  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Subject:	Minutes of 10/19/05 ChemSAC Meeting

From:		Chemistry Science Advisory Council

		Health Effects Division

To:		Chemistry Interest Group

		Health Effects Division

Attendees:	Yvonne Barnes, Tom Bloem, Hong Chen (IR-4), Leung Cheng,
Ramé Cromwell, Bill Cutchin, Michael Doherty (Minutes), Will Donovan
(Chair), George Kramer, Chris Olinger, Thurston Morton, Yuen-shaung NG,
Bernie Schneider, Bill Wassell

A.  Amendment to Crop Group 3 (B. Schneider/H. Chen).

The SAC discussed a number of proposed changes to Crop Group 3 (Bulb
vegetables).  The proposed changes and recommendations are presented in
detail in a forthcoming memorandum from B. Schneider to B. Madden and
are outlined below.

1.  Amend the name of the crop group from “Crop Group 3:  Bulb
Vegetables (Allium spp.) Group” to “Crop Group 3:  Bulb Vegetables
Group.”

2.  Expand the group from 7 commodities to 25 commodities.

3.  Add Subgroup 3A:  Bulb onion subgroup and Subgroup 3B:  Green onion
subgroup.

4.  Amend the terminology from “dry bulb” to “bulb.”

5.  Amend the scientific names in 40 CFR 180.41 and 40 CFR 180.1(h) as
appropriate.

The SAC concurred on all of these items, adding that the subgroup names
in Item 3 be changed to “Onion, Bulb, Subgroup 3A” and “Onion,
Green, Subgroup 3B” in keeping with the current conventions.

Dr. Schneider made the following additional recommendations:

6.  Amend the commodity definitions in 40 CFR 180.1(h) to reflect
changes in the bulb vegetables crop group.

7.  Include fresh chive leaves and fresh Chinese chive leaves in the
expanded Crop Group 3.  Dried chive leaves will remain in Herb and Spice
group.

8.  Update HED SOPs 99.6 (blended/non-blended foods)and 2000.1
(commodity translations) to reflect changes to the bulb vegetable crop
group.

9.  Provide guidance on the correct terminology for the bulb vegetable
crop group and the new subgroups.

The SAC concurred on those recommendations as well.

B.  Transgenic glyphosate-tolerant crop testing proposal (G. Kramer)

DuPont has proposed an alternative study design for assessing residues
of glyphosate and n-acetyl glyphosate in transgenic crops.  EPA had
previously suggested four side-by-side bridging trials per crop
conducted in different growing regions in order to establish that the
current glyphosate tolerances are adequate to cover residues in
transgenic crops.  DuPont has proposed increasing the number of trials
by 50% and foregoing any side-by-side comparison using “Roundup
Ready” crops.  This request is based on DuPont’s concerns about
using a Monsanto proprietary product in their field trials.

The SAC determined that, in the absence of bridging data, a full set of
field trials (as specified in OPPTS 860.1500) would be required.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10137-10138]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03859]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0941]

Port Access Route Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and
Bering Sea

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces three public meetings to receive
comments on a port access route study (PARS) published in the Federal
Register on December 5, 2014, under the title ``Port Access Route
Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering Sea.'' The goal of
this study is to help reduce the risk of marine casualties and increase
the efficiency of vessel traffic in the region. The recommendations of
the study may lead to future rulemaking action or appropriate
international agreements.

DATES: The first meeting will be held in Juneau, Alaska on March 9,
2015 from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. The second meeting will be held in
Anchorage, Alaska on March 30, 2015 from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. The third
and final meeting will be held in Nome, Alaska on April 2, 2015 from 3
p.m. to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Meeting Locations: Juneau Meeting: Elizabeth Peratrovich
Event Center located at 320 W. Wiloughby Ave, Juneau, AK 99801;
Anchorage Meeting: Hotel Captain Cook located at 939 West 5th Ave.,
Anchorage, AK 99501; Nome Meeting: City Of Nome Council Chambers
located at 102 Division St, Nome, AK 99762.
    Comment submission: You may submit comments associated with docket
number USCG-2014-0941 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of study or any of the meetings, call or email LT Kody Stitz,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpw); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. David Seris, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District (dpw); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials as well as attending a public meeting.
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Requirement for Port Access Route Studies

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C.
1223(c)), the Commandant of the Coast Guard may designate necessary
fairways and traffic separation schemes (TSSs) to provide safe access
routes for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. ports.
    Schematic of proposed vessel routing system: A chart showing the
Coast Guard's proposed two-way route can be downloaded from http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-2014-0941'' into the search bar and
click search, next to the displayed search results click ``Open Docket
Folder'', which will display all comments and documents associated with
this docket.

Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact LT Kody Stitz at the telephone number or email address provided
under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Meeting Details

    All meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the meetings is
to increase awareness of the PARS and to receive feedback and comments
from the public regarding the PARS. Each meeting will begin with the
Coast Guard meeting facilitator presenting an explanation of and the
purpose for the PARS along with an overview of the Coast Guard's
proposed two-way route through the region. Public participants will
then be able to provide comments and feedback to the meeting
facilitator. Public participants are not required to stay for the
entire meeting duration as the process of the meeting facilitator
presenting the PARS information followed by a public comment period
will be repeated hourly throughout the allotted meeting time.

    Copies of the PARS announced in the Federal Register on December 5,
2014 as well as the schematic showing the two-way route will be
available at the public meeting. The meeting facilitator will accept
written comments from participants who wish to comment in writing. All
written comments received by the meeting facilitator will be uploaded
to the PARS docket (USCG-2014-0941) without change. Comments made
verbally will be summarized by the meeting facilitator and incorporated
into the study. The public comment period closes on June 3, 2015 and
comments may be submitted up until that time using one of the methods
detailed under the COMMENT SUBMISSION section of this document. The
Coast Guard will not make any decisions at the meetings and will only
begin analyzing the comments and information received after the public
comment period closes on June 3, 2015.

D.B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-03859 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48256-48258]
[DOCID:fr22se09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP03-75-006; CP05-361-004]

Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed NGL Extraction Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

September 15, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the NGL Extraction Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Freeport LNG
Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) on Quintana Island near Freeport,
Texas. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on October 15, 2009.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Freeport LNG is seeking authorization to construct an NGL
extraction system that would integrate with and complement existing
authorized facilities at the Quintana Island terminal. Through
completion of the NGL Extraction Project, Freeport LNG would be able to
meet composition specifications of the downstream pipelines for natural
gas delivered through the terminal's send out pipeline and maintain
potential diversity in LNG sources.
    Freeport LNG is proposing to:
     Install two modular trains (Trains 1 and 2) which each
would include one expander/compressor, one reflux heat exchanger, and
two gas heat exchangers;
     Install two non-modular NGL recovery columns
(Demethanizers) with side and bottom heat exchangers;
     Install one non-modular fractionator column (Depropanizer)
with ancillary condensing and reboiling equipment;
     Install 540 feet of aboveground 8-inch-diameter plant
pipeline; and
     Install 540 feet of aboveground 12-inch-diameter plant
pipeline.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If approved, Freeport LNG proposes to commence construction of the
proposed facilities on or about July 1, 2010.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the NGL Extraction Project would be located wholly
within the existing authorized footprint of the terminal site.
Approximately 0.74 acres would be impacted where 0.38 acres would be
used for temporary workspaces and 0.36 acres would be the permanent
footprint for new facilities.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils,
     Land use,
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands,
     Cultural resources,
     Vegetation and wildlife,
     Air quality and noise,
     Endangered and threatened species, and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public
participation section below.
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Freeport LNG. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Potential impacts may occur to waterbodies.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about NGL Extraction Project. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
October 15, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP03-75-006 and CP05-361-004 with
your submission. The docket number can be found on the

front of this notice. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22720 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39315-39317]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67255; File No. SR-BOX-2012-009)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposal To Extend a Pilot
Program That Permits BOX to Have No Minimum Size Requirement for Orders
Entered Into the Price Improvement Period

