[Federal Register: January 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2925-2926]
[DOCID:fr18ja06-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0306; FRL-7750-2]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of a
Regulation for Residues of Alpha-Tocopherol in or on Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.950 for residues of alpha-tocopherol (CAS Reg. No. 10191-41-0) in
or on food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0306 and pesticide petition number (PP)
5E6996, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0306. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0306. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/
.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; (703)
305-6304; e-mail<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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then

identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
      Identify the document by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
      Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
      Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
      Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
      If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
      Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns,
and suggest alternatives.
      Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
      Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.II. What Action is the Agency Taking?
    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 5E6996. BASF Corporation, 100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ
07932, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of alpha-tocopherol (CAS Reg. No. 10191-41-0) in
or on food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical
method is required.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 5, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 06-379 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62657-62658]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0091]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by a letter dated November 20,
2018, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to include CSX in a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other
Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2012-0091.
    Specifically, CSX seeks relief with respect to the application of
49 CFR 232.205(c)(1)--Class I brake test-initial terminal inspection
and Sec.  232.207(b)(1)--Class IA brake tests-1,000-mile inspection for
trains operating in distributive power mode. CSX requests to extend the
maximum allowable brake pipe air flow from the present regulatory limit
of 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM) to 90 CFM for distributed power-
equipped trains under specified operating conditions.
    On March 26, 2013, FRA granted a pilot test waiver to the BNSF
Railway Company for these same provisions. Canadian National Railway
and Canadian Pacific Railway were added as parties to the test waiver
on November 21, 2014, and Union Pacific Railroad was added on March 4,
2015. On May 3, 2017, FRA granted a change in status from a test waiver
to a waiver of compliance. CSX is petitioning FRA to make CSX a party
to the same waiver. If granted, CSX states it would agree to comply
with the same conditions as set forth in FRA's May 3, 2017 letter.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 3, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. 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 https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-26293 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32236]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) extension of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on March 8, 2010, vol. 75, no. 44, page
10550. A letter of application and related documents which set forth an
applicant's ability to conduct operations in compliance with FAR Part
125 provisions are submitted to the appropriate FSDO.

DATES: Please submit comments by July 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Certification and Operation FAR 125.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0085.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 163 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 1.33 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 61,388 hours annually.
    Abstract: Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 United
States Code authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of
navigable airspace. 14 CFR Part 125 prescribes requirements for leased
aircraft, Aviation Service Firms, and Air Travel. A letter of
application and related documents which set forth an applicant's
ability to conduct operations in compliance with the Part 125
provisions are submitted to the appropriate Flight Standards District
Office. Inspectors in FAA FSDO's review the submitted information to
determine eligibility.
    ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written
comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer,
Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-13590 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43578-43579]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2354-148]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-capacity License Amendment.
    b. Project No: 2354-148.
    c. Date Filed: June 15, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: North Georgia Project.
    f. Location: Savannah River basin on the Tallulah, Chattooga, and
Tugalo Rivers, in Rabun, Habersham, and Stephens counties, Georgia, and
Oconee County, South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Courtenay O'Mara, Hydro Licensing &
Compliance Supervisor, 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE, BIN 10193,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3374,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Aneela Mousam,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: August 13, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2354-148. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Georgia Power Company (licensee) is
requesting Commission approval to replace and upgrade two generating
units in the Mathis-Terrora powerhouse. The licensee proposes to
refurbish the turbines, replace the turbine runners, rewind the
generators, and replace the control room panels and intake trash racks.
The proposal will not change any project features or operations and
will not impact water control capabilities of the powerhouse. The unit
modifications are expected to increase the generator rating for each
unit by 2.4 megawatts each and increase each unit's efficiency. The
licensee does not anticipate any environmental impacts as a result of
the proposed amendment.
    l. Locations of the Application: In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides
all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents
of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the document field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: July 13, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15483 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 81092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2335-039-ME]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for
the Williams Hydroelectric Project, located on the Kennebec River in
Somerset County, Maine, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA). The project does not occupy any federal land.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential impacts of
the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this project or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu
of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
2335-039.
    For further information, contact Amy Chang at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 9, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27617 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 814-817]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33365]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63627; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-153]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Update and Streamline the Process
for Specialist Evaluations and Clarify the Time Within Which SQTs and
RSQTs Must Begin To Electronically Quote After Assignment

December 30, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On November 5, 2010, the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to update and streamline the process for
specialist evaluations and clarify the time within which Streaming
Quote Traders (``SQTs'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'')
must begin to electronically quote after assignment. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November
17, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63305 (November 10,
2010), 75 FR 70331 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx By-Law
Article XI Section 11-1; Rules 507, 508, 510, 511, and 515; and OFPA C-
8 to revise the process the Exchange will use to assess specialist
performance, as well as to ensure timely electronic quotations by SQTs
and RSQTs and the ability of the Exchange to control allocation
transfers.
    Rules 500 through 599 (the ``Allocation and Assignment Rules'')
generally describe the process for: application for becoming and
appointment of specialists; allocation of classes of options to
specialist units and individual specialists; \4\ application for
becoming and approval of SQTs \5\ and RSQT \6\ (collectively, the
``Streaming Quote Traders'') \7\ and assignment of options to them; and
performance evaluations for specialist units and SQTs. The Allocation
and Assignment Rules also indicate, among other things, under what
circumstances new specialist allocations and Streaming Quote Trader
assignments may not be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A specialist unit may have one or more individual
specialists. See proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 511.
    \5\ An SQT is a Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.
An SQT may only submit such quotations while such SQT is physically
present on the floor of the Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \6\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An
RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the
floor of the Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \7\ SQTs also include Directed SQTs (``DSQTs'') and Directed
RSQTs (``DRSQTs''), which are SQTs and RSQTs that receive a Directed
Order. Exchange Rule 1080(l)(i)(A) defines Directed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 511 and 515 deal with specialist evaluations and certain
allocation procedures. Currently, Rule 511

