[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62464-62466]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0344; FRL-9986-82-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New Hampshire that
address the infrastructure SIP requirements, including the interstate
transport requirements, of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012
fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The approval does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(K)
(regarding air quality modeling and data), which EPA will address in a
later rulemaking. The infrastructure SIP requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
with respect to this NAAQS under the CAA, including the obligations
related to transport. The EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0344. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 10, 2018 (83 FR 15343), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed
approval of two SIP submissions from the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES), which included an infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5\1\) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) submitted by the state on December
22, 2015, and a separate SIP submission addressing the ``Good
Neighbor'' (or ``transport'') provisions for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS (Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA) submitted by the state on
June 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking does not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each of these substantive areas
separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's
approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May
13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45.
    The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM
and will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received six sets of comments during the comment period. Only
one set includes significant, adverse comment, and it relates solely to
section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act (regarding air quality modeling and
data). In the NPRM, EPA proposed to approve NHDES' submissions for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the infrastructure requirements of
Section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M), including (K). In this rulemaking,
EPA is finalizing the approval of New Hampshire's submissions for the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M), except
(K). EPA will take separate action at a later date addressing these
comments and the section 110(a)(2)(K) requirements for New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The other five sets of comments we received all discuss subjects
outside the scope of an infrastructure SIP action, do not explain (or
provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any
way, and, indeed, make no specific mention of the proposed action.
Consequently, those five sets of comments are not germane to this
rulemaking and require no further response.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving New Hampshire's December 2015 and June 2016
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
except for Section

110(a)(2)(K) (regarding air quality modeling and data), which EPA will
address in a later rulemaking.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 4, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
 Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1520 in the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``Submittals to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           New Hampshire NonRegulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/ effective    EPA approved date     Explanations
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Submittals to meet Section        Statewide.........  12/22/2015;         12/4/2018, [Insert  These submittals
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                              supplement          Federal Register    are approved with
 Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5                       submitted 6/8/      citation].          respect to the
 NAAQS.                                                2016.                                   following CAA
                                                                                requirements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                (B), (C), (D),
                                                                                (E), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (L),
                                                                                and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-26284 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Proposed label

TwinLinkTM Cotton

INSECT RESISTANT COTTON SEED

Insect-resistant cotton seed that produces insecticidal proteins Cry1Ab
and Cry2Ae from Bacillus thuringiensis.  For control of Cotton Bollworm,
Tobacco Budworm, Pink Bollworm, Fall Armyworm, and Beet Armyworm.

Active Ingredients:

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material (from
plasmid pTDL008) necessary for its production in Event T304-40 x GHB119
cotton (BCS-GHØØ4-7 x BCS-GH GHØØ5-8)

….....................................................................
............................................0.000643 – 0.001176%*

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ae protein and the genetic material (from
plasmid pTEM12) necessary for its production in Event T304-40 x GHB119
cotton (BCS-GHØØ4-7 x BCS-GH GHØØ5-8)

………………………………………………………………
…………………….0.001648 – 0.005176%*

Inert Ingredient:

Substance produced by a herbicide tolerance gene and its controlling
sequences (from plasmids pTDL008 and pTEM12) necessary for its
production in Event T304-40 x GHB119 cotton

(BCS-GHØØ4-7 x BCS-GH GHØØ5-8)
………………………….………...…0.038352 – 0.073077%

________________________________________________________________________
______________

* Percentage (wt/wt) on a dry weight basis as expressed in whole cotton
plants.

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

CAUTION

EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER:  264-RNOA

EPA ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER: 000264-TX-004

Bayer CropScience

2 T.W. Alexander Dr.

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of federal law to use this product in any manner
inconsistent with its labeling.

No commercial planting of this product is permitted south of Route 60 in
Florida.

Commercial planting of this product is prohibited in Hawaii, Puerto Rico
and the US Virgin Islands.

Bt cotton is not permitted to be planted in the following counties of
the Texas panhandle: Dallam, Sherman, Hansford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb,
Hartley, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts and Carlson.