June 26, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on June 25, 2012, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend proposes to amend Interpretive
Material to Rule 7150 (Price Improvement Period ``PIP'') to extend a
pilot program that permits the Exchange to have no minimum size
requirement for orders entered into the PIP (``PIP Pilot Program'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site at http://boxexchange.com, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the PIP Pilot
Program for twelve additional months. The PIP Pilot Program allows the
Exchange to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into
the PIP.\4\ The Exchange has committed to provide certain data to the
Commission during the PIP Pilot Program.\5\ The proposed rule change
retains the text of IM-7150-1 to Rule 7150 and seeks to extend the
operation of the PIP Pilot Program until July 18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 18,
2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66871 (April 27, 2012)
77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (File No.10-206, In the Matter of the
Application of BOX Options Exchange LLC for Registration as a
National Securities Exchange Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission).
    \5\ Id. at 26334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the PIP Pilot Program guarantees
Participants the right to trade with their customer orders that are
less than 50 contracts. In particular, any order entered into the PIP
is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at
least equal to the national best bid or offer. In further support of
this proposed rule change, the Exchange will submit to the Commission
monthly a PIP Pilot Program Report, offering detailed data from, and
analysis of, the PIP Pilot Program.
    To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIP Pilot Program,
the Exchange provides the following additional information each month:
(1) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into the
PIP auction; (2) The percentage of all orders of 50 contracts or
greater sent to the Exchange that are entered into the PIP auction; (3)
The spread in the option, at the time an order of 50 contracts or
greater is submitted to the PIP auction; (4) The percentage of PIP
trades executed at the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') plus $.01,
plus $.02, plus $.03, etc.; and (5) The number of orders submitted by
Order Flow Providers (``OFPs'') when the spread was at a particular
increment (e.g., $.05, $.10, $.15, etc.). Also, relative to item 5
above, for each spread, BOX provides the percentage of contracts in
orders of fewer than 50 contracts submitted to the PIP that were traded

by: (a) The OFP that submitted the order to the PIP; (b) BOX Market
Makers assigned to the class; (c) other BOX Participants; (d) Public
Customer Orders (including Customer PIP Orders (``CPOs'')); and (e)
unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during the
PIP). Additionally, for each spread, BOX provides the percentage of
contracts in orders of 50 contracts or greater submitted to the PIP
that were traded by: (a) The OFP that submitted the order to the PIP;
(b) BOX Market Makers assigned to the class; (c) other BOX
Participants; (d) Public Customer Orders (including Customer PIP Orders
(``CPOs'')); and (e) unrelated orders. Further, BOX provides, for the
first and third Wednesday of each month, the: (a) Total number of PIP
auctions on that date; (b) number of PIP auctions where the order
submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts; (c) number of PIP
auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts or
greater; (d) number of PIP auctions where the number of Participants
(excluding the Initiating Participant) was zero, one, two, three, four,
etc. Finally, during the PIP Pilot, BOX provides information each month
with respect to situations in which the PIP is terminated prematurely
or a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order immediately execute
with a PIP Order before the PIP's conclusion. The following information
is provided: (1) The number of times that a Market Order, Limit Order,
or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the same side of the market as
the PIP Order prematurely terminated the PIP, and (a) the number of
times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that
initiated the PIP that was terminated, and (b) the number of times such
orders were entered by a firm (or an affiliate of such firm) that
participated in the execution of the PIP Order; (2) For the orders
addressed in each of 1(a) and 1(b) above, the percentage of PIP
premature terminations due to the receipt, during the PIP, of a Market
Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the same
side of the market as the PIP Order; and the average amount of price
improvement provided to the PIP Order where the PIP is prematurely
terminated; (3) The number of times that a Market Order, Limit Order,
or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the opposite side of the market
as the PIP Order immediately executed against the PIP Order, and (a)
the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or
affiliated) firm that initiated the PIP, and (b) the number of times
such orders were entered by a firm (or an affiliate of such firm) that
participated in the execution of the PIP Order; (4) For the orders
addressed in each of 3(a) and 3(b) above, the percentage of PIP early
executions due to the receipt, during the PIP, of a Market Order, Limit
Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the opposite side of the
market as the PIP Order; and the average amount of price improvement
provided to the PIP Order where the PIP Order is immediately executed;
and (5) The average amount of price improvement provided to the PIP
Order when the PIP runs for one hundred milliseconds.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the data demonstrates that there is
sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the PIP Pilot Program
for an additional twelve months. The Exchange represents that the Pilot
Program is designed to provide investors with real and significant
price improvement regardless of the size of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that such waiver will permit the PIP Pilot Program to continue
without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving operative delay as of July 18,
2012 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted,
thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result
from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the
Commission notes that, because the filing was submitted for immediate
effectiveness on June 25, 2012 the fact that the current rule provision
does not expire until July 18, 2012 will afford interested parties the
opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it
to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative on July 18, 2012.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BOX-2012-009 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-BOX-2012-009. 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
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 No. SR-BOX-2012-009 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16088 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12821-12822]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0104]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition submitted on May 9, 2018, by Mr. J. Kevin Byrne (the
petitioner) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The
petition requests that the Agency ``undertake a defects investigation''
into ``rust-related fuel tank detachment of Isuzu Rodeo fuel tanks.''
The petitioner bases his request upon a partial fuel tank detachment he
experienced on his vehicle, a model year (MY) 2004 Isuzu Rodeo, and
another complaint he found in NHTSA's online complaint database
involving a MY 2001 Isuzu Rodeo. The petitioner also asserts that the
partial fuel tank detachment is covered by NHTSA Recall Number 13V-547.
    On May 23, 2018, ODI opened Defect Petition (DP) 18-001 to evaluate
the petitioner's concerns. After reviewing the information provided by
the petitioner and field data regarding fuel tank detachment in MY 2001
through 2004 Isuzu Rodeos and similarly equipped vehicles, NHTSA has
concluded that the issues raised by the petition do not warrant a
defect investigation. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Martens, Vehicle Defects
Division-D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested persons may petition NHTSA
requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine
whether a motor vehicle or an item of replacement motor vehicle
equipment fails to comply with applicable motor vehicle safety
standards or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety.
Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the

