construction projects. Based on
accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the
dangerous nature of large construction projects, the Captain of the
Port Detroit has determined construction projects in close proximity to
watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The
likely combination of large vessels, congested waterways, and movement
of large pieces of equipment could easily result in serious injuries or
fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement
around the location of the construction project will help ensure the
safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the
associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
mariners and construction personnel during the setup and offloading of
equipment in conjunction with the Marathon Oil Refinery Construction
project. The offloading of equipment will occur between 7 a.m. on May
1, 2010, and 7 p.m. on November 30, 2010. Specifically, offloading
operations will occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily on multiple
dates, to be determined, during the effective period of this
regulation. The public will be notified of the specific enforcement
dates as soon as practicable through the publication of a Notice of
Enforcement and by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    The temporary safety zone will encompass all waters of the Rouge
River, Detroit, MI, from the Dix Ave. bridge to the north end of
Fordson Island, bound by a line starting from a point on land on the
south shore of the Rouge River at position 42[deg]17.8' N; 083[deg]9.1'
W, continuing southeast to a point on land at position 42[deg]17.7' N;
083[deg]9.0' W, across to the north side of the river to a point on
land at position 42[deg]17.8' N; 083[deg]8.9' W, along the shore
northwest to a point on land at position 42[deg]17.8' N; 083[deg]9.0'
W, continuing back southwest to the point of origin. All geographic
coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol
personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or
his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the
effect of the rule will not be significant because: The minimal time
that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area
where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners
from the zone's activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Rouge River near Detroit, MI
between 7 a.m. on May 1, 2010 and 7 p.m. on November 30, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will only be enforced for 12 hours on each of the days during the
effective dates of this temporary final rule. The Coast Guard will give
notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the
regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of
the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a temporary
safety zone to protect the public from construction operations. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0333 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0333  Safety zone; Marathon Oil Refinery Construction,
Rouge River, Detroit, MI

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
U.S. waters of the Rouge River, Detroit, MI, bound by a line starting
from a point on land on the south shore of the Rouge River at position
42[deg]17.8[min] N; 083[deg] 9.1[min] W, continuing southeast to a
point on land at position 42[deg]17.7[min] N; 083[deg] 9.0[min] W,
across to the north side of the river to a point on land at position
42[deg]17.8[min] N; 083[deg]8.9[min] W, along the shore northwest to a
point on land at position 42[deg]17.8[min] N; 083[deg]9.0[min] W,
continuing back southwest to the point of origin. All geographic
coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). This safety zone
effectively covers all of the Rouge River from the Dix Ave. bridge to
the north end of Fordson Island.
    (b) Effective Period. This regulation is effective from 7 a.m. on
May 1, 2010 to 7 p.m. on November 30, 2010. This rule will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, on multiple dates to be determined during
the effective period. The public will be notified of the specific
enforcement dates as soon as practicable through the publication of a
Notice of Enforcement and by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
E.J. Marohn,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2010-11781 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71556-71559]
[DOCID:fr24no10-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0061; FRL-8852-2]

Polyoxyalkylated Glycerol Fatty Acid Esters; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid
esters; the mono-, di-, or triglyceride mixtures of C8
through C22, primarily C8 through C18
saturated and unsaturated, fatty acids containing up to 15% water by
weight reacted with a minimum of three moles of either ethylene oxide
or propylene oxide, also known as polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid
esters, when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation under 40 CFR 180.960. Croda Inc., 315 Cherry Lane,
Wilmington, DE submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of polyoxyalkylated
glycerol fatty acid esters; the mono-, di-, or triglyceride mixtures of
C8 through C22, primarily C8 through
C18 saturated and unsaturated, fatty acids containing up to
15% water by weight reacted with a minimum of three moles of either
ethylene oxide or propylene oxide, also known as polyoxyalkylated
glycerol fatty acid esters, when used as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide chemical formulation on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 24, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 24, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0661. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0661 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 24, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0661, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32463) (FRL-8827-5),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 9E7538) filed by
Croda Inc., 315 Cherry Lane, Wilmington, DE. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyoxyalkylated glycerol
fatty acid esters; the mono-, di-, or triglyceride mixtures of
C8 through C22, primarily C8 through
C18 saturated and unsaturated, fatty acids containing up to
15% water by weight reacted with a minimum of three moles of either
ethylene oxide or propylene oxide (CAS Reg. Nos. 61791-23-9, 68201-46-
7, 68440-49-3, 68458-88-8, 68606-12-2, 68648-38-4, 70377-91-2, 70914-
02-2, 72245-12-6, 72698-41-3, 180254-52-8, 248273-72-5, 308063-50-5,
952722-33-7). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request.
The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Short chemical name conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,500 is greater than 1,000
and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional
groups.