USE PATTERN

CROP	PESTS

Cotton

Cotton Bollworm

Tobacco Budworm

Pink Bollworm

Beet Armyworm

EPA Accepted: __/__/__


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66099-66101]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0206]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
12 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective December 6, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before December 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-
22194; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0206], using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

John E. Bell (AZ)
Henry L. Chastain (GA)
Thomas R. Crocker (SC)
Gerald W. Fox (PA)
Richard L. Gandee (OH)
Richard H. Kind (WA)
Jason E. Mallette (MS)
Thomas C. Meadows (NC)
David A. Morris (TX)
Richard P. Stanley (MA)
Paul D. Stoddard (NY)
Scott A. Tetter (IL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two-year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 72 FR
62897; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 60021; 76 FR 70210). Each of
these 12 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has
submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues
to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the
vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of
safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the
past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision
exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by December 4, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published

notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 12
individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The
final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was
made on the merits of each case and made only after careful
consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications.
The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications,
experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption
from the vision requirements. That information is available by
consulting the above cited Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-
2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0206 and click the search button. When the new
screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right
hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information required
including the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If
you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, to submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0206 and click
``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all
documents and comments related to the proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: October 25, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-26302 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33874-33875]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62229; File No. SR-ISE-2010-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Delete Outdated References in the Exchange's Schedule of Fees

June 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 24, 2010, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to delete outdated references in the ISE Schedule
of Fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on ISE's Web
site at http://www.ise.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to discontinue the current pilot
program related to transaction fees for P/A Orders and P Orders sent to
the Exchange via the Plan for the purpose of Creating and Operating an
Intermarket Options Linkage (``Old Plan''). The current pilot is set to
expire on July 31, 2010.\3\ When the Exchange became a participant of
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``New
Plan''),\4\ it withdrew from the Old Plan. All of the options exchanges
have also migrated from the Old Plan to the New Plan. With the New Plan
having replaced the Old Plan, there are no longer any participant
exchanges to the Old Plan who send P/A Orders or P Orders. As a result,
the Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to delete
references to fees related to the Old Plan, namely transaction fees for
P/A Orders and P Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60175 (June 25,
2009), 74 FR 32026 (July 6, 2009).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60559 (August 21,
2009), 74 FR 44425 (August 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \5\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule
change simplifies the Exchange's fee schedule by deleting obsolete
references to execution fees that were applicable under the Old Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-53 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-53. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-53 and should be
submitted on or before July 6, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14367 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

After numerous methods and attempts to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes I was finally able to thanks to the technological miracle known as electronic cigarettes.

Unlike the majority of smokers I didn't start smoking until I was in my early twenties. For the next 15 years I smoked Marlboro Lights at a rate of about one carton (10 packs) per week. In my state of Michigan thats roughly $260 per month up in smoke, not cheap.

It was in December of 2012 that I finally had enough. So, I started researching online and over the course of a few days, decided to try electronic cigarettes. Its truly amazing and after a couple days I was done using tobacco cigarettes. I strongly believe this is one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life. My sense of taste and smell has improved. I can workout without my chest tightening up and that "smokers cough" is gone. My fingers and teeth aren't stained like they were when I smoked tobacco cigarettes and I can actually smell the air freshener in my car now! I have even helped co-workers, friends and family to stop smoking with electronic cigarettes. My only regret is that I didn't switch to electronic cigarettes sooner.

This is creating jobs and driving innovation globally and most importantly right here in America where job creation has become a thing of the past. Besides the overall health benefits of electronic cigarettes compared to tobacco cigarettes nothing concerns me more than that. I am in the process of starting my own "Vape Shop" solely dedicated to electronic cigarettes not only for myself but to help smokers trying to quit deadly tobacco cigarettes. This technology is providing a way for Americans to start their own business, become entrepreneurs and provide for their families.

Even though I am almost 40 years old I still like flavors. Aside from the health benefits the variety of flavors to choose from is what makes electronic cigarettes that much more of a viable option to switch from tobacco cigarettes. Nobody is trying to market these products to children and lets be honest, nothing will not stop kids from being kids. There are good parents and not so good parents out there and more regulation cannot change that.

Can we come together and agree that electronic cigarettes are NOT tobacco products? If there must be regulation can we separate electronic cigarettes from tobacco products, I certainly hope so. The Proposed Rule as written would destroy thousands of jobs and small businesses in addition to causing countless electronic cigarette users to go back to smoking deadly tobacco cigarettes. There has to be a reasonable solution to this.

The amount of support and information within the electronic cigarette community is unlike anything I have ever seen before and I am extremely proud to be a part of it.

This is TECHNOLOGY not TOBACCO.

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.