indicates, among other things, that specialist performance evaluations
may be used to inform Exchange decisions regarding allocating new
options classes, reallocating options classes for substandard
performance, determining whether a specialist that has been transferred
an options class is performing adequately, and determining whether a
staff reorganization or material change with respect to a specialist
unit has affected the ability of the unit to continue to perform
adequately in order to retain allocated securities. Rule 511 also
discusses the process and timing for doing routine and special (cause)
evaluations and reviews.
    Currently, Rule 515 discusses specialist performance evaluations
for options specialists and indicates, among other things, the timing
and frequency of evaluations. The criterion to evaluate specialists may
include, but is not limited to, quality of markets, observance of
ethical standards, administrative responsibilities, and trade
correction and exemptive relief data. Rule 515, as well as OFPA C-8,
also discusses the use of floor broker questionnaires in the specialist
evaluation process, which asks floor brokers their opinions of
specialist performance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange currently presumes that a specialist unit
performed below minimum standards if the specialist unit was rated
in the bottom 10% of all units in the aggregate results for all
questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to consolidate Rules 511 and 515 into a
combined Rule 511 and to adopt for specialist units \9\ an objective
review process that is similar to the process currently in use for
Streaming Quote Traders per current Rule 510. The Exchange also
proposes to relocate portions of the existing evaluation process from
Rule 515 into Rule 511. As such, there would be two types of specialist
evaluations or reviews per revised Rule 511: (i) Routine Specialist
Performance Evaluations, which would be conducted on at least an annual
basis, and would take into account any Minimum Performance Reviews
conducted by the Exchange; and (ii) Special Circumstance Evaluations,
which may be conducted on an ad hoc basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 511 states that
reference to specialist unit within Rule 511 means the unit as a
whole or any subpart of its operation that is acting in a specialist
capacity on the Exchange and is subject to evaluation; and that a
specialist unit may have one or more individual specialists. As
such, individual specialist actions may be attributable to relevant
specialist units in respect of matters discussed in this proposal
such as evaluations. The proposed language in Rule 511 was moved
from Rule 515 and updated to reflect current usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes changes to Rule 511 so that
specialist suspension, termination, or restriction of allocations in
one or more options may occur after two or more consecutive sub-
standard Minimum Performance Reviews or after Special Circumstance
Evaluations and after written notice. As discussed below, following
substandard minimum performance, a specialist unit may have an
opportunity for an informal meeting with Exchange staff. Moreover, the
proposed rules provide the circumstances under which a specialist or
specialist unit \10\ may appeal, after filing a written notice of
appeal with the Exchange, from a decision of the Exchange following a
Minimum Performance Review or a Special Circumstance Evaluation in
accordance with Exchange By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In proposed Rule 511(d) and Rule 511(e), a specialist has
the right to request an appeal on behalf of his specialist unit.
    \11\ By-Law Article XI Section 11-1(c) states that an appeal
shall be heard by a special committee of the Board of Governors
composed of three (3) Governors, of whom at least one (1) shall be
an Independent Governor. The person requesting review may appeal by
filing a written notice thereof with the Secretary of the Exchange
within ten (10) days after a decision. The person requesting review
shall be permitted to submit a written statement to and/or appear
before this special committee. The Secretary of the Exchange shall
certify the record of the proceeding, if any and the written
decision and shall submit these documents to the special committee.
The special committee's review of the action shall be based solely
on the record, the written decision and any statement submitted by
the person requesting the review. The special committee shall
prepare and deliver to such person a written decision and reasons
therefor. If the special committee affirms the action, the action
shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of the special
committee's decision. There shall be no appeal to the Board of
Governors from any decision of the special committee.
    The Exchange is correcting a reference in By-Law Article XI
Section 11-1(c) from Rule 511(e) to Rule 511(d) or (e), in light of
the internal numbering changes proposed in Rule 511; and cross-
referencing Rule 507, which notes the availability of the appeal
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routine Specialist Performance Evaluations