    Thus, polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters meet the criteria
for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on
its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that short chemical name could be present in
all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and
that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number
average MW of polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters is 1,500
daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed
through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin.
Since polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters conform to the
criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for
risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
considers ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects
of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
short chemical name does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty
acid esters does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of polyoxyalkylated glycerol
fatty acid esters, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess
the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid
esters.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid esters.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for polyoxyalkylated glycerol
fatty acid esters.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polyoxyalkylated
glycerol fatty acid esters from the requirement of a tolerance will be
safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of

the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 17, 2010.
G. Jeffery Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymers to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               * * * * * *
Polyoxyalkylated glycerol fatty acid      61791-23-9, 68201-46-7, 68440-
 esters; the mono-, di-, or triglyceride   49-3, 68458-88-8, 68606-12-2,
 mixtures of C8 through C22, primarily     68648-38-4, 70377-91-2, 70914-
 C8 through C18 saturated and              02-2, 72245-12-6, 72698-41-3,
 unsaturated, fatty acids containing up    180254-52-8, 248273-72-5,
 to 15% water by weight reacted with a     308063-50-5, 952722-33-7.
 minimum of three moles of either
 ethylene oxide or propylene oxide; the
 resulting polyoxyalkylated glycerol
 ester polymer minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu), 1,500.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-29625 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37307-37308]
[DOCID:fr29jn10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0522]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
Kinnickinnic Rivers and South Menomonee and Burnham Canals, Milwaukee,
WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, issued a temporary
deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Broadway
Street Bridge at Mile 0.79, Water Street Bridge at Mile 0.94, Saint
Paul Avenue Bridge at Mile 1.21, the Clybourn Street Bridge at Mile
1.28, Michigan Street Bridge at Mile 1.37, and the Wisconsin Avenue
Bridge at Mile 1.46 over the Milwaukee River at Milwaukee, WI, during
the scheduled Festa Italiana, and the Summerfest public events for the
2010 season.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. on June 24,
2010 and July 3, 2010. A rain date of June 25 and July 4, 2010 are
authorized. June 25, 2010 through July 2, 2010 from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m.
daily, and July 15, 2010 to July 18 from 10 p.m. to midnight daily.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0522 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0522 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Milwaukee, WI, which owns and
operates these drawbridges, has requested a temporary deviation from
the current operating regulations set forth in 33 CFR 117.1093. The
purpose of this request is to facilitate efficient management of all
transportation needs and provide timely public safety services during
these special events. The most updated and detailed current marine
information for this event, and all bridge operations, is found in the
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners issued by the
Ninth District Commander. On June 24, 2010 and including the rain date
of June 25, 2010 the bridges need not open for any vessel from 9:30
p.m. to 1 a.m. except at the discretion of the Milwaukee Police
Department. From June 25 through July 2, 2010 the bridges need not open
for recreational vessels from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. except at the
discretion of the Milwaukee Police Department. From July 15, 2010
through July 18, 2010 the bridges need not open for recreational
vessels between the hours of 10 p.m. and midnight for recreational
vessels. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must
return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
designated time periods. These deviations from the operating
regulations are authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 11, 2010.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-15704 Filed 6-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Office of Water
EPA 821 F 21 002
March 2021
Final Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule for the Analysis of Effluent
Summary
EPA finalized specific changes to analytical test procedures that are used by industries and municipalities to analyze the chemical, physical, and biological components of wastewater and other environmental samples that are required by regulations under the Clean Water Act. The changes include:
revised EPA methods;
new and revised methods published by voluntary consensus standard bodies, such as ASTM International and the Standard Methods Committee;
new and updated methods developed by the U.S. Geological Survey;
methods reviewed under the Alternate Test Procedures (ATP) program; and
minor changes to quality assurance and quality control within individual methods.
Background
EPA approves analytical methods for measuring regulated pollutants in wastewater, as contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 Part 136. The regulated community and laboratories use these approved methods for determining compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or other monitoring requirements. Often, these entities have a choice in deciding which approved method they will use to measure a pollutant because more than one approved method is available.
To promote method innovation, the EPA also maintains a program whereby method developers may apply for an EPA review and potentially for approval of ATPs. This ATP program is described for Clean Water Act applications at 40 CFR Parts 136.4 and 136.5.
Periodically, EPA updates the approved test procedures in 40 CFR Part 136.
What would EPA's finalized rule change?
The finalized rule changes provide increased flexibility to the regulated community, improve data quality, and update Clean Water Act methods to keep current with technology advances.
Also, in an effort to approve methods more quickly, this rule is limited to minor procedural or editorial changes that do not affect the performance of the methods.
Where can I find more information?
You can view the Federal Register notice for this proposed rule online at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA- EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0826. EPA will also provide a link to the Federal Register notice on our Clean Water Act Methods website.
