[Federal Register: February 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6025-6028]
[DOCID:fr08fe07-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55218; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Rule 36 (Communication Between
Exchange and Members' Offices)

January 31, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 25, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
On January 31, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    This proposal seeks to extend the portable phone pilot (the
``Pilot'') for an additional year, until January 31, 2008. The Pilot
amends NYSE Rule 36 (Communication Between Exchange and Members'
Offices) to allow a Floor broker and Registered Competitive Market
Maker (``RCMM'') to use an Exchange authorized and provided portable
telephone on the Exchange Floor, provided certain conditions are met.
The current Pilot expires on January 31, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54276 (August 4,
2006), 71 FR 45885 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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
Background
    The Commission originally approved the Pilot to be implemented as a
six-month pilot \6\ beginning no later than June 23, 2003.\7\ Since the
inception of the Pilot, the Exchange has extended the Pilot seven
times, with the current Pilot expiring on January 31, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47671 (April 11,
2003), 68 FR 19048 (April 17, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-11) (``Original
Order'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47992 (June 5,
2003), 68 FR 35047 (June 11, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-19) (delaying the
implementation date for portable phones from on or about May 1, 2003
to no later than June 23, 2003).
    \8\  See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48919 (December
12, 2003), 68 FR 70853 (December 19, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-38)
(extending the Pilot for an additional six months ending on June 16,
2004); 49954 (July 1, 2004), 69 FR 41323 (July 8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-
2004-30) (extending the Pilot for an additional five months ending
on November 30, 2004); 50777 (December 1, 2004), 69 FR 71090
(December 8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-67) (extending the Pilot for an
additional four months ending March 31, 2005); 51464 (March 31,
2005), 70 FR 17746 (April 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-20) (extending the
Pilot for an additional four months ending July 31, 2005); 52188
(August 1, 2005), 70 FR 46252 (August 9, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-53)
(extending the Pilot for an additional four months ending January
31, 2006); 53277 (February 13, 2006), 71 FR 8877 (February 21, 2006)
(SR-NYSE-2006-03) (extending the Pilot for an additional six months
ending July 31, 2006); and 54276, note 5 supra. Also, since the
inception, the Exchange has incorporated RCMMs into the Pilot and
subsequently amended the Pilot to allow RCMMs to use an Exchange
authorized and provided portable telephone on the Exchange Floor to
call to and receive calls from their booths on the Floor. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53213 (February 2, 2006), 71 FR
7103 (February 10, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-80) and 54215 (July 26,
2006), 71 FR 43551 (August 1, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-51).

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

    With respect to regulatory actions concerning the Pilot, as
previously disclosed, there was an investigation into possible insider
trading in an NYSE listed security involving the trading activity of
two RCMMs and the use of an Exchange authorized and provided portable
phone by one of the RCMMs in or about January 2005, which was closed on
December 21, 2006, with no action by NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53277, note 8 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No administrative or technical problems, other than routine
telephone maintenance issues, have resulted from the Pilot over the
past few months.\10\ The Exchange is now filing to extend the Pilot for
an additional year, until January 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange has received records of incoming telephone
calls from June 30, 2006, through December 31, 2006, for Floor
brokers and RCMMs and will continue to receive monthly updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Rule 36
    Rule 36 governs the establishment of telephone or electronic
communications between the Exchange's Trading Floor and any other
location. Prior to the Pilot, Rule 36 prohibited the use of portable
telephone communication between the Trading Floor and any off-Floor
location.
    The Exchange is proposing to extend the Pilot for an additional
year, permitting Floor brokers and RCMMs to use Exchange authorized and
issued portable telephones on the Floor. Thus, with the approval of the
Exchange, a Floor broker would continue to be permitted to engage in
direct voice communication from the point of sale to an off-Floor
location, such as a member firm's trading desk or the office of one of
the broker's customers. Such communications would permit the Floor
broker to accept orders consistent with Exchange rules, provide status
and oral execution reports as to orders previously received, as well as
``market look'' observations as have historically been routinely
transmitted from a Floor broker's booth location.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Floor brokers receiving orders from the public over
portable phones must be properly qualified to engage in such
``direct access'' business under Exchange Rules 342 and 345, among
others. See also note 14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot also allows RCMMs to use an Exchange authorized portable
phone solely to call and receive calls from their booths on the Floor,
to communicate with their or their member organizations' off-Floor
office, and to communicate with the off-Floor office of their clearing
member organization to enter off-Floor orders and to discuss matters
related to the clearance and settlement of transactions, provided the
off-Floor office uses a wired telephone line for these discussions.
RCMMs are currently not allowed to use a portable phone to conduct any
agency business until issues involving the use of portable phones by
RCMMs acting in the capacity of agent have been fully reviewed and
resolved by NYSE Regulation in consultation with the Commission.\12\
For both RCMMs and Floor brokers, use of a portable telephone on the
Exchange Floor other than one authorized and issued by the Exchange
will continue to be prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Allowing RCMMs acting as Floor brokers to use portable
phones would involve further discussions with the Commission and
would be the subject of a separate filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both incoming and outgoing calls would continue to be allowed,
provided the requirements of all other Exchange rules have been met. A
Floor broker would not be permitted to represent and execute any order
received as a result of such voice communication unless the order was
first properly recorded by the member and entered into the Exchange's
Front End Systemic Capture (FESC) electronic database (NYSE Rule 123
(e)).\13\ In addition, Exchange rules require that any Floor broker
receiving orders from the public over portable phones must be properly
qualified to engage in such direct access business under Exchange Rules
342 and 345, among others.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43689 (December 7,
2000), 65 FR 79145 (December 18, 2000) (SR-NYSE-98-25). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44943 (October 16, 2001), 66 FR
53820 (October 24, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-39) (discussing certain
exceptions to FESC, such as orders to offset an error, or a bona
fide arbitrage, which may be entered within 60 seconds after a trade
is executed).
    \14\ For more information regarding Exchange requirements for
conducting a public business on the Exchange Floor, see Information
Memos 01-41 (November 21, 2001), 01-18 (July 11, 2001) (available on
http://www.nyse.com/regulation/ regulation.html), and 91-25 (July 8,

