[Federal Register: June 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 34174-34178]
[DOCID:fr13jn06-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53935; File No. SR-CBOE-2003-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 Thereto To List and Trade Options on Corporate Debt Securities

June 2, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 22, 2003, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by CBOE. On March 1, 2003, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\3\ CBOE filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change
on August 24, 2005.\4\ CBOE filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule
change on May 26, 2006.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, CBOE replaced and superseded the
original Exhibit A, which contained its rule text, in its entirety.
In addition, CBOE provided explanatory commentary in response to
questions raised by Commission staff regarding the proposal
including, but not limited to, listing and maintenance standards,
strike price intervals, and margins.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded the Exchange's
original Form 19b-4 in its entirety.
    \5\ Amendment No. 3 replaced and superseded the Exchange's
original Form 19b-4 in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to introduce for trading a new type of option, called
``Corporate Debt Security Options'' (``CDSOs''), which would be options
based on corporate bonds. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on CBOE's Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the principal

office of CBOE, 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, CBOE 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. CBOE 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
    Over-the-counter (``OTC'') transactions in corporate debt
securities (e.g., bonds and notes) recently have been become subject to
enhanced transparency and now are reported publicly through the NASD's
Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') system. This enhanced
transparency and price reporting has given rise to an OTC market in
options on corporate debt securities over the past few years. CBOE
believes that an exchange-traded alternative may provide a useful risk
management and trading vehicle for member firms and their customers.
    The Exchange understands that products similar to CDSOs that are
proposed in this rule filing are currently traded in the OTC market by
hedge funds, proprietary trading firms, and a few very large fixed
income funds. These market participants have indicated that there could
be room for significant growth in OTC trading of options on corporate
debt securities as transparency further improves in the market for the
underlying corporate debt securities and if a listed option product
were introduced. CBOE expects that users of these OTC products would be
among the primary users of exchange-traded CDSOs. CBOE states that its

member firms have also indicated to the Exchange that the listing and
trading of CDSOs would allow their customers to better manage the risk
associated with the volatility of underlying bond positions.
Additionally, CBOE notes that persons writing CDSOs would have the
corresponding ability to earn option premium income and carefully
tailor their own risk exposure. Further, CBOE's members have indicated
that these customers desire the enhanced liquidity that an exchange-
traded product would bring. CBOE believes that CDSOs listed on the
Exchange would have three important advantages over the contracts that
are traded in the OTC market. First, as a result of greater
standardization of contract terms, exchange-listed contracts should
develop more liquidity. Second, counter-party credit risk would be
mitigated by the fact that the contracts are issued and guaranteed by
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''). Finally, the price
discovery and dissemination provided by CBOE and its members would lead
to more transparent markets. CBOE believes that the Exchange's ability
to offer CDSOs would aid it in competing with the OTC market and at the
same time expand the universe of listed products available to
interested market participants.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to list and trade CDSOs that are
designed to offer investors exposure to actively traded OTC corporate
bonds that have initial amounts outstanding