[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37299]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0761]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Washington Street S136 Bridge
across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0 at Norwalk, Connecticut. This
deviation is necessary to facilitate electrical repairs and will allow
the owner to temporarily close the draw for a period not to exceed 10
hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on August 14, 2017
through 5 a.m. on August 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0761, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4334, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, the Connecticut
Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order
to facilitate repair and replacement of electrical conduits controlling
span power lock and control.
    The Washington Street S136 Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile
0.0 at Norwalk, Connecticut is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a
vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low
water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(a).
    The temporary deviation will allow the Washington Street S136
Bridge to remain closed from 7 p.m. on August 14, 2017 through 5 a.m.
on August 15, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal
recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination
with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-
term closure of the draw.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so
at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 4, 2017.
Christopher J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-16825 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66345-66347]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26155]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0439; FRL-10002-89-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
(MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
from Metal Parts and Products Coating Operations, and Polyester Resin
Operations.
    We are proposing to approve two local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) as well as
proposing to approve negative declarations for three subcategories of
control techniques guidelines (CTG) sources in the MDAQMD.
    In addition, we are proposing to convert the partial conditional
approval of the District's reasonably available control technology
(RACT) SIPs for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, as it applies to
these two rules, to a full approval.
    We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0439 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules and negative
declarations?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submissions?
    B. Do the submissions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules and the negative declarations addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they were amended/adopted by the
local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

                                Table 1--Submitted Rule and Negative Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Amended/
                Local agency                            Document title                adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD.....................................  Rule 1115 Metal Parts and Products       01/22/2018      05/23/2018
                                              Coating Operations.
MDAQMD.....................................  Rule 1162 Polyester Resin                04/23/2018      07/16/2018
                                              Operations.
MDAQMD.....................................  Federal Negative Declarations for        04/23/2018      07/16/2018
                                              Two Control Techniques Guidelines
                                              Source Categories.
MDAQMD.....................................  Federal Negative Declaration for         10/22/2018      12/07/2018
                                              One Control Techniques Guidelines
                                              Source Category (Motor Vehicle
                                              Materials).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 23, 2018, the submittal for MDAQMD Rule 1115 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On January 16,
2019, the submittal for Rule 1162 was deemed by operation of law to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. On January
16, 2019, the submittal for Federal Negative Declarations for Two
Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories was deemed by operation
of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.
On June 7, 2019, the submittal for Federal Negative Declaration for One
Control Techniques Guidelines Source Category (Motor Vehicle Materials)
was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V.

B. Are there other versions of these rules and negative declarations?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1115 into the SIP on
December 23, 1997 (62 FR 67002). There are no previous versions of the
negative declarations in the MDAQMD portion of the California SIP for
the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). We approved an earlier version of Rule 1162 into the SIP on
November 24, 2008 (73 FR 70883). The MDAQMD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved version of Rule 1162 on August 28, 2017, and CARB
submitted the revised rule to us on October 3, 2017. We have not yet
acted on the October 3, 2017 submittal. In its July 16, 2018 submittal,
the District states that it expects that its submittal will ``supersede
the submission of the August 28, 2017 amendment of Rule 1162.'' We
consider the July 16, 2018 submittal to supersede this earlier
submittal and therefore are proposing to take action only on the July
16, 2018 submittal.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Emissions of VOC contribute to ground-level ozone, smog, and
particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control emissions of VOC. Rule 1115 controls VOC emitted from coating
operations associated with metal parts and products, and Rule 1162
controls VOC emitted from polyester resin operations, including
fiberglass boat manufacturing. The EPA's technical support documents
(TSDs) have more information about these rules, negative declarations,
and the EPA's evaluations thereof.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submissions?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources
covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MDAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified
as Severe for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305).
Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
    States should also submit for SIP approval negative declarations
for those source categories for which they have not adopted CTG-based
regulations (because they have no sources above the CTG-recommended
applicability threshold), regardless of whether such negative
declarations were made for an earlier SIP.\1\ To do so, the submittal
should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG
requirements currently exist in the portion of the ozone nonattainment
area that is regulated by the MDAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 57 FR 13498, 13512 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA is evaluating Rule 1115 and Rule 1162 to
determine whether the updated rules meet the District's commitment to
cure the deficiencies identified in the February 12, 2018 partial
conditional approval of the District's RACT SIP \2\ with respect to
these two rules. Rules 1115 and 1162 did not meet RACT because two CTGs
pertaining to these rules were issued in 2008 and the rules were
written and entered into the SIP before the issuance of the 2008 CTGs.
The rules were updated to meet the current CTG requirements and the
MDAQMD made valid negative declarations where it was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 83 FR 5921 (February 12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources--Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products'' (EPA-450/2-78-15, June 1978).
    5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings'' (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008).
    6. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials'' (EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008).
    7. 40 CFR part 63 Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing.
    8. 40 CFR part 63 Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production.