1991). See also note 12 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialists are subject to separate restrictions in Rule 36 on
their ability to engage in voice communications from the specialist
post to an off-Floor location.\15\ The Pilot would not apply to
specialists, who would continue to be prohibited from speaking from the
post to upstairs trading desks or customers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46560 (September
26, 2002), 67 FR 62088 (October 3, 2002) (SR-NYSE-00-31) (discussing
restrictions on specialists' communications from the post).
    \16\ NYSE Rule 36.30 provides that, with the approval of the
Exchange, a specialist unit may maintain a telephone line at its
stock trading post location to the off-Floor offices of the
specialist unit or the unit's clearing firm. Such telephone
connection shall not be used for the purpose of transmitting to the
Floor orders for the purchase or sale of securities but may be used
to enter options or futures hedging orders through the unit's off-
Floor office or the unit's clearing firm or through a member (on the
Floor) of an options or futures exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the approval of the Pilot's continuation
for an additional year will enable the Exchange to continue to provide
more direct, efficient access to its trading crowds and customers,
increase the speed of transmittal of orders and the execution of
trades, and provide an enhanced level of service to customers in an
increasingly competitive environment.\17\ The Exchange further believes
that by enabling customers to speak directly to a Floor broker in a
trading crowd on an Exchange authorized and issued portable telephone
and by allowing RCMMs to communicate with their upstairs office's land
line, the land line of their clearing member organization's upstairs
office, and their booth personnel at the booth, the proposed rule
change will expedite and make more direct the free flow of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43493 (October 30,
2000), 65 FR 67022 (November 8, 2000) (SR-CBOE-00-04), cited by
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43836 (January 11, 2001), 66 FR
6727 (January 22, 2001) (discussing and approving the Chicago Board
Options Exchange's and the Pacific Exchange's proposals to remove
current prohibitions against Floor Brokers' use of cellular or
cordless phones to make calls to persons located off the trading
floor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Program Results
    Since the Pilot's inception, there have been approximately 681
portable phone subscribers.\18\ In addition, with regard to portable
phone usage, for a sample week of 12/11/2006-12/15/2006, an average of
7,040 calls/day originated from portable phones issued to Floor brokers
and RCMMs. An average of 2,109 calls/day were received on portable
phones.