    Routine Specialist Performance Evaluations pursuant to proposed
Rule 511(c) would be conducted at annual (or more frequent) intervals
to determine whether specialists have fulfilled performance standards
that may include, but are not limited to, trade correction data,
exemptive relief data, quality of markets data, proper execution of
duties as a specialist unit, competition among market makers and in
representing the Exchange as specialist unit, observance of ethical
standards, and administrative factors. The Exchange also may consider,
when doing routine evaluations, any other relevant information
including, but not limited to, trading data, regulatory history, the
number of requests for quote spread parameter relief, how a specialist
unit optimizes the submission of quotes through the Specialized Quote
Feed as defined in Rule 1080 by evaluating the number of individual
quotes per quote block received by the Exchange, and such other factors
and data as may be pertinent in the circumstances.
    The Exchange also proposes to establish new minimum performance
standards for specialist units.\12\ Specifically, new Rule 511(d)
proposes minimum acceptable performance standards for specialist units
using the following criteria: (i) The percentage of time that the
specialist unit represents or exceeds the Phlx Best Bid or Offer
(``PBBO'') in the options allocated to the unit \13\ and (ii) quoting
requirements of specialist units pursuant to Rule 1014.\14\ If the
percentage of the total time that the options allocated to a specialist
unit represent or exceed the PBBO is in the lowest quartile of all
specialist units for two or more consecutive months, this may be
considered sub-standard performance, that is, performance that does not
attain minimum performance standards. If a specialist unit fails to
meet the quoting requirements as prescribed by Rule 1014, this may be
considered sub-standard performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For consistency, the Exchange proposes appeal language in
Rules 510 and 511 that is similar, in relevant part, to that of Rule
507: An appeal to the Board of Governors from a decision of the
Exchange * * * may be requested * * * by filing with the Secretary
of the Exchange written notice of appeal within ten (10) days after
the decision has been rendered, in accordance with Exchange By-Law
Article XI, Section 11-1.
    \13\ In that the Exchange would specifically establish a measure
of specialist performance on Phlx, the Exchange would change the
requirement to PBBO from NBBO (National Best Bid or Offer). A
reference in Commentary .01 of Rule 510 would similarly be changed
to PBBO for the sake of conformity.
    \14\ This rule change proposal would make no changes to current
quoting requirements for specialists delineated in Rule 1014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes a process that would allow a specialist to
meet with Exchange staff regarding alleged sub-standard performance.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes in new Rule 511(d)(ii) that if the
Exchange finds that a specialist unit failed to meet Minimum
Performance Standards, it would provide written notice to the unit.
Pursuant to new Rule 511(d)(iii), the specialist unit may request and
the Exchange may hold an informal meeting with the head specialist and
any other appropriate specialist of the specialist unit to discuss the
failure to meet

minimum standards and to explore possible remedies. The Exchange would
give notice of the meeting and no verbatim record would be kept. If,
after receiving such notice from the Exchange, the specialist unit
refuses or otherwise fails without reasonable justification to meet
with the Exchange, the Exchange may refer the matter to the Exchange's
Business Conduct Committee for the commencement of formal disciplinary
proceedings. If the Exchange believes there are no mitigating
circumstances that would demonstrate substantial improvement of or
reasonable justification for the failure to meet minimum standards, the
Exchange could take remedial action pursuant to Rule 511(d)(ii).
    The Exchange proposes in Rule 511(d)(ii) that if it finds sub-
standard minimum performance by a specialist unit, the Exchange may
take the following remedial actions: (i) Restriction of allocations in
additional options (subsection (d)(ii)(A)); (ii) suspension,
termination, or restriction of allocations in one or more options
(subsection (d)(ii)(B)); or (iii) suspension, termination, or
restriction of the specialist or specialist unit's registration in
general (subsection (d)(ii)(C)). Specialist units or specialists
therein may appeal to the Board of Governors from a decision of the
Exchange pursuant to subsection (d)(ii)(B) or subsection (d)(ii)(C) by
filing the requisite notice of appeal. Under the proposal, Minimum
Performance Reviews would be conducted at least annually but may be
conducted more frequently, including at monthly intervals.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the floor broker
questionnaire. The Exchange believes that the questionnaire, which is
subjective in nature and not based on data, provides limited value in
the Exchange's current specialist review process. Instead, the Exchange
believes that the proposed revised specialist performance evaluations
it now proposes will better inform the evaluation process and make it
increasingly data-based, thereby rendering the floor broker
questionnaires unnecessary.

Special Circumstance Evaluations

    Under the proposal, the Exchange may also, but is not required to,
conduct Special Circumstance Evaluations pursuant to proposed Rule
511(e) whenever the Exchange believes that circumstances warrant such
reviews. For example, a Special Circumstance Evaluation may be
conducted if a specialist unit's performance appeared to be so
deficient as to call into question the Exchange's integrity or impair
the Exchange's reputation for maintaining efficient, fair and orderly
markets. Special Circumstance Evaluations also may be conducted within
six months of new allocations \15\ and within four months of transfers
of allocations to specialist units.\16\ Special Circumstance
Evaluations may incorporate the same review methodology and procedures
as established for routine Specialist Performance Evaluations or
Minimum Performance Reviews. However, Special Circumstance Evaluations
may instead (or in addition) examine such other matters related to a
specialist unit's performance as the Exchange deems necessary and
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of conformity with the proposed six month
period, 90 days would be changed to 180 days (six months) in Rule
511(b).
    \16\ While Special Circumstance Evaluations are optional during
the noted four month and six month periods, the Exchange also may
conduct separate Minimum Performance Reviews during that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may determine, pursuant to a Rule 511 Special
Circumstance Evaluation, that a specialist unit that received a new
allocation has not complied with the commitments that it made when
applying for the options class, including, but not limited to,
commitments regarding capital, personnel and order flow (subsection
(e)(i)(A)) or that the performance of a specialist unit was inadequate
after the transfer of one or more options classes or when there has
been a material change in the specialist unit (subsection (e)(i)(B)).
After the Exchange indicates to the applicable specialist unit why its
performance is inadequate, the specialist unit would be afforded thirty
days in which to improve its performance. If the specialist unit does
not improve its performance, the Exchange may, after written notice,
remove and reallocate one or more securities that were allocated to
such unit. Specialist units and specialists therein may appeal to the
Board of Governors from a decision of the Exchange pursuant to proposed
subsection (e)(ii) by filing the requisite notice of appeal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rules establish limits on the allocation
of new options to specialist units that fail to perform adequately.
Under proposed Rule 511(e)(iii), if a specialist allocation in an
option is terminated as a result of a Special Circumstance Evaluation,
the specialist unit may not receive an allocation (or re-allocation) in
the terminated option or options for a period not to exceed six months.
Similarly, under proposed Rule 511(d)(v), if an allocation is
terminated because a specialist exhibits sub-standard performance in
terms of best bid and offer or in terms of quoting requirements, such
specialist may not receive an allocation (or re-allocation) in the
terminated option or options for a period not to exceed six months; and
if an allocation is terminated because a specialist unit exhibits sub-
standard performance in terms of minimum quoting requirements per Rule
1014, such specialist unit may not receive an allocation (or re-
allocation) in the terminated option or options for a period not to
exceed twelve months.
    As discussed, all specialists and specialist units would have the
right to appeal from an Exchange decision that was taken pursuant to a
Specialist Evaluation or a Special Circumstance Evaluation. Moreover,
the Exchange would provide written notice regarding the lack of
adequate performance and give specialist units an opportunity to
discuss performance before the Exchange would take remedial action.
    In Rule 510 (regarding SQTs and RSQTs) and Rule 511 (regarding
specialists), the Exchange proposes to eliminate the right to appeal
from an Exchange's determination to restrict additional options
allocations based on failure to meet minimum performance requirements.
The Exchange believes that a formal appeal process for restriction of
allocations or assignments in additional (not currently allocated or
assigned) options, which would require a 10 day notice period followed
by a potentially lengthy appeals proceeding, is not necessary and may
be counterproductive in light of the Exchange's desire to efficiently
allocate or assign additional options on a timely basis.