B. Do the submissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
Additionally, the updates to Rules 1115 and 1162 cure the deficiencies
identified in the partial conditional approval of the District's RACT
SIP with respect to these two rules. Moreover, the negative
declarations satisfy the certification requirement, and the EPA's
independent research yielded no indication of sources in the MDAQMD
portion of the nonattainment area that would be subject to the CTG
subcategories. As explained in more detail in our TSDs, the EPA's
approval of these rules and negative declarations would satisfy the
District's RACT requirements for the following three CTGs: ``Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume VI:
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' (EPA-450/2-
78-15), ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings'' (EPA-453/R-08-003), and ``Control Techniques
Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials'' (EPA-453/R-08-
004). The TSDs have more information on our evaluations.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the local agency
modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules and the negative declarations because
they fulfill all relevant requirements. In addition, we propose to
convert the partial conditional approval of the District's RACT SIP
with respect to Rule 1115 and Rule 1162 as found in 40 CFR
52.248(d)(1), to a full approval. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until January 3, 2020. If we take final action
to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory

text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MDAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rules do 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, PM, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, VOC.

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

    Dated: November 19, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-26155 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21280-21283]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08795]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74718; File No. SR-C2-2015-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Exchange Opening Procedures

April 13, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 2, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.11 to provide additional
clarity regarding the Exchange's opening procedures. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided below. (additions are italicized;
deletions are [bracketed])

* * * * *

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.11. Openings (and sometimes Closings)

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Opening Conditions: Subject to subparagraph (f) below, the
System will not open a series if one of the following conditions is
met:
    (1) There is no quote present in the series;
    (2) The opening price is not within an acceptable range (as
determined by the Exchange) compared to the lowest quote offer and
the highest quote bid;
    (3) The opening trade would be at a price that is not the NBBO;
or
    (4) The opening trade would leave a market order imbalance
(i.e., there are more market orders to buy or to sell for the
particular series than can be satisfied by the limit orders, quotes
and market orders on the opposite side); however, in series that
will open at a minimum price increment (e.g., at a price of $0.05
or, in penny series, at a price of $0.01), the System will open even
if a sell market order imbalance exists.
    (f) Presence of Opening Conditions:
    (1) If the condition in paragraph (e)(1) is present, the System
will check to see if there is an NBBO quote on another market that
falls within the acceptable opening range. If such an NBBO quote is
present, the series will open and expose the marketable order(s) at
the NBBO price. If such an NBBO quote is not present, the System
will not open the series and will send a notification to
Participants indicating the reason.
    (2) If the condition in paragraph (e)(2) is present, the System
will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single
clearing price within the acceptable range and then expose the
remaining marketable order(s) at the widest price point within the
acceptable opening range or the NBBO price, whichever is better.
    (3) If the condition in paragraph (e)(3) is present, the System
will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single
clearing price within the acceptable opening range or the NBBO
price, whichever is better, and then expose the remaining marketable
order(s) at the NBBO price.
    (4) If the condition in paragraph (e)(4) is present, the System
will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a single
clearing price and then expose the remaining marketable order(s) at
the widest price point within the acceptable opening range or the
NBBO price, whichever is better.
    (g)--(j) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies
    .01-.03 No change.
    .04 Opening Auction Exposure: The Exchange may determine to
expose orders at the opening via auction including under any of the
scenarios described in paragraphs (f)(1)-(4) above. In such cases,
the exposure process will be conducted via the Hybrid Agency Liaison
(``HAL'') pursuant to Rule 6.18. Any remaining balance of orders not
executed via HAL on the opening will be booked at their limit price
to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10 except that any remaining
balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening that are
priced, or would be executed at a price, that is not within an
acceptable tick distance from the initial HAL price will be
cancelled. An ``acceptable tick distance'' (``ATD'') shall be
determined by the Exchange on a series-by-series and premium basis
and shall be no less than 2 minimum increment ticks. When the HAL
Opening Auction Exposure procedure is activated, the ATD will be the
same as the ATD established under Rule 6.17.

* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt Interpretation and Policy .04 to
Rule 6.11 relating to the Exchange's opening procedures to provide
additional clarity in the Rules regarding the manner in which
marketable orders may be exposed at the opening of trading.
Specifically, proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 would
provide that the Exchange may determine to expose marketable orders on
the opening via the Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') auction procedures
described in Rule 6.18.\4\ Proposed

Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 would also provide that any
remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening will be
booked at their limit price to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10 \5\
except that any remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the
opening that are priced, or would be executed at a price, that is not
within an acceptable tick distance from the initial HAL price will be
cancelled..[sic] \6\ The proposed Interpretation and Policy is
substantially based, in all material respects, on the HAL Opening
Procedure set forth in Interpretation and Policy .03 to Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') Rule 6.2B (Hybrid Opening
System (``HOSS'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Such determination as to whether to expose marketable orders
on the opening via the HAL auction procedures described in Rule 6.18
would be made prior to activation and announced via Regulatory
Circular.
    \5\ Notably, certain order types, or portions thereof, may not,
by rule, be booked. See, e.g., Rule 6.10(6) (Immediate-or-Cancel
Order); 6.10(7) (Opening Rotation Order). Accordingly, under
proposed Interpretation .04 to Rule 6.11, any remaining balance of
orders not executed via HAL on the opening would be booked at their
limit price, but only to the extent consistent with Rule 6.10.
    \6\ This includes a market order, which cannot be filled in
total. In such cases, the remainder of a market order would be
cancelled when the order cannot be filled on an away exchange and no
quotes are present on C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current opening procedures, pre-opening orders
and quotes and orders resting in the book from the prior business day
are matched in the Exchange's automated trading system (``System'') at
a single clearing price.\7\ Bids and offers that cannot be matched at a
single clearing price are left to rest in the book. Subject to certain
conditions, the System will not open a series for trading if there are
no quotes in the series, the opening price is not within an acceptable
range (as determined by the Exchange) compared to the lowest quote
offer and the highest quote bid \8\ or at a price at or within the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO''), or the opening trade would leave
an order imbalance.\9\ If one of these conditions is present at the
opening, the Exchange will follow the opening procedures set forth in
Rule 6.11(f) (as described below) to open trading in the affected
series. Notably, each of the procedures described in Rule 6.11(f)
explicitly permit the Exchange to expose marketable orders at the
opening of trading.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In determining the priority of orders and quotes to be
traded at a single clearing price, the System gives priority to
market orders first, then to limit orders and quotes whose price is
better than the opening price, and then to limit orders and quotes
at the opening price. See Rule 6.11(g)(1).
    \8\ The Exchange will not automatically execute eligible orders
that are marketable if (1) the width between the national best bid
and national best offer is not within an acceptable price range (as
determined by the Exchange on a series by series basis for market
orders and/or marketable limit orders and announced to the Trading
Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular), or (2) the execution would
follow an initial partial execution on the Exchange and would be at
a subsequent price that is not within an acceptable tick distance
from the initial execution (as determined by the Exchange on a
series by series and premium basis for market orders and/or
marketable limit orders and announced to the Trading Permit Holders
via Regulatory Circular). The ``acceptable price range'' (``APR'')
shall be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and
shall be no less than: $0.375 between the bid and offer for each
option contract for which the bid is less than $2, $0.60 where the
bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, $0.75 where the bid is
more than $5 but does not exceed $10, $1.20 where the bid is more
than $10 but does not exceed $20, and $1.50 where the bid is more
than $20. An ``acceptable tick distance'' (``ATD'') shall be no less
than 2 minimum increment ticks. See Rule 6.17.
    \9\ See Rule 6.11(e).
    \10\ See also Rule 6.11(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, under Rule 6.11(f)(1), if a marketable order is
resting in the book of a series for which no quotes are disseminated on
the Exchange, the System will look for another market that is quoting
the NBBO within an acceptable opening price range. If such quotes
exist, the System will open the series and expose the marketable order
at the NBBO. If there are no quotes on C2 and no quotes on any away
exchange that are within the APR for the series, the System will not
open the series and will send a notification to participants indicating
the reason. Thus, assume that the NBBO for a particular option is
$1.00-$1.20 for 100 contracts on either side. The APR in the series is
set at $0.50 above the $0.375 minimum APR for series with quote bids
less than $2.00. There are no quotes in the series on C2, but there is
a market order to buy 100 contracts in the book. In this case, the
System would verify that the NBBO quotes on the away exchange were
within the APR for the series (the midpoint of the NBBO (i.e. $1.00-
$1.20) plus or minus half of the APR (i.e. $0.25 in either direction of
the midpoint or $0.85-$1.35) and, if within the acceptable opening
range (i.e. $1.20 is within the APR), expose the marketable buy order
at the NBO price of $1.20.
    Under Rule 6.11(f)(2), if the opening price is not within an
acceptable range compared to the lowest quote offer and highest quote
bid, the System will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at
a single clearing price within the acceptable range and then expose the
remaining marketable order(s) at the widest price point within the
acceptable price range or the NBBO price, whichever is better. For
example, assume that the NBBO for a particular option is $0.90-$1.50
for 100 contracts on either side. The highest quote bid and lowest
quote offer at C2 are $0.80-$1.50 each for 100 contracts. Again, the
APR for series in which the quote bid is less than $2.00 is $0.50 and
there is a customer order in the book to buy 100 contracts at the
market price. In this case, the System would check the marketable price
of $1.50 for the trade against the APR for the series (i.e. the
midpoint between the highest bid and lowest offer (i.e. $1.15) plus or
minus half of the APR (i.e. $0.25) or $0.90-$1.40) and determine that
the marketable price of $1.50 would not be within the APR. The System
would then expose the order at the widest point within the APR (i.e.
$1.40) or the NBBO (i.e. $1.50), whichever is better. Thus, in this
case the order would be exposed at $1.40 (and booked provided there is
no contra interest expressed at $1.40 or better during the exposure
period).
    Similarly, Rule 6.11(f)(3) provides that if the opening trade would
be at a price that is not the NBBO, the System will match orders and
quotes to the extent possible at a single clearing price within the APR
or the NBBO, whichever is better, and then expose the remaining
marketable order(s) at the NBBO. For example, assume that the NBBO for
a particular option is $0.05-$1.25 for 100 contracts on either side.
The highest quote bid and lowest quote offer on C2 are $0.05-$1.75
respectively, each for 100 contracts. Again, because the quote bid for
the series is less than $2.00, the APR is $0.50. A customer order to
buy 100 contracts at the market is resting in the book. In this case,
the System would be unable to match the market with any quote (i.e.
$1.75) within the APR (i.e. $1.10 (the midpoint between the highest bid
and lowest offer (i.e. $0.85) plus or minus half of the APR (i.e.
$0.25) or $0.60-$1.10) or the NBO of $1.25. Accordingly, the System
would expose the order at the NBO of $1.25.
    Finally, if the opening trade would leave a market order imbalance,
the System will match orders and quotes to the extent possible at a
single clearing price and then expose the remaining marketable order(s)
at the widest price point within the APR or the NBBO, whichever is
better pursuant to Rule 6.11(f)(4). For example, assume that the NBBO
for a particular option is $1.00-$1.20 with quotes for 100 contracts on
each side. The highest quote bid on CBOE is $1.00 for 100 contracts and
lowest quote offer is $1.20 for 10 contracts. The quote bid being less
than $2.00, the APR is $0.50. There is a customer order in the book to
buy 100 contracts at the market. There are no other quotes or orders in
the book. In this case, the System would match the