Of the calls originated from portable phones, an average of 3,958
calls/day were internal calls to the booth and 3,081 calls/day were
external calls by RCMMs to the upstairs offices of their member
organization and their clearing member organization and external calls
of Floor brokers. Thus, approximately 56% of the calls originating from
portable phones were internal calls to the booth by Floor brokers and
RCMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This data includes both Floor brokers and RCMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to received calls, of the 2,109 average calls/days
received, an average of 127 calls/day were external calls by RCMMs to
the upstairs offices of their member organization and their clearing
member organization and external calls of Floor brokers and an average
of 1,982 calls/day were internal calls received from the booth. Thus,
approximately 94% of all received calls were internally generated and
6% were external calls by RCMMs to the upstairs offices of their member
organization and their clearing member organization and external calls
of Floor brokers.
    The Exchange believes that the Pilot appears to be successful in
that there is a reasonable degree of usage of portable phones. During
the period of June 30, 2006, through January 31, 2007, there have been
no other regulatory, administrative or other technical problems
identified with their usage. The Exchange further believes that the
Pilot appears to facilitate communication on the Floor for both Floor
brokers and RCMMs without any corresponding drawbacks. Therefore, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the Pilot for an
additional year, expiring on January 31, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \19\ that an Exchange have rules that
are 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. The amendment to Rule 36 supports
the mechanism of free and open markets by providing for increased means
by which communications to and from the Floor of the Exchange may take
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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 if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on January 31, 2007, the date NYSE filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative period under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act.\23\ The
Exchange believes that the continuation of the Pilot is in the public
interest as it will avoid inconvenience and interruption to the public.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay
and make this proposed rule change immediately effective.\24\ The
Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay will
allow the Exchange to continue, without interruption, the existing
operation of its Pilot until January 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that proper surveillance is an essential
component of any telephone access policy to an exchange trading floor.
Surveillance procedures should help to ensure that Floor brokers and
RCMMs use portable phones as authorized by NYSE Rule 36 and that orders
are being handled in compliance with NYSE rules.\25\ The Commission
expects the Exchange to actively review these procedures and address
any potential concerns that have arisen during the Pilot. In this
regard, the Commission notes that the Exchange should address whether
telephone records are adequate for surveillance purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See note 14 supra and accompanying text for other NYSE
requirements that Floor brokers be properly qualified before doing
public customer business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also requests that the Exchange report any problems,
surveillance, or enforcement matters associated with the Floor brokers'
and RCMMs' use of an Exchange authorized and provided portable
telephone on the Exchange Floor. As stated in the Original Order, the
NYSE should also address whether additional surveillance would be
needed because of the derivative nature of the ETFs. Furthermore, in
any future additional filings on the Pilot, the Commission would expect
that the NYSE submit information documenting the usage of the phones,
any problems that have occurred, including, among other things, any
regulatory actions or concerns, and any advantages or disadvantages
that have resulted.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In any request for a permanent approval of the Pilot, the
Commission would expect the information to distinguish between Floor
brokers' and RCMMs' usage of the phones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NYSE-2007-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-05 and
should be submitted on or before March 1, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2085 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3605-3606]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1066]

Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities
Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; Fiscal Year 2013

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
made $5 million per year available for the payment of Coast Guard
expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating
and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In
2005, the law was amended, and the amount was increased to $5.5
million. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a
requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects,
programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating
safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the
Federal Register. This notice specifies the funding amounts the Coast
Guard has committed, obligated, or expended during fiscal year 2013, as
of September 30, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call
Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on
June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of
the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational
boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to
ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code. On September
29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments
Act of 2005 was enacted (Pub. L. 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act
increased the funds available to the national recreational boating
safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated
that ``not less than'' $2 million shall be available only to ensure
compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
    These funds are available to the Secretary from the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Trust Fund established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a)
for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities
directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national
recreational boating safety program. Under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c), no funds
available to the Secretary under this subsection may be used to replace
funding traditionally provided through general appropriations, nor for
any purposes except those purposes authorized; namely, for personnel
and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the
national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available
under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) remain available during the two succeeding
fiscal years. Any amount that is unexpended or unobligated at the end
of the 3-year period during which it is available, shall be withdrawn
by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to any other
amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are
withdrawn or the following fiscal year.
    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal
contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting
in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of
funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during
fiscal year 2013 for each activity is shown below.

Specific Accounting of Funds

    Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program: Funding was provided to
continue the national recreational boat factory visit program,
initiated in January 2001. Under the factory visit program, contracted
personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, visited 1,300
recreational boat manufacturers during the 2013 reporting year to
either inspect for compliance with Federal regulations, communicate
with the manufacturers as to why they need to comply with Federal
regulations, or educate them, as necessary, on how to comply with
Federal regulations. Funding was also provided for testing of certain
associated equipment and in-water testing of atypical and used
recreational boats for compliance with capacity and flotation
standards. This amount satisfies the legal requirement that ``not less
than'' $2 million be available to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of
Title 46, U.S. Code. ($2,516,089).
    New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Funding was
provided to facilitate travel by employees of the Boating Safety
Division to carry out additional recreational boating safety actions
and to gather background and planning information for new recreational
boating safety initiatives, in support of the National Recreational
Boating Safety Program Strategic Plan. ($10,219).
    Boating Accident News Clipping Services: Funding was provided to
continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents
nationally for more real time accident information and to identify
accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety
defects. ($30,000).
    Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: Funding was
allocated to continue providing the BARD Web System, which enables
reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the
District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically
over a secure Internet connection. The system also enables the user
community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency,
nature, and severity of boating accidents. Fiscal year 2013 funds
supported system maintenance, development, and technical (hotline)
support. ($327,360).
    Personnel Support: Funding was provided for personnel to support
the development of new regulations and to conduct boating safety-
related research and analysis. ($971,198).
    Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work
as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) and as described herein. The first
position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to
conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating
activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies
that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources
and reduce costs. The second position was that of an Outreach
Coordinator with responsibilities that include overseeing and managing
RBS projects related to carbon monoxide poisoning, propeller injury
mitigation, and manufacturer compliance initiatives. ($301,623).
    Web Site Support: Funding for this initiative provides a full range
of public media and boating safety information at http://www.uscgboating.org for a worldwide audience. It covers a wide spectrum
of boating safety related topics and is dedicated to reducing loss of
life, injuries, and property damage that occur on U.S. waterways by
improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of recreational boaters.
($81,733).
    Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2013, $2,429,831 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an
additional $1,808,391 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed,
obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2013. The remainder of the
FY13 funds made

available to the Coast Guard (approximately $3,000,000) will be
transferred into the pool of money available for allocation through the
FY14 state grant program.