Assignment in Options

    Rule 507 deals with the process of applying for approval as an SQT
or RSQT on the Exchange and assignment of options to SQTs and
RSQTs.\18\ The Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .01 to Rule 507
to state that within not more than thirty business days after
assignment of an option pursuant to this rule, an assigned SQTs

or RSQTs shall begin to generate and submit electronic quotations for
such option through the Exchange's electronic quotation, execution, and
trading system. Should an assigned SQT or RSQT not generate electronic
quotes within the requisite time frame, the Exchange would have the
ability to terminate the assignment in question after providing written
notice to the assigned SQT or RSQT, and make a re-assignment, unless
there are exigent circumstances that the Exchange believes may not have
allowed timely generation and submission of electronic quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Rule 507 also defines the Maximum Number of Quoters
(``MNQ'') in equity options, which establishes the greatest number
of SQT and RSQT assignments that the Exchange may make in a
particular class of option. MNQ in equity options is currently set
in Commentary .02 to Rule 507 at no more than: (i) Twenty-four
market participants (SQTs and RSQTs) for equity options in the top
5% most actively traded options; (ii) nineteen market participants
for the next 10% most actively traded options; (iii) and seventeen
market participants for all other options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of Allocated Option Classes

    Rule 508 deals with agreements between specialist units to transfer
one or more options classes that are already allocated by the Exchange
to one of such units. Currently, Rule 508 states that failure to
provide the Exchange with prior notice of an arranged (agreed-upon)
transfer of one or more already allocated options classes in accordance
with this rule permits the Exchange to reallocate such options classes.
Pursuant to the proposed change, Rule 508 would state that failure to
provide the Exchange prior notice of a transfer in accordance with this
Rule, or failure to obtain Exchange approval of a transfer, would
permit the Exchange to recover the allocated securities and reallocate
them. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate given that the
Exchange initially makes the allocation of the option class after
evaluating the relevant factors, and should continue to have a similar
ability to evaluate the propriety of subsequent transfer of the same
option class.
    The Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .01 to Rule 508 that
currently indicates that no member may effect a change in the floor
trading location of any equity option or index option class until
forty-five calendar days after final approval of the change by the
Exchange has been disseminated to the option floor. The Exchange
believes that the 45-day period is unnecessarily long in light of the
current fast-paced trading environment. In addition, the Exchange
proposes technical rule changes to ensure conformity of rule language
and delete references that are obsolete or no longer in use. The
reference to Registrant would be changed to specialist or specialist
unit in Rules 508 and 511, and the reference to ``grant'' would be
changed to ``allocate'' in Rule 511 for purposes of conformity.\19\ The
Exchange further proposes to remove the reference to initial
implementation of the existing rule in Commentary .02 of Rule 510. The
Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes in Rule 511 in light
of the changes to Rule 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes that this change in terminology conforms
it to current usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \20\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal updates its
specialist evaluation process to make it more objective and more
consistent with the process used for other Streaming Quote Traders.
While the Exchange is changing its process for evaluating specialists,
it is not proposing any changes to existing specialist obligations,
including the quoting requirements for specialists delineated in Rule
1014. Further, though the Exchange would replace the current formal
appeal and hearing process with a more informal hearing process in the
context of alleged failure of performance, it would retain an
opportunity for the specialist or specialist unit to be heard on the
matter before the Exchange takes remedial action. In addition, the
Exchange would preserve the requirement to provide advance written
notice to a specialist or a specialist unit to inform it of its right
to appeal an Exchange's decision regarding a specialist's failure to
meet the minimum performance standards. Accordingly, the Commission
believes the streamlined specialist evaluation procedures are
reasonable and will allow the Exchange to monitor and review specialist
performance in the interests of ensuring compliance with all applicable
requirements.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed time requirement
for a SQT or a RSQT to electronically quote, i.e., within thirty
business days after assignment, is reasonable. This provision will
allow the Exchange to ensure that new appointments are utilized
promptly and would enable the Exchange to, in the absence of exigent
circumstances, reassign those options after a written notice is
provided to the previously assigned SQT or RSQT.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2010-153) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33365 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25271-25272]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0189]

Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Enforcement Policy Concerning Certain Regulations Restricting the Sale
and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Enforcement Policy Concerning
Certain Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes
and Smokeless Tobacco.'' This guidance document discusses FDA's
intended enforcement policies with respect to two provisions of the
final regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents. One
provision restricts the use of a trade or brand name of a nontobacco
product as the trade or brand name for a cigarette or smokeless tobacco
product. The second provision requires that labeling or print
advertisements appear in a black-and-white text only format, except in
certain ``adult only'' locations or in publications that do not have
significant readership by children and adolescents under the age of 18.
This guidance document will be implemented immediately, but it remains
subject to comment in accordance with the agency's good guidance
practices (GGPs).