orders and quotes at $1.20 (within the APR of $0.85-$1.35) and allocate
10 contracts according to the matching algorithm in effect in the class
and the applicable rules. The remaining 90 contracts would then be
exposed at the better of the widest point within the APR or the NBO (in
this case $1.20). Thus, each of the four scenarios for permitting the
opening of trading in a series in which one of the four conditions
described in Rule 6.11(e) is present contemplate exposing marketable
orders at the NBBO (or, if better, the widest point of the APR).
    Although Rule 6.11 expressly permits exposure of orders on the
open, Rule 6.11does not set forth a specific process by which orders
will be exposed or specify how such orders be handled after they are
exposed.\11\ While the Exchange believes that Rule 6.11(g)(2) makes
clear that such exposure may be via auction,\12\ the Exchange also
believes that additional detail should be added to the Rules to further
clarify the auction process on the opening.\13\ Proposed Interpretation
and Policy .04 to Rule 6.11 is intended to add this additional detail
in the Rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.11 to
include reference to the Exchange's HAL procedures. The Interpretation
and Policy would provide that the Exchange could determine to expose
orders at the opening via auction including under any of the scenarios
described in paragraphs (f)(1)-(4) above and that in such cases, the
exposure process would be conducted via HAL pursuant to Rule 6.18.\14\
The Exchange notes that proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule
6.11, including this provision, is substantially similar in all
material respects to Interpretation and Policy .03 to CBOE Rule 6.2B,
setting forth CBOE's HAL Opening Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 6.11(g)(2) providing that all orders exposed
pursuant to Rule 6.11 shall be exposed for a period of time
designated by the Exchange that does not exceed 1.5 seconds.
    \12\ Under Rule 6.11(g)(2), ``All orders exposed pursuant to
this Rule [6.11 (Openings (and sometimes closings))] shall be
exposed for a period of time which shall not exceed 1.5 seconds.
Once an exposed order has received a response, a matching period
begins which shall last for a period of time designated by the
Exchange that shall not exceed 1 second.'' Accordingly, in context,
the Exchange interprets the term ``expose'' to mean a designated
period of time in which an interest will be represented to the
trading crowd in an effort to solicit order responses or contra
interests to trade against (i.e. an auction).
    \13\ When C2 launched, C2RG10-005 announced that ``upon opening,
remaining marketable orders will be `linked,' with no exposure
period, to away exchanges disseminating better prices.'' This
``linkage'' was originally achieved on C2 by activating the Hybrid
Agency Liaison (HAL) Opening Procedure (HAL-O) functionality (which
incorporates the NBBO calculation and linkage processing into the
opening rotation), but setting the HAL-O timer to zero and also
restricting Trading Permit Holders (TPHs) from subscribing to
auctions. In July 2011, the Exchange introduced Complex Order
Auctions (COA) on C2. At that time, the ability for a TPH to
subscribe to auctions was made available. This caused a HAL-O
auction message to be sent to C2 auction subscribers whenever an
order linked away. Additionally, it is noted that periodically, when
systems experience heavy processing volumes, latency may cause the
auction process to last longer than its prescribed timer setting of
zero. On December 5, 2014, the following notification was posted to
the Exchange's System Status Web page, ``During periods of heavy
systems processing at the open, remaining orders marketable against
the NBBO may be exposed for short periods, generally not to exceed
110 MS. Until further notice, TPHs should subscribe to the exposure
process to ensure response capabilities during these times.'' This
filing proposes to remedy this issue by simply exposing orders at
the opening to an HAL-O auction process not to exceed 1.5 seconds.
    \14\ See note 3 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule would operate in a manner similar to
the HAL Opening Procedures on CBOE with respect to the handling of
remaining balances not executed via HAL exposure and provide that any
remaining balance of orders not executed via HAL on the opening would
be booked except that any remaining balance of orders not executed via
HAL on the opening will be booked at their limit price to the extent
consistent with Rule 6.10 except that any remaining balance of orders
not executed via HAL on the opening that are priced, or would be
executed at a price, that is not within an acceptable tick distance
from the initial HAL price will be cancelled. The ``acceptable tick
distance'' would be determined by the Exchange on a series-by-series
and premium basis in increments not less than two minimum increment
ticks. If the HAL Opening Auction Exposure procedure were activated,
the acceptable tick distance would be the same as the acceptable tick
distance established under Rule 6.17. This final provision of the
Interpretation and Policy is consistent with the Exchange's Price Check
Parameters rules in Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.13 and Rule
6.17 and would simply codify the extension of the Exchange's Market-
Width and Drill-Through Parameters to Rule 6.11. These proposed
provisions are substantially similar to the HAL Opening Procedures set
forth in Interpretation and Policy .03 to CBOE Rule 6.2B in all
material respects other than they do not provide for manual handling of
orders and in open outcry.
    As proposed, the Exchange is seeking merely to extend the opening
order exposure procedures already in place on CBOE.\15\ The Exchange
believes that extending the HAL Opening Procedures to C2 is will
provide clarity to the Exchange's rules as well as harmonize the
procedures of the two exchanges, ultimately to the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
would serve to further enhance the efficiency of opening rotations with
procedures to accommodate a process for addressing opening quotes,
acceptable opening ranges, and market order imbalance conditions that
may occur on the openings, as well as address NBBO condition scenarios
where the Exchange's opening trade might occur at an improved price
rather than routing to an away market. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that exposing orders on the open helps facilitate transactions in
securities and is consistent with the goals of a free and open market
and national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CBOE Rule 6.2B Interpretation and Policy .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\16\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change is designed to align the
Exchange's rules with those of CBOE by extending the procedures of
CBOE's HAL on the open to C2. The Exchange believes that extending the
HAL Opening Procedures to C2 is will provide clarity to the Exchange's
rules as well as harmonize the procedures of the two exchanges,
ultimately to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change would serve to further enhance