Authority

    This notice is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C.
13107(c)(4).

    Dated: December 31, 2013.
J.C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-01095 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36929]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2009-E-0237; FDA-2009-E-0238; FDA-2009-E-0239]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; DEXILANT

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for DEXILANT (previously KAPIDEX) and is
publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA
has made the determination because of the submission of applications to
the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product DEXILANT
(dexlansoprazole). DEXILANT is indicated for healing of all grades of
erosive esophagitis (EE); maintaining healing of EE; and treating
heartburn associated with symptomatic nonerosive gastroesophageal
reflux disease. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark
Office received patent term restoration applications for DEXILANT (U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276, and 6,939,971) from Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested
FDA's assistance in determining these patents' eligibility for patent
term restoration and that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period. In a letter dated June 1, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and
Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a
regulatory review period and that the approval of DEXILANT represented
the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
DEXILANT is 1,675 days. Of this time, 1,278 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 397 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: July 2, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that
the date the investigational new drug application became effective was
on July 2, 2004.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December
31, 2007. The applicant claims December 28, 2007, as the date the new
drug application (NDA) for DEXILANT (NDA 22-287) was initially
submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 22-287 was submitted
on December 31, 2007.
    3. The date the application was approved: January 30, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-287 was approved on January
30, 2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 822 or 959 days
of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by August 22, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by December 20, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: June 2, 2011.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2011-15692 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 166-169]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31370]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71188; File No. SR-BOX-2013-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Short Term Option Series Program

December 26, 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 December 20, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 Interpretive Material 5050-6 (``IM-
5050-6'') to BOX Rule 5050 (Series of Options Contracts Open for
Trading) to expand the Short Term Options Program with respect to non-
index options.\3\ The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ STOs, also known as ``weekly options'' as well as ``Short
Term Options'', are series in an options class that are approved for
listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series are opened
for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day and
that expire on the Friday of the next business week. If a Thursday
or Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall
expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Thursday
or Friday, respectively. For STO Program rules regarding non-index
options, see Rule 100(64) and IM-5050-6 to Rule 5050. For STO
Program rules regarding index options, which are not implicated by
this proposal, see Rule 6010(n) and IM-6090-1 to Rule 6090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-6 to BOX Rule 5050 (Series
of Options Contracts Open for Trading) to expand the Short Term Options
Program with respect to non-index options. This is a competitive filing
that is based on a proposal recently submitted by The International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-ISE-2013-69 which is based on the recently approved
rule filing, SR-Phlx-2013-101. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71004 (December 6, 2013), 78 FR 75437 (December 11, 2013) (SR-
Phlx-2013-101) (Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding the Short Term Options Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Options (``STO'')
Program for non-index options so that the Exchange may: change the
current thirty option class limitation to fifty option classes on which
STOs may be opened; match the parameters for opening initial and
additional STO strikes to what is permissible per the Options Listing
Procedures Plan (``OLPP''); \5\ open up to thirty initial STO series
for each expiration date in an STO class; add an STO strike price
interval of $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150; and
in general harmonize the different parts of the Program (e.g., initial
listings and additional series).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The full name of the OLPP (which is applicable to all option
exchanges) is Plan For The Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of
Standardized Options Submitted Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. With regard to the listing of
new series on equity, ETF, or trust issued receipt (``TIRs'') option
classes, subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP states, in relevant part,
that the exercise price of each option series listed by an exchange
that chooses to list a series of options (known as the Series
Selecting Exchange) shall be fixed at a price per share which is
reasonably close to the price of the underlying equity security,
ETF, or TIR at or about the time the Series Selecting Exchange
determines to list such series. Except as provided in subparagraphs
(ii) through (iv) of the OLPP, if the price of the underlying
security is less than or equal to 20, the Series Selecting Exchange
shall not list new option series with an exercise price more than
100% above or below the price of the underlying security. If the
price of the underlying security is greater than $20, the Series
Selecting Exchange shall not list new option series with an exercise
price more than 50% above or below the price of the underlying
security. Subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP indicates that an option
series price has to be reasonably close to the price of the
underlying security and must not exceed a maximum of 50% or 100%,
depending on the price, from the underlying. The Exchange's proposal
related to non-index options, while conforming to the current
structure of the Exchange's STO rules, is similar in practical
effect to the noted OLPP subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STO Program, which was established in 2010,\6\ is codified in
IM-5050-6 for non-index options including equity, currency, and
exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options.\7\ These rules currently
provide that after an option class has been approved for listing and
trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any
Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on no more
than thirty option classes that expire on each of the next five
consecutive Fridays that are business days.\8\ In addition to the
thirty-option class limitation, there is also a limitation that no more
than twenty initial series for each expiration date in those classes
may be opened for trading; provided, however, that the Exchange may
open up to 10 additional series when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying security moves substantially from the exercise
price or prices of the series already opened.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62505 (July 15,
2010), 75 FR 42792 (July 22, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-047) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Establish a Short Term Option Program).
    \7\ The Exchange does not by this filing propose any changes to
Interpretive Material, IM-6090-6, to BOX Rule 6090 related to the
STO Program for index options.
    \8\ The Exchange increased the number of option issues that
could be opened pursuant to the STO Program in 2012. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66982 (May 14, 2012), 77 FR 29718 (May 18,
2012) (SR-BOX-2012-001).
    \9\ See IM-5050-6(b)(3) and (4) to Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the strike price of each STO has to be fixed with
approximately