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments on this guidance at any
time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Enforcement Policy Concerning Certain Regulations
Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless
Tobacco'' to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850-3229. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may
be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit
written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-1373<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 19, 2010 (75 FR 13225), FDA
published final regulations restricting the sale and distribution of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents.
This guidance document discusses FDA's intended enforcement policies
with respect to two provisions of the final regulations restricting the
sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect
children and adolescents.
    One provision, Sec.  1140.16(a) (21 CFR 1140.16(a)), specifies that
manufacturers may not use a trade or brand name of a nontobacco product
as the trade or brand name for a cigarette or smokeless tobacco product
unless the trade or brand name was on both the tobacco product and a
nontobacco product sold in the United States on January 1, 1995. FDA is
aware of concerns regarding this provision and is considering what
changes, if any, would be appropriate to address those concerns.\1\
While FDA has this issue under consideration, it intends to exercise
its enforcement discretion concerning Sec.  1140.16(a) (21 CFR
1140.16(a)) not to commence enforcement actions under this provision
for the duration of its consideration where:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under section 102(a)(3)-(4) of the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 387a-1(a)(3)-(4)), FDA may amend
the final rule after issuing a proposed rule for notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The trade or brand name of the cigarettes or smokeless tobacco
product was registered, or the product was marketed, in the United
States on or before June 22, 2009; or
    (2) The first marketing or registration in the United States of the
tobacco product occurs before the first marketing or registration in
the United States of the nontobacco product bearing the same name;
provided, however, that the tobacco and nontobacco product are not
owned, manufactured, or distributed by the same, related, or affiliated
entities (including as a licensee).
    The second provision is Sec.  1140.32(a) (21 CFR 1140.32(a)). Under
this section of the final rule, manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers must use only black text on a white background for labeling
or advertising (with certain exceptions). The United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently issued an order
permanently enjoining FDA from enforcing Sec.  1140.32(a) (formerly 21
CFR 897.32(a) of the 1996 final rule that published in the Federal
Register of August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44396)) (Commonwealth Brands, Inc.
v. United States, No. 1:09-CV-117-M (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2010)). As
required by section 102 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), the effective date for Sec.
1140.32(a) is June 22, 2010. At this time, however, in light of the
court's order in Commonwealth Brands, FDA intends to exercise its
enforcement discretion concerning Sec.  1140.32(a) not to commence
enforcement actions under this provision during the pendency of the
litigation irrespective of whether the entity is a party to the pending
lawsuit or located in the Western District of Kentucky.
    FDA intends that the exercise of enforcement discretion expressed
in this guidance document for Sec. Sec.  1140.16(a) and 1140.32(a)
begin upon the effective date of the final rule (June 22, 2010). In
accordance with FDA's GGP regulation (Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)),
you may comment on this guidance at any time. The agency will consider
your comments and determine whether to revise the guidance at a later
date.

II. Significance of Guidance

    FDA is issuing this guidance document as a level 1 guidance
consistent with FDA's GGP regulation (Sec.  10.115). This guidance
document is being implemented immediately without prior public comment
under Sec.  10.115(g)(2) because the agency has determined that prior
public participation is not feasible or appropriate. This document
provides guidance on regulations that are required by statute (section
102 of the Tobacco Control Act); moreover, the statute directs that the
regulations take effect on June 22, 2010 (section 102(a)(2)(F) of the
Tobacco Control Act). It is important that FDA explain its enforcement
policy for these two provisions before that date.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of the guidance document is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

    Dated: May 4, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-10934 Filed 5-5-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52779-52780]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0138]

Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) will
meet on September 24-25, 2013 to discuss matters relating to medical
certification determinations for issuance of merchant mariner
credentials, medical standards and guidelines for physical
qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner
education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: MEDMAC will meet on Tuesday, September 24, and Wednesday,
September 25, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please note that the
meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sarratt Student Center, Room
216-220, Vanderbilt University, 2302 Vanderbilt Place,
Nashville, TN 37235.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer
(ADFO),<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Comments must be submitted in writing to the
Coast Guard on or before September 14, 2013, and must be identified by
USCG-2011-0138 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). If you
would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee in advance of the meeting, please provide an electronic copy
to the ADFO, no later than September 14, 2013. Your materials will be
placed on the MEDMAC Web site https://homeport.uscg.mil to be made
available to the members of the committee and the public.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
enter ``USCG-2011-0138'' in the ``SEARCH'' box.
    A public comment period will be held on September 24, 2013, from
approximately 9:05 a.m. to 9:25 a.m., and on September 25, 2013, from
approximately 4:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit
their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period
may end before the time indicated, following the last call for
comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the
meeting as specific tasks and issues are discussed by the committee.
Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC
ADFO, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The
MEDMAC is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 7115 as amended by section 210 of the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) and advises the
Secretary on matters related to (a) Medical certification
determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and
merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for
the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c)
medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