You may also contact Meghan Hessenauer by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25771-25774]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10352]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69465; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Strategy Fee Caps

April 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on April 17, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Strategy Fee Caps.
    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed
amendment to be operative on April 18, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Strategy Fee Caps which
are currently located in Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed
Options.'' \3\ Today, the Exchange caps certain dividend, merger, short
stock interest and reversal and conversion floor option transactions.
The Exchange is proposing to reformat the manner in which the caps are
presented by first defining each strategy and then creating a table to
display the caps. The Exchange also proposes to also amend the reversal
and conversion cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and
indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to relocate the definitions of the
various

strategies, which are currently in Section II, and define them under a
heading ``Strategies and Definitions.'' Today, the Exchange defines a
dividend strategy as transactions done to achieve a dividend arbitrage
involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of
the same class, executed the first business day prior to the date on
which the underlying stock goes ex-dividend. The Exchange defines a
merger strategy as transactions done to achieve a merger arbitrage
involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options of the same class
and expiration date, executed the first business day prior to the date
on which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective
form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. The Exchange defines a
short stock interest strategy as transactions done to achieve a short
stock interest arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
in-the-money options of the same class. The Exchange defines reversal
and conversion strategies as transactions that employ calls and puts of
the same strike price and the underlying stock. Reversals are
established by combining a short stock position with a short put and a
long call position that shares the same strike and expiration.
Conversions employ long positions in the underlying stock that
accompany long puts and short calls sharing the same strike and
expiration. The Exchange is not proposing to amend the definitions
which are currently in the rule text of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange is proposing to simply relocate these definitions.
    Today, Specialist,\4\ Market Maker,\5\ Professional,\6\ Firm \7\
and Broker-Dealer \8\ floor option transaction charges in Multiply
Listed Options are capped at $1,250 for dividend, merger and short
stock interest strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
options class, and option transaction charges in Multiply Listed
Options are capped at $750 for reversal and conversion strategies
executed on the same trading day in the same options class when such
members are trading in their own proprietary accounts. Floor option
transaction charges in Multiply Listed Options for dividend, merger,
short stock interest and reversal and conversion strategies combined
are further capped at $35,000 per member organization, per month when
such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts (``Monthly
Strategy Cap''). Reversal and conversion strategy executions are not
included in the Monthly Strategy Cap for a Firm. To qualify for a
strategy fee cap, the buy and sell side of a transaction must originate
from the Exchange floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \5\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \6\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \7\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \8\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to offer a fee cap of $1,250 for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies that are executed
on the same trading day in the same options class when such members are
trading in their own proprietary account on the Exchange's trading
floor. With respect to the reversal and conversion fee cap, the
Exchange will amend the fee cap to: (i) Lower the $750 fee cap to $700;
and (ii) continue to offer such a rebate on floor options transactions
executed on the same trading day in the same options class, but will
not require transactions to be in a member's own proprietary account,
as is the case today.
    Floor option transaction charges in Multiply Listed Options for
dividend, merger, short stock interest and reversal and conversion
strategies combined will continue to be capped at $35,000 per member
organization, per month when such members are trading in their own
proprietary accounts (``Monthly Strategy Cap''), except for Firm. As is
the case today, reversal and conversion strategy executions will not be
included in the Monthly Strategy Cap for a Firm. The Exchange proposes
to note for purposes of clarity in the Pricing Schedule that, as is the
case today, reversal and conversion strategy executions (as defined in
this Section II) are included in the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm Floor Option Transaction Charges and QCC
Transaction Fees, as defined in this section above, in the
aggregate, for one billing month may not exceed the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap per member organization when such members are trading in their
own proprietary account. All dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are
excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Reversal and conversion
strategy executions (as defined in this Section II) are included in
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. QCC Transaction Fees are included in the
calculation of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that creating a strategy definition section
in the Pricing Schedule and relocating all of the definitions to this
section is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the definitions are not being amended, but rather simply
grouped together for ease of reference. The Exchange also believes that
it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to display
the strategy fee caps in a table format for ease of reference. The
Exchange is not amending the dividend, merger and short stock interest
fee caps nor is the Exchange amending the Monthly Strategy Cap, but
will display those strategy fee caps in a table format on the Pricing
Schedule.