the efficiency of opening rotations with procedures to accommodate a
process for addressing opening quotes, acceptable opening ranges, and
market order imbalance conditions that may occur on the openings, as
well as address NBBO condition scenarios where the Exchange's opening
trade might occur at an improved price rather than routing to an away
market. The proposed rule change will increase competition on C2 by
providing an opportunity for market participants to benefit from
additional exposure of orders and participation in auctions at the
open. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that exposing orders on the
open helps facilitate transactions in securities and is consistent with
the goals of a free and open market and national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change will
be equally applied and will equally affect all market participants'
orders that qualify for the HAL function. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will increase competition
amongst exchanges and market participants. The proposed will expose
allow orders to be exposed to meaningful price improvement mechanisms
at the opening of trading. The HAL on the opening procedure will allow
C2 TPHs to compete with quotes on other exchanges and step up to the
best national prices offered before orders are linked away. This price
improvement process will not only ensure that orders on C2 are afforded
the best prices available, but also afford additional opportunities to
C2 TPH to compete with quotes on away exchanges at the opening of
trading. The Exchange believes that price improvement mechanisms
increase competition in the marketplace and increase opportunities for
orders to receive best execution at the Exchange.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-006 and should be
submitted on or before May 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08795 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76927-76929]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[USCG-2011-0351]

Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is reopening the comment period to
further its outreach efforts and solicit additional comments concerning
its Port Access Route Study being conducted along the Atlantic Coast
from Maine to Florida.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before January 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0351 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. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of study contact George Detweiler, Office of Navigation Systems, Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
submit questions to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee K. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change,

to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information
you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0351), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Notice'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0351'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
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 them 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.

B. Viewing the Comments and Documents

    To view the comments and documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0351'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

C. 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, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008,
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

II. Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard announced in the Federal Register (76 FR 27288, May
11, 2011) that it was conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS) to
evaluate the continued applicability of, and the need for modifications
to, current vessel routing measures off the Atlantic Coast from Maine
to Florida. The original comment period closed on August 9, 2011. The
initial announcement contains definitions and useful background
information concerning the PARS. The public is encouraged to review the
initial announcement.
    The data gathered during the Atlantic Coast PARS may result in
establishment of one or more new vessel routing measures, modification
of existing routing measures, or disestablishment of existing routing
measures off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida. The goal of the
Atlantic Coast PARS is to enhance navigational safety by examining
existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent
practicable, reconciling the paramount right of navigation within
designated port access routes with other reasonable waterway uses such
as the leasing of outer continental shelf blocks for the construction
and operation of offshore renewable energy facilities. The
recommendations of the study may lead to future rulemaking action or
appropriate international agreements.
    The Coast Guard received 26 comments to the docket. After review of
the comments, the Coast Guard has determined that it needs to reopen
the comment period to seek more information to ensure that the PARS is
comprehensive in its data collection and analysis. Most of the comments
received to date were applicable to the Mid-Atlantic region, including
the approaches into Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. Moreover, these
comments were limited to issues relevant to oceangoing shipping and
coastwise tug and barge traffic and did not include information from
other stakeholders. In addition to the Mid-Atlantic region, the Coast
Guard has become aware of private sector interest in developing wind
energy and hydrokinetic installations off the coasts of Maine, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Therefore, it is
important that the Coast Guard receive comments on the potential
impacts to the maritime community in these locations as well.
    The Coast Guard is using Automatic Identification System (AIS) data
as its primary means of determining routes or operating areas based on
the density and track lines of AIS equipped vessels. However, it is
important for the Coast Guard to also collect data on routes or
operating areas that may not be reflected in the AIS data. This request
for comments is the primary means for the Coast Guard to collect
information from stakeholders who may not be represented in the AIS
data or for which the number of transits in a given area are not
substantial. These users may include commercial fishing vessels, small
passenger vessels, sightseeing and eco-tour vessels, recreational and
charter fishing vessels, yachts, and sailing vessels.