Agenda

Day 1, September 24

    (1) Remarks from Vanderbilt Dayani Center Representatives, Ms.
Teresa Roberts and Ms. Barbara Ory.
    (2) Opening comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Captain
K. P. McAvoy.
    (3) Remarks from the Director of Inspections and Compliance,
Captain J. C. Burton.
    (4) Review of Last Full Committee Meeting's Minutes.
    (5) Public Comments.
    (6) Presentation from the American Epilepsy Society.
    (7) Presentation from American Chiropractic Association MEDMAC
Discussion/Recommendation
    (8) Working Groups report out.
    (9) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may
meet to deliberate--
    (a) Task Statement 1, Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 04-08. The NVIC can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/ Medical and Physical Guidelines for Merchant Mariner
Credentials.
    (b) Task Statement 4, Revising the CG-719K Medical Evaluation
Report Form for mariner physicals. The form can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/nmc.
    (c) Task Statement 5, Creating medical expert panels for the top
medical conditions to analyze and determine proper implementation of
required medical testing and minimum compliance.
    (d) The Committee may receive new task statements from the Coast
Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and
formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

Day 2, September 25

    (1) Continue work on Task Statements.
    (2) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if
applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for
presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may vote on the working
group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an
opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full
committee takes any action on each report.
    (3) Public Comments.
    (4) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    Dated: August 8, 2013.
J. C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-20674 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44183-44185]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17594]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69996; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend Exchange Rule 700 Regarding Friday Expiration
Changes

Dated: July 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 3, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
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 is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 700,
Exercise of Option Contracts, to describe accurately the deadlines for
submission of notice to the Exchange of a Member's decision to exercise
or not to exercise an existing option, and for the submission of
Contrary Exercise Advices (defined below) by Members to the Exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to establish such deadlines for options that
expire after February 1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    MIAX proposes to amend Exchange Rule 700, to establish new dates
and times by which Members must make a final decision to exercise or
not exercise an expiring option.
Background
    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') recently determined to
change the expiration date for most option contracts to the third
Friday of the expiration month instead of the Saturday following the
third Friday.\3\ Most option contracts (``Standard Expiration
Contracts'') currently expire at the ``expiration time'' (11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time) on the Saturday following the third Friday of the
specified expiration month (``expiration date''). The expiration time
will continue to be 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the expiration date. The
OCC rule change would apply only to Standard Expiration Contracts
expiring after February 1, 2015. The OCC rule change will not affect
the expiration date for any outstanding option contract. The OCC rule
change will apply only to series of option contracts opened for trading
having expiration dates later than February 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69480 (April 30,
2013), 78 FR 26413 (May 6, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-04); 69772 (June 17,
2013), 78 FR 37645 (June 21, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-04) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change to Change the Expiration Date For Most Option
Contracts to the Third Friday of the Expiration Month Instead of the
Saturday Following the Third Friday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After February 1, 2015, virtually all Standard Expiration Contracts
will expire on Friday. The only Standard Expiration Contracts that will
expire on a Saturday after February 1, 2015 will be certain options
that were listed prior to the effectiveness of the OCC rule change, and
a limited number of options that may be listed prior to necessary
systems changes of the options exchanges, which are expected to be
completed in August 2013. The exchanges have agreed that once these
systems changes are made they will not open for trading any new series
of option contracts with Saturday expiration dates falling after
February 1, 2015.\4\ After the transition period and the expiration of
all existing Saturday-expiring options, expiration processing should be
a single operational process and should run on Friday night for all
Standard Expiration Contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to start the transition to Friday night expiration
processing, the OCC will, beginning June 21, 2013, move the expiration
exercise procedures to Friday for all Standard Expiration Contracts
even though the contracts will continue to expire on Saturday. As part
of this change, the window for submission of exercise-by-exception
instructions will be moved from 6:00 a.m. to 9 a.m. Central Time on
Saturday morning to 6:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Central Time on Friday
evening starting June 21, 2013.\5\ The current exercise-by-exception
window for weekly and quarterly expiration options from 6:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. Central Time on the expiration date will remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 26414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 700(c) by stating that,
respecting options that expire after February 1, 2015, option holders
have until 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time on the expiration date to make a
final decision to exercise or not exercise an expiring option. The
purpose of the change is to account for the OCC change described above
for all Standard Expiration Contracts that after February 1, 2015 will
have a Friday expiration and that option holders must submit exercise
instructions to Members (whether for customer or non-customer accounts)
before 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time on the expiration date instead of the
current requirement of the business day immediately prior to the
expiration date. The Exchange believes that this should assist Members
processing exercise instructions in the same manner as today despite
the new Friday expiration. This should result in a smooth transition
without any confusion to Members and their customer and non-customer
accounts.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 700(c) to provide that
Members may set earlier cutoff times for customers submitting exercise
notices, and that Clearing Members are permitted to submit exercise
instructions after the cutoff time only in case of errors or other
unusual situations, and may be subject to fines or disciplinary
actions.\6\ The Exchange believes that this provision enables Members
to receive timely notification to exercise or not to exercise an
option, and provides Clearing Members with additional time to correct
errors or other issues that arise from unusual