the same number of strike prices being opened above and below the value
of the underlying security at about the time that the STOs are
initially opened for trading on the Exchange, and with strike prices
being within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of
the underlying security from the preceding day. In terms of the strike
price intervals, the STO Program currently allows the interval between
strike prices on STOs to be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price
is less than $75, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between
$75 and $150 for all classes that participate in the STO Program; or
(ii) $0.50 for option classes that trade in one dollar increments,
i.e., in the Related non-STO,\10\ and are in the STO Program. This
proposal retains many of the fundamental limitations of the STO Program
while proposing specific changes as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Related non-STOs are non-STOs that have similar options
with longer expiration cycles (e.g., monthly Apple (AAPL) options
would be related non-STOs to weekly AAPL options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    First, the Exchange proposes to increase the number of STO classes
that may be opened after an option class has been approved for listing
and trading on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in IM-
5050-6(b)(1) that the Exchange may select up to fifty currently listed
option classes on which STO series may be opened. The Exchange also
proposes in IM-5050-6(b)(3) that for each option class eligible for
participation in the STO Program, the Exchange may open up to thirty
initial STO series for each expiration date in that class. Currently
BOX rules permit the Exchange to list up to twenty initial series, and
up to ten additional series, for each option class that participates in
the STO program.\11\ While BOX may currently list thirty STO series
total, the Exchange is proposing to increase the number of initial
series that it may list in order to remain competitive with other
exchanges. The Exchange will continue to be limited to a total of
thirty STO series, including both initial and additional series, and is
proposing amendments to IM-5050-6(b)(4) to reflect the fact that the
Exchange may only open additional series if it has opened fewer than
thirty initial series. The Exchange believes that this proposed
moderate increase in the number of STO classes and initial STO series
is needed and advisable in light of the demonstrated acceptance and
popularity of the STO Program among market participants, as discussed
below. The Exchange notes that BOX's Rules governing the Program are
written so that the number of classes that may participate are not
apportioned between equity and index classes. In other words, the class
limitation is aggregated between equity and index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See IM-5050-6(b)(3) and (4) to Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes changes to IM-5050-6(b)(3) and (4) to
indicate that any initial or additional strike prices listed by the
Exchange shall be reasonably close to the price of the underlying
equity security and within the following parameters: (i) if the price
of the underlying security is less than or equal to $20, strike prices
shall be not more than one hundred percent (100%) above or below the
price of the underlying security; and (ii) if the price of the
underlying security is greater than $20, strike prices shall be not
more than fifty percent (50%) above or below the price of the
underlying security.\12\ This proposal is in line with the process for
adding new series of options found in subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP,
and harmonizes the STO Program internally by adopting consistent
parameters for opening STOs and listing additional strike prices. The
Exchange believes that this proposal is a reasonable and desirable
enhancement to the STO Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The price of the underlying security will be calculated
commensurate with Rule 5050(b)(1) as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes additional changes to IM-5050-6(b)(4)
to indicate that if the Exchange has opened less than thirty STO series
for an STO expiration date, the Exchange may also open additional
strike prices of STO series that are more than 50% above or below the
current price of the underlying security if the price is greater than
$20, provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such
series,\13\ as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual
customers or their brokers. This is done to further conform the
additional strike price methodology to the proposed listing parameters
described above, while retaining demonstrated interest language that
may be useful in unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, Rule 5050(b)(1)
currently states that if the price of the underlying security is
greater than $20, the Exchange shall not list new option series with an
exercise price more than 50% above or below the price of the underlying
security. Immediately before this language, the Exchange proposes to
also add a carve-out that states: ``Except as provided in IM-5050-
6(b)(4) . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Market Makers trading for their own account are not
considered when determining customer interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to simplify the delisting language in
IM-5050-6(b)(4), by removing the current range methodology that states,
in part, that the Exchange will delist certain series ``so as to list
series that are at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the
current price of the underlying security.'' \14\ In the event that the
underlying security has moved such that there are no series that are at
least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying security,
the Exchange will continue to delist any series with no open interest
in both the call and the put series having a: (i) strike higher than
the highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for
a given expiration week; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike
price with open interest in the put and/or the call series for a given
expiration week.\15\ New series added after delisting will not be
constrained by the prior range methodology. The Exchange believes that,
like its other proposals, the delisting proposal will add clarity and
certainty to the STO process on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Currently, the delisting language states: ``In the event
that the underlying security has moved such that there are no series
that are at least 10% above or below the current price of the
underlying security, BOX will delist any series with no open
interest in both the call and the put series having a: (i) strike
higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the put
and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike
lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put
and/or the call series for a given expiration month, so as to list
series that are at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below
the current price of the underlying security. In the event that the
underlying security has moved such that there are no series that are
at least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying
security and all existing series have open interest, BOX may list
additional series, in excess of the 30 allowed under IM-5050-6(b),
that are between 10% and 30% above or below the price of the
underlying security.'' IM-5050-6(b)(4). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68361 (December 5, 2012), 77 FR 73729 (December 11,
2012) (SR-BOX-2012-020) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposal to Expand the Short Term Options Series
Program).
    \15\ The Exchange notes that the delisting language in IM-5050-
6(b)(4) incorrectly refers to expiration months rather than weeks.
With this filing the Exchange also proposes to clarify that the
exchange will delist series for given expiration weeks in accordance
with the criteria discussed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to add $2.50 strike price intervals to
the STO Program. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in IM-5050-6(b)(5)
to indicate that the interval between strike prices on STOs may be
$2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150. This proposed
change complements the current STO strike price intervals of $0.50 or
greater where the strike price