Agency conducts a technical review (Sec.  [thinsp]552.6) of the
petition, material submitted with the petition, and any appropriate
additional information. After considering the technical review and
taking into account appropriate factors, the Agency will grant or deny
the petition (Sec.  [thinsp]552.8).

Overview of the Petition

    On April 10, 2018, the petitioner submitted a petition to NHTSA
requesting that the Agency ``undertake a defects investigation'' of
``rust-related detachment of Isuzu Rodeo fuel tanks'' (NHTSA ID
11091788). The petitioner alleged that the fuel tank on his MY 2004
Isuzu Rodeo partially detached from his vehicle due to corrosion of the
parts that attached the fuel tank to his vehicle, namely the metal
bracket-straps, bolts, and a horizontal jacket. Furthermore, the
petitioner asserted that the partial fuel tank detachment on his
vehicle should be covered by NHTSA Recall Number 13V-547. Finally, the
petitioner cited a complaint about a MY 2001 Isuzu Rodeo found in
NHTSA's complaint database under NHTSA ID 10992150, which the
petitioner asserted ``points to a history of rust-related detachment of
Isuzu Rodeo fuel tanks.'' The petition followed a letter that the
petitioner had previously sent to the Agency on April 10, 2018, which
expressed concern about repairs that the petitioner had to complete on
his vehicle and the cost of those repairs.