situations. However, Clearing Members may be subject to fines or
disciplinary actions by MIAX in these instances.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69480 (April 30,
2013), 78 FR 26413 (May 6, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-04).
    \7\ See MIAX Rule 1014(d)(9), Exercise of Option Contracts (Rule
700), which states that a Member who fails to submit to the Exchange
in a timely manner pursuant to Rule 700 or a Regulatory Circular
issued pursuant to Rule 700, ``Advice Cancel,'' or exercise
instruction relating to the exercise or non-exercise of a non-cash
settled equity option shall be subject to a fine schedule set forth
in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 700(d)(ii) and (iii), Deadline
for CEA Submission for Customer Accounts and Non-Customer Accounts.
Currently, Rules 700(d)(ii) and (iii) simply state that Members have
until 7:30 Eastern Time to submit a Contrary Exercise Advice to the
Exchange. The Exchange proposes to clarify in the Rules that Members
have until 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time on the business day immediately prior
to the expiration date or, in the case of Short Term Option Series and
Quarterly Options Series, on the expiration date, to submit a Contrary
Exercise Advice (``CEA'') \8\ to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that this clarifying language will safeguard the CEA process and enable
the Exchange to submit CEA or Advice Cancel \9\ instructions to OCC in
a timely fashion on Friday, the date on which OCC will be processing
expiring options. The Exchange believes that this more clearly and
accurately describes the deadline date and time. This amendment should
provide a smooth transition to the Friday expiration, and to the
processing of CEAs and Cancel Advices when the OCC begins to conduct
expiration exercise procedures Friday for all Standard Expiration
Contracts on June 21, 2013, even though the contracts would continue to
expire on Saturday. The Exchange believes this benefits the investing
public because Members will be required to submit these notifications
in a timely fashion for Friday processing, removing their exposure to
the risk of late notification and the concomitant exercise or non-
exercise of their option contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Contrary Exercise Advice is a communication either: (1) To
not exercise an option that would be automatically exercised under
the OCC's Exercise-by-Exception (``Ex-by-Ex'') procedure (i.e.,
unless contrary instructions are given, option contracts that are
in-the-money by specified amounts shall be automatically exercised);
or (2) to exercise an option that would not be automatically
exercised under the OCC's Ex-by-Ex procedure. See MIAX Rule 700(d).
    \9\ A Contrary Exercise Advice may be canceled by filing an
``Advice Cancel'' with the Exchange. See MIAX Rule 700(d)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 700(c) by codifying the
current practice under which holders of Short Term Option Series
(``STOS'') have until 5:30 p.m. on the expiration date to make a final
decision to exercise or not exercise an expiring option, which is also
the current practice respecting Quarterly Options. Currently, Exchange
Rule 700(c) states that option holders have until 5:30 p.m. Eastern
Time on the business day immediately prior to the expiration date or,
in the case of Quarterly Options Series, on the expiration date, to
make a final decision to exercise or not exercise an expiring option.
Just as with Quarterly Options Series, STOS currently may be exercised
on the expiration date.\10\ The Exchange proposes to clarify this
current practice in the Rule by stating that the expiration date
exercise cutoff time applies to holders of STOS as well.\11\ This
change will bring the Exchange's Rules in line with the current OCC
expiration schedule for STOS. Members may not accept exercise
instructions for customer or non-customer accounts after 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ STOS (or ``Weekly'') options expire on the Friday of the
listing week. No weekly options are issued during the week of
standard expiration (the third Friday of the month). When expiration
Friday falls on a holiday, the weekly option will expire on the
preceding Thursday. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69658 (May 29, 2013), 78 FR 33454 (June 4, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-23).
    \11\ MIAX Rule 700 is nearly identical to ISE Rule 1100. ISE
Rule 1100(c) did not account for the ability to exercise STOS on the
expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes a clarifying change to Rule 700(h).
Rule 700(h) currently provides that Members have until 7:30 Eastern
Time to deliver a CEA or Advice Cancel to the Exchange for customer
accounts and non-customer accounts. The Exchange proposes to amend this
provision to clarify that Members have until 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time to
deliver a CEA or Advice Cancel to the Exchange for customer accounts
and non-customer accounts. This more precise description of the time
deadline should assist the Exchange in its timely submission of such
notification to OCC and eliminate any potential confusion, thus
protecting investors submitting exercise instructions to Members when
the time for closing the trading session is modified on the last
business day before expiration will occur.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \13\ of the Act 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
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    By changing the Exchange's Rules to account for the new expiration
date for most Standard Expiration Contracts (the third Friday of the
expiration month), and for the OCC moving the expiration exercise
procedures to Friday for all Standard Expiration Contracts for post-
February 1, 2015 expirations, the proposed rule change should help to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
    The proposed changes to account for the exercise of STOS on the
expiration date remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest, by amending the Rules to be
consistent with the current OCC expiration schedule. This change
clarifies that investors must notify Members of their intention to
exercise or not to exercise STOS, and that Members must submit CEAs and
Advice Cancels, on the expiration date, thus further perfecting the
mechanisms of a free and open market.
    The proposed clarifying changes to provide more precise deadline
times for the submission of exercise notifications and CEA Submissions
should assist the Exchange in its timely submission of such
notification to OCC and eliminate any potential confusion, thus
protecting investors submitting exercise instructions to Members.