is less than $75 (or for STO classes that trade in one dollar
increments in the Related non-STO), and $1 or greater where the strike
price is between $75 and $150. The proposed $2.50 strike price interval
addresses the issue that above a $150 strike price STO strike price
intervals must generally be an exceedingly wide $5 or greater.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Rule 5050(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal reason for the proposed expansion is market demand
for additional STO classes and series and a desire to make the STO
Program more effective. There is continuing strong customer demand for
having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies via STOs,
particularly in the current fast and volatile multi-faceted trading and
investing environment that extends across numerous markets and
platforms,\17\ and includes market moving events such as significant
market volatility, corporate events, or large market, sector, or
individual issue price swings. The Exchange has been requested by
traders and other market participants to expand the STO Program to
allow additional STO offerings and increased efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These include, without limitation, options, equities,
futures, derivatives, indexes, ETFs, exchange traded notes,
currencies, and over the counter instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order that the Exchange not exceed the current thirty option
class and twenty initial option series restriction, the Exchange has on
occasion had to turn away STO customers (traders and investors) because
it could not list, or had to delist, STOs or could not open adequate
STO series because of restrictions in the STO Program. This has
negatively impacted investors and traders, particularly retail
investors, who have continued to request that the Exchange add, or not
remove, STO classes, or have requested that the Exchange expand the STO
Program so that additional STO classes and series could be opened that
would allow the market participants to execute trading and hedging
strategies. There are, as discussed, substantial benefits to market
participants having the ability to trade eligible option classes within
the STO Program. Furthermore, the Exchange supports the objective of
responding to customer need to enhance successful programs to make them
more efficient for hedging and trading purposes. The Exchange notes
that the STO Program has been well-received by market participants, in
particular by retail investors. The Exchange believes that weekly
expiration options will continue to grow in importance for all market
participants, including institutional and retail investors.\18\ The
proposed revisions to the STO Program will permit the Exchange to meet
customer demand for weekly expiration options by providing a reasonable
expansion to the program, and will further allow the Exchange to
harmonize STO Program rules with the OLPP as well as internally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The current STO Program, which is similar across all
options markets that have weeklies programs, is in its current
formulation one of the more challenging industry-wide listings
program to administer. Recognizing the importance of the Program,
the Exchange is seeking to improve the Program for non-index STOs by
making it more uniform and logical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this current amendment to the STO Program. The Exchange believes that
its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this
proposal. The Exchange represents that it will monitor the trading
volume associated with the additional STO classes and series listed as
a result of this proposal and the effect (if any) of these additional
STO classes and series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of
the Exchange's automated systems.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\19\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest. Expanding the classes and additional series that can
be opened in the STO Program, simplifying the delisting process, and
allowing $2.50 strike price intervals will result in a continuing
benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions in greater number of securities.
In addition, correcting the delisting language, which currently refers
to ``expiration months'' instead of weeks will clarify the Exchange's
rules and reduce investor confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STO Program has been well-received by market participants, and
in particular by retail investors, and has seen increasing trading
volume. The Exchange believes that the current proposed revisions to
the STO Program will permit the Exchange to meet customer demand for
weekly expiration options by providing a reasonable expansion to the
program, and will further allow the Exchange to harmonize STO Program
rules with the OLPP as well as internally to the benefit of investors,
market participants, and the marketplace.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange believes that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity
to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this current
amendment to the STO Program. The Exchange believes that its members
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. As
explained above, this proposal will afford significant benefits to
market participants, and the market in general, in terms of
significantly greater flexibility and increases in efficient trading
and hedging options. It will also allow the Exchange to compete on
equal footing with STO Programs adopted by other options exchanges, and
in particular ISE, which has recently adopted substantially similar
rules to those proposed here.