ODI's Analysis of the Defect Petition

    On May 23, 2018, ODI opened DP18-001 to evaluate the petitioner's
request for a defect investigation. ODI considers vehicle age,
environment, detectability, and severity when assessing whether
complaints alleging corrosion-related failures indicate a potential
defect trend. Failures that occur later in a vehicle's life, or display
evidence of severe general corrosion to underbody components, are
usually indicative of expected wear-and-tear from exposure to highly
corrosive environments for an extended period, or may result from
improper care and maintenance. While every vehicle has the potential to
experience corrosion in its lifetime, failures that develop earlier in
a vehicle's life or vehicles that display evidence of localized
corrosion damage to specific safety-critical components are more likely
to indicate potential defects related to corrosion protection or
moisture retention, which may indicate that further investigation is
appropriate. However, although a manufacturing or design defect may
contribute to premature corrosion-related failures to vehicle underbody
components, a severe operating environment or improper care and
maintenance can also cause such failures. Annual inspections, monthly
cleaning, and detecting and repairing problems early can help to
prevent such problems or lessen their impact.
    The petitioner purchased the subject 2004 Isuzu Rodeo, as a used
vehicle, in August 2013. At that time, the vehicle had been in service
for approximately nine years and had been driven approximately 122,000
miles. The vehicle has been registered in the Saint Paul, Minnesota,
metropolitan area, a region with high winter road salt use, for almost
all its service life. When the petitioner's mechanic completed the fuel
tank retention repairs on the petitioner's vehicle in July 2017, the
vehicle had been in service for approximately 13 years and driven
roughly 155,000 miles.
    While the petitioner noted that his vehicle is covered by NHTSA
Recall Number 13V-547, that recall, which was initiated by Isuzu in
October 2013, is distinct from the partial fuel tank detachment that
the petitioner's vehicle experienced. Recall Number 13V-547 addresses a
rear suspension link bracket defect in certain MY 2003 and 2004 Isuzu
Rodeo and Axiom vehicles, and MY 2003 Isuzu Rodeo Sport vehicles, which
were originally sold or registered in certain states, including
Minnesota, that have high winter road salt usage. While Recall Number
13V-547 addresses a defect of the rear suspension link bracket, which
can affect the vehicle's handling and control, the petitioner's partial
fuel tank detachment, according to the available information, appears
to have been caused by corrosion of parts that attach the fuel tank to
the vehicle. In any event, those parts that attach the petitioner's
fuel tank to his vehicle are not covered by Recall Number 13V-547.
    After reviewing the concerns raised in the petition, ODI did not
find evidence of a defect trend during its evaluation of DP18-001.
ODI's evaluation included all MY 2001 through 2004 Isuzu Rodeo, MY 2002
through 2004 Isuzu Axiom, and MY 2001 through 2002 Honda Passport
vehicles (hereinafter ``the subject vehicles'') equipped with the same
fuel tank and tank retention shield part numbers as the petitioner's
vehicle. Design change information provided by Isuzu indicates that the
fuel tank retention shield used to secure the tank to the vehicle was
modified in 2001 to improve the corrosion resistance of the part. The
modification was implemented as a running change in early MY 2002
production. Aside from the petitioner's vehicle, ODI has not identified
any other incidents of complete or partial fuel tank detachment in the
subject vehicles equipped with the modified retention shield.
    Similarly, ODI did not find evidence of a defect trend in vehicles
that are not equipped with the modified retention shield. ODI
identified eighteen (18) complaints alleging complete or partial
detachment in the subject vehicles produced before the tank shield
modification. Analysis of these complaints found that they occurred in
older vehicles that were driven in states with high winter road salt
usage (i.e., roads with a corrosive environment). ODI also noted
evidence of severe general underbody corrosion in complaints that
included photographs of the fuel tank detachment. Five (5) of the
detachment complaints included narratives indicating that the
detachment was severe enough that tank contact with the ground may have
occurred. None of the incidents resulted in any reported fuel leakage
or fire in any of the subject vehicles analyzed as part of this
petition evaluation.

Conclusion

    After a review of the available data, ODI has not identified
evidence of a defect trend for corrosion-related fuel tank detachments
in the MY 2004 Isuzu Rodeo or similarly equipped vehicles. The damage
that may result in tank retention concerns appears to occur
progressively over many years with ample opportunity for detection and
repair. Furthermore, ODI has not identified any crashes, fires,
injuries, or fuel leaks associated with fuel tank retention failures in
a population of vehicles that currently ranges from 16 to 19 years old.
In addition, the partial fuel tank detachment that the petitioner
experienced is not within the scope of NHTSA Recall Number 13V-547.
    Accordingly, the Agency is denying the petition. A summary of ODI's
analysis of this petition will be published in the Federal Register and
is also available in the investigative file for this action.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-04384 Filed 3-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P