III. Questions

    The Coast Guard requests specific responses to the following
questions, which are in addition to the questions posed in the initial
notice.
    (1) How are your ocean going vessel coastwise routes affected by
seasonal or episodic weather variations?
    (2) How are your near coastal tug and barge routes affected by
seasonal or episodic weather variations?
    (3) Is there a regularly scheduled recreational event that uses the
near coastal waters in your area? Recreational events would include
offshore fishing tournaments, offshore power boat races, offshore
sailing regattas, etc.
    (4) Do you regularly transit the near coastal area on recreational/
private yachts? If yes, how far offshore is your typical route? Does
your route change seasonally or according to weather conditions?
    (5) Should coastwise routes be established along the Atlantic
Seaboard similar to the ``M-95'' marine highway corridor designated by
the Maritime Administration as part of ``America's Marine Highway
Program''? For more information on this program, see America's Marine
Highway Program--Report to Congress--April 2011 (http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MARAD_AMH_Report_to_Congress.pdf). If
yes, where should they be located?
    (6) What are the pros and cons to the Coast Guard designating
coastwise fairways or traffic separation schemes (TSSs)?
    (7) Could the creation of designated coastwise routes adversely
impact watchstanding or other operational requirements? If so, please
explain.

    (8) If coastwise fairways were created, should separate fairways be
created for different vessel types such as tug and barge vs. deep draft
vessels?
    (9) Should there be separate lanes for vessels travelling in
opposing directions?
    (10) Should participation in any coastwise traffic scheme be
voluntary or mandatory for all or certain classes of vessels?
    (11) Given the potentially long transit times, varying sea state
and weather conditions; what is an appropriate width for fairways to
prevent degradation to navigational safety? Are there particular areas
where the width could be smaller or should be larger?
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Robert C. Parker,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Atlantic Area.
[FR Doc. 2011-31594 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: EPA Office of Environmental Compliance and Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0327 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes G No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title : NESHAP for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 40 CFR Part 63 ( Subpart N)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1611.04 9. Keywords: Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act 10. Abstract This rule applies to sources performing hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing. The affected source is each chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank. Respondents are required to maintain several records for a minimum of 5 years. These records include: operation and maintenance records, records of all monitoring data, any records of excess emissions, total process operating time, and, for hard chromium electroplating operations, the cumulative rectifier capacity.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 948 b. Total annual responses 1896 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 516,186 d. Current OMB inventory 516,186 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 75,300 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 75,300 d. Current OMB inventory $ 75,300 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Scott Throwe Phone: ( 202) 564 7013 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50949-50950]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0031]

Long Island Rail Road's Request to Amend Its Positive Train
Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on July
20, 2023, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC)
system in order to establish an Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System
II (ACSES II) Construction Zone (CZ) to support the construction of an
extension of the Patchogue Siding and associated signal system changes
for LIRR's modification of the current track infrastructure. FRA is
publishing this notice and inviting public comment on the railroad's
RFA to its PTC system.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by August 22, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0031. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division,

telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan
(PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an
RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on July 20,
2023, LIRR submitted an RFA to its ACSES II PTC system which seeks
FRA's approval for a three-month outage from September 15, 2023, to
December 15, 2023, to support the construction of an extension of the
Patchogue Siding and associated signal system changes. That RFA is
available in Docket No. FRA-2010-0031.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on LIRR's RFA to its PTC
system by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
LIRR's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the
timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable,
without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications
to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 236.1011(e).
Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTC system at FRA's
sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://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 https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-16406 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16646]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7069]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Circadian, Inc., Clean Energy Combustion, Inc. (n/k/a Clean
Energy Combustion Systems, Inc.), Collectible Concepts Group, Inc.,
Communitronics of America, Inc. (n/k/a RPM Advantage, Inc.), and
ConSyGen, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

March 22, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Circadian, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 1995.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Clean Energy Combustion, Inc. (n/k/a Clean Energy Combustion Systems,
Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period
ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended November 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Communitronics of America, Inc. (n/k/a RPM Advantage, Inc.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30,
2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
ConSyGen, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended November 30, 2001.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on March 22, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 4, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7069 Filed 3-22-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P