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. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to a filing submitted by the ISE \21\ which the
Exchange believes is necessary to permit fair competition among the
options exchanges with respect to STO Programs. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in
additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the
investment objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading
and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants,
and the marketplace in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra, note 4.

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will
promote fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange
to adopt the proposed rule changes contemporaneously with other
exchanges. The Exchange also stated that the proposal will allow the
Exchange to offer a more efficient STO Program that is harmonized
internally and externally with the OLPP, and to meet customer demand
for a greater number of STO classes and strike price intervals, in the
same manner as other exchanges. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to
remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2013-59 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-BOX-2013-59. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-59 and should be
submitted on or before January 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Lynn Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31370 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


VIA E-MAIL

March 26, 2010

Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Mr. William Neuffer

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

RE:	Draft Information Collection Requests for the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Industries

Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer:

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”)
and its member companies appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on Monday, March 29, 2010 at
3:00 PM (EDT), the appropriate test methods for pre-existing and new
emissions data to be provided to EPA in response to the draft
Information Collection Requests (“ICRs”) that we are presently
defining for the mineral wool and wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing industries’ residual risk review.

To facilitate that discussion, NAIMA and its member companies have
reviewed the test methods set forth in the draft ICRs and are
identifying below alternative test methods that will enable us to
provide EPA the data it needs while both expediting the information
collection process and leveraging the use of existing emissions data.
The industry is recommending these alternative test methods because it
has extensive data collected by these alternative methods that are
relevant to EPA’s requests.  The importance of existing data becomes
even more important given the fact that every company is operating at
reduced production due to the significant economic downturn in the
building industry.  Therefore, companies have specific lines that are
not operating at this time.  New data could not be collected for those
lines simply because they are not in operation, even though they are
currently permitted.  Existing data will be essential for providing EPA
with the requisite data for all point sources.

EPA Method 318 is used to collect information concerning emissions of
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon monoxide.
While NAIMA members have only limited data and experience with Method
318, the vast majority of existing data has been collected with other
EPA and California methods which EPA has approved for use in recent
Section 114 emissions data collections, but were not identified in the
draft ICRs.

NAIMA requests that EPA accept the following alternative methods:  EPA
Method 316 for formaldehyde; EPA Method 308 for methanol; California
Method ST-16/gas chromatography, EPA Method TO-8, and SW-846 Method
8270D for phenol; EPA Methods 10 and 15 for carbon monoxide; and EPA
Methods 10, 15 and 320 and AP-42 emission factors for carbonyl sulfide.
These test methods are as effective as Method 318 and have the decided
advantage of providing reliable results and leveraging extensive
available data.  Moreover, at EPA’s request and in connection with
Section 114 requests, two NAIMA member companies ran side-by-side
comparisons of Method 318 and alternative wet chemistry methods which
confirmed that the test methods produced essentially the same results.
NAIMA can provide documentation of these comparison tests.  In addition,
some test companies have limited experience with Method 318, and the
NAIMA member companies and their consultants who have used Method 318
have experienced trouble perfecting its application and at times have
encountered some inaccurate and inconsistent results.

As noted above, another alternative method to determine methanol is
Method 308.  While Method 318 is designated by EPA to test methanol,
there is a reaction called the Cannizaro reaction which can generate
more methanol in the collection process, or even during the process of
testing for methanol.  In the Cannizaro reaction, when heated,
formaldehyde in the resin is known to undergo a disproportionate
reaction yielding methanol and formic acid.  Since methanol could be
created during the process of collecting and testing the emissions and
thereby artificially increasing the methanol emissions, Method 308 is
employed.  Method 308 would avoid the creation of artificial methanol
emissions since it does not use a heated sampling line.