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

    MIAX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended to help MIAX Members transition into the new Friday expiration
date for Standard Expiration Contracts, and to foster cooperation with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. This should enable the Exchange to continue to compete on
an even playing field with other U.S. options exchanges.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 No. SR-MIAX-2013-32 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 No. SR-MIAX-2013-32. 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 No. SR-MIAX-2013-32 and should be
submitted on or before August 13, 2013.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17594 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


           INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA  -  UAW

       DENNIS WILLIAMS, President	     GARY CASTEEL, Secretary-Treasurer

 VICE PRESIDENTS:  CINDY ESTRADA   ::   JIMMY SETTLES   ::   NORWOOD JEWELL

                                                                        IN REPLY REFER TO
                                August 18, 2015
                                                                        1757 N STREET, N.W.
                                                                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
                                                                        TELEPHONE:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                                        FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>
                        Environmental Protection Agency
 Department of Transportation--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
                 EPA - HQ - OAR - 2014 - 0827; NHTSA - 2014 -
                          0132; FRL - 9931 - 77 - OAR
                       RIN 2060 - AS16; RIN 2127 - AL52
                       Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
                     Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
                      Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles --
                                    Phase 2

                       Comments submitted by President
             Dennis Williams, President, International Union, UAW

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) appreciates the opportunity to share our views on the proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 National Program.

The UAW represents over one million active and retired members, many of whom have a considerable stake in the continued success of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. We represent over 34,000 workers who could be directly impacted by this proposal. Our members assemble Navistar, Freightliner, Volvo and Mack medium and heavy trucks; heavy-duty pick-up trucks; vocational vehicles; school buses and vans. Our members also  work in plants making engines, axles, transmissions and other parts for those vehicles.

The UAW supports President Obama's goal of addressing climate change, increasing fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the combination tractor, heavy-duty pick-up truck, van, and vocational vehicle fleets. Regulations, properly crafted, can be good for the environment and the broader economy. This can and should be a win-win. For example, increasing the efficiency of light-duty vehicles has led directly to the creation of jobs in the auto industry.

We commend the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for their diligent work in crafting this proposal and for their willingness to engage on this important matter. We are carefully studying the various options presented in this proposal and are not making final recommendations at this time.  Even under the most optimal circumstances, industry participants will be required to make changes to their product design and adapt to comply. With this in mind, we urge you to proceed carefully.  We are concerned about the potential economic disruption caused by any standards that are not achievable or are developed without giving proper consideration to market reaction and other possible ramifications.  Here are some of our guiding principles and overarching recommendations in no particular order.

As you know, the medium and heavy duty sector is already working to comply with the first-ever fuel economy and emission standards for model years 2014-2018. This is a challenging task and the existing standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons and save 530 million barrels of oil.  Your main proposal recognizes this reality and the challenges it presents. We support the phasing-in of stringency standards as most of the new requirements will not start until model year 2021. This will enable the industry to improve efficiency without causing major market disruption and accounts for product cycle. We would have significant concerns about the feasibility and impact from moving the 2021 requirements to an earlier date.

It is essential to maintain flexibility by allowing companies to achieve stringency targets in a manner that best suits their competitive and market position.  The regulation should not be overly prescriptive or technology forcing.  Specifically, the Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) and advanced technology credit system is essential for achieving this end. We urge you to give consideration to proposals that would further improve the credit system and allow increased flexibility around product cycles.

Without sufficient flexibility, the tough standards included in this proposal would likely lead to layoffs and other negative economic consequences. The "Phase 2" requirements cannot result in a boom and bust cycle for American working men and women and their families who work hard to manufacture the vehicles our nation depends on.  Prescriptive, technology forcing requirements in this industry have been problematic in the past and may very well be again.

Many of our members experienced economic hardship and uncertainty when new truck purchasers rushed to pre-buy trucks in anticipation of increased costs due to regulatory requirements outlined in earlier heavy-duty engine emission standards. This was especially a problem for complying with 2007 standards. This pre-buy was a contributing factor resulting in the lay-off of thousands of UAW members and other workers. Sadly, it took as long as five or six years before some workers were recalled.  This was a time filled with financial hardship and stress as many workers struggled to make ends meet.

The pre-buy/no buy cycle is not only bad for workers. It is also bad for the environment and undermines the entire goal of regulations. Customers in the heavy duty sector are especially sensitive to the bottom line and will resist buying vehicles that are viewed as prohibitively expensive or include unproven technologies. We want to encourage innovation and purchases of more efficient vehicles.  Regulations designed the wrong way achieve the opposite results.  A separate engine standard that is overly stringent has the potential to lead to this outcome.  We are still examining the engine standard but encourage you to ensure the final rule does not create an engine standard that would lead to a pre buy/no buy cycle.  Companies that choose to rely on engine efficiency to help meet the standard can do so under the overall combination tractor standard.

We encourage the agencies to continue to refine the standard's compliance testing procedures to not only accurately reflect real world driving and work conditions, but to also avoid increasing stringency via technical requirements.

Finally, the standard has to be harmonized and applicable throughout the country. To do otherwise would be entirely inconsistent to the realities of commerce.

UAW wants this proposed regulation to succeed and is willing to work with all stakeholders and interested parties to reach this achievement. Thank you.

JN/SJ/JB:tg
opeiu494
S0011


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		August 8, 2012

TO:		RICE NESHAP Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

FROM:	Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

SUBJECT:	August 8, 2012 Meeting Regarding Proposed Amendments to the RICE NESHAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 8, 2012 to discuss the proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. The amendments were proposed on June 7, 2012.

ATTENDEES

Joe Goffman, EPA
John Flumerfelt, Calpine
Robert Wayland, EPA (by phone)
Yvonne McIntyre, Calpine
Melanie King, EPA (by phone)
Michael Bradley, MJ Bradley & Associates
Stacy Angel, EPA
Kathleen Robertson, MJ Bradley & Associates
John Citrolo, PSEG
Kimberly Scarborough, PSEG