    The Exchange believes that amending the reversal and conversion
strategy to offer a lower fee cap and eliminate the requirement that
the transaction must be executed in a member's own proprietary account
is reasonable because the Exchange believes that a greater number of
market participants will be incentivized to transact a greater number
of reversal and conversion strategies on the Exchange's trading floor
to benefit from the lower fee cap and ability to apply all reversal and
conversion strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
options class on the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange believes
that offering a lower fee cap for reversal and conversion strategies
and not requiring that the transactions be executed in a member's own
proprietary account, as compared to other dividend, merger and short
stock interest strategy executions which have a higher cap ($1,250) and
require members to execute transactions in their own proprietary
accounts, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to specifically
incentivize market participants to transact reversal and conversion
strategies and believes this proposal offers market participants
competitive fee caps. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to continue to require that all fee cap strategies, which
combine executions for purposes of the Monthly Strategy Cap, must be
traded in the member's

own proprietary account. The Exchange believes that it reasonable to
continue to impose the same requirements as today on all members for
purpose of qualifying for the Monthly Strategy Cap. In addition, other
options exchanges offer similar fee caps, namely NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''),\12\ NYSE Amex, Inc. (``NYSE Amex'') \13\ and the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') \14\ for
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca General Options and Trading Permit (OTP)
Fees.
    \13\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule.
    \14\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the reversal and conversion
strategy to offer a lower fee cap and eliminate the requirement that
the transaction must be executed in a member's own proprietary account
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
proposing to continue to offer the reversal and conversion fee cap to
all market participants, except for Customers.\15\ All market
participants that are assessed transaction fees will have an
opportunity to cap floor option transaction charges in Multiply Listed
Options. The Exchange believes that offering a lower fee cap for
reversal and conversion strategies and not requiring that the
transactions be executed in the member's own proprietary account, as
compared to other dividend, merger and short stock interest strategy
executions which have a higher cap ($1,250) and require members execute
transactions in their own proprietary accounts, is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes this incentive is
necessary to create further trading opportunities for members on the
Exchange's trading floor and is being offered uniformly to all floor
members. The Exchange believes a similar incentive is not necessary for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies. In addition, the
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to continue to require that all fee cap strategies, which combine
executions for purposes of the Monthly Strategy Cap, must be traded in
a member's own proprietary account. The Exchange is not amending the
calculation of the Monthly Strategy Cap which will continue to impose
the same requirements on members for all strategies to qualify for the
Monthly Strategy Caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
Customers are not assessed options transaction charges in Section II
of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to continue to exclude Firm floor options
transaction charges related to reversal and conversion strategies from
the Monthly Strategy Cap is reasonable because these fees would be
capped as part of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, which applies only to
Firms. The Exchange believes that the exclusion of Firm floor options
transaction charges related to reversal and conversion strategies from
the Monthly Strategy Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Firms, unlike other market participants, have the ability to
cap transaction fees up to $75,000 per month. The Exchange would
include floor option transaction charges related to reversal and
conversion strategies in the Monthly Strategy Cap for Professionals,
and Broker Dealers, when such members are trading in their own
proprietary accounts, because these market participants are not subject
to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap or other similar cap. While Specialists and
Market Makers are subject to a Monthly Market Maker Cap on both
electronic and floor options transaction charges, reversal and
conversion transactions are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker
Cap.\16\ For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
including reversal and conversion strategies in the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the cap provides an incentive for Firms to transact floor transactions
on the Exchange, which brings increased liquidity and order flow to the
floor for the benefit of all market participants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The reversal and conversion strategy executions are
excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
    \17\ Firms are eligible to cap floor options transactions
charges and QCC Transaction Fees as part of the Monthly Firm Fee
Cap. QCC Transaction Fees apply to QCC Orders as defined in Exchange
Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders as defined in 1064(e). See Section
II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the applicability
of the strategy fee caps to orders originating from the Exchange floor
is reasonable because members pay floor brokers to execute trades on
the Exchange floor. The Exchange believes that offering fee caps to
members executing floor transactions would defray brokerage costs
associated with executing strategy transactions and continue to
incentivize members to utilize the floor for certain executions.\18\
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the applicability of
the fee caps to orders originating from the Exchange floor is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because today, the fee caps are only
applicable for floor transactions. The Exchange believes that a
requirement that both the buy and sell sides of the order originate
from the floor to qualify for the fee cap constitutes equal treatment
of members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange's proposal would only apply the fee cap to
options transaction charges where buy and sell sides originate from
the Exchange floor. See proposed rule text in Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
apply uniformly to all members that incur transaction charges.\19\
Further, the proposed changes are substantially similar to those found
on other options exchanges; therefore, the Exchange believes the
proposal is consistent with robust competition and does not provide any
unnecessary burden on competition. Further, floor members pay floor
brokers to execute trades on the Exchange floor. The Exchange believes
that offering fee caps to members executing floor transactions and not
electronic executions does not create an unnecessary burden on
competition because the fee caps defray brokerage costs associated with
executing strategy transactions. Also, requiring that both the buy and
sell sides of the order originate from the floor to qualify for the fee
cap constitutes equal treatment of members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Customers are not assessed options transaction charges in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-40 and should be
submitted on or before May 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10352 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P