NAIMA requests that members have the option of using EPA Methods 5 and
202 as well as EPA Other Test Method (OTM) 27 and 28.  Again, the
availability of existing data makes acceptance of these alternatives
desirable.  In addition, OTM 27 and 28 are not promulgated methods;
therefore, the industry has very limited experience conducting or using
these test methods.  Given EPA’s desire for an expedited response, it
makes little sense for companies to use a method with which they have
limited knowledge and experience.  Moreover, some stacks might not be
able to accommodate an OTM 27 probe without a significant amount of
blockage, which adds variability to the emission testing procedure.  The
vast majority of emissions from these processes are PM2.5, so NAIMA and
its member companies propose that they can, for ICR testing purposes,
stipulate that all the PM emissions reported in response to the draft
ICR are PM2.5, and that they use Method 5 for filterable emissions and
Method 202 for condensable emissions to measure them, as alternatives to
EPA OTM 27 and 28.

The draft ICR identifies EPA Method 30B for measuring mercury.  NAIMA
should be allowed to use EPA Method 29 as well.  There is no need to
separately test for mercury in wool fiberglass and mineral wool plants
because mercury is not used in the manufacturing process.  It may be in
the raw materials used to make insulation products in trace amounts.
Indeed, if any mercury is present, it will be captured at extremely low
levels by Method 29 (see section 1.1 (Analytes)).

The draft ICR identifies EPA Method 0061 be used to determine hexavalent
chromium.  Method 306 and CARB 425 have been approved for determining
hexavalent chromium emissions, too.  NAIMA requests that Method 306 and
CARB 425 be allowed for chrome emissions data.  Existing data using
these methods are available.  In addition, Method 0061 cannot be
successfully used in high temperature environments.  Since the exhaust
in some stacks have high temperatures, Method 0061 is not practical for
our industries.

EPA Method 26A is irrelevant to the mineral wool and wool fiberglass
insulation industries, and these industries have no experience with this
method.  Therefore, it should not be used in responding to the draft
ICRs.

Finally, with respect to all test methods, NAIMA intends to provide test
data acquired from tests run for the length of time prescribed by the
applicable test method, not for some longer period of time.  To request
testing beyond the parameters of the actual test methods undermines the
integrity of the test method, is unnecessary, and would effectively
eliminate the use of the industries’ extensive existing data.  For
example, one hour should be more than sufficient for all the organics to
be measured.  Moreover, any deviation from a test method could call into
question the legitimacy of the data.  The majority of these test methods
have a one-hour length; detection limits are set to work within the
designated timeframe.  If the detected amount of the pollutant is one or
two orders of magnitude above the detection limit, extending the time
and reducing the detection limit does not provide any additional
substantive or meaningful information because the pollutant in question
has already been detected and measured.

Because NAIMA is providing a response for the entire industry, it is
requested that both existing and newly acquired data not be submitted
through the Electronic Reporting Tool.

If you have any questions in advance to the conference call, please do
not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

Messrs. Jeffrey A. Telander and William Neuffer

March 26, 2010

Page   PAGE  3

  DOCPROPERTY "DOCID" \* MERGEFORMAT    44 Canal Center Plaza  ▪
Suite 310  ▪  Alexandria, Virginia  22314  ▪  Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
▪  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53836-53837]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14730]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271 and 441

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0081]; FRL 8687-01-OLEM
RIN 2050-AH23

Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, the Hazardous Waste
Pharmaceuticals Rule, and the Definition of Solid Waste Rule; Technical
Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make
technical corrections that correct or clarify several parts of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste
regulations. These technical corrections correct or clarify specific
provisions in the existing hazardous waste regulations that were
promulgated in the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements rule, the
Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals rule, and the Definition of Solid Waste
rule. This rule also makes other minor corrections that fall within the
same sections of the hazardous waste regulations but are independent of
these three rules. Examples of the types of corrections being made in
this rule include, but are not limited to, correcting typographical
errors, correcting incorrect or outdated citations, making minor
clarifications, and updating addresses. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we are making these
technical corrections as a direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. In the preamble to the direct final rule, we have
explained our reasons for taking this action without a prior proposed
rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2023-0081, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Knieser, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
0516, ([email protected]) or Kathy Lett, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
0517, ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to make technical corrections that correct
or clarify several parts of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. These technical corrections correct
or clarify specific provisions in the existing hazardous waste
regulations that were promulgated in the Hazardous Waste Generator
Improvements rule, the Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals rule, and the
Definition of Solid Waste rule. This rule also makes other minor
corrections that fall within the same sections of the hazardous waste
regulations but are independent of these three rules. We have published
a direct final rule to codify these technical corrections and
clarifications in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse

comment on any individual correction, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public about the
specific regulatory paragraph or amendment that will not take effect.
The corrections that are not withdrawn will become effective on the
date set out in the direct final rule. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on comments and new
information submitted in response to the proposed rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document

II. Public Participation

Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-
0081, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.

III. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include hazardous
waste generators, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities,
healthcare facilities, reverse distributors, importers/exporters of
hazardous waste, and users of the transfer-based exclusion to the
definition of solid waste. Also affected are States and EPA Regions
implementing the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations, Licensing and registration,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 266

    Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 441

    Environmental protection, Health facilities, Mercury, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-14730 Filed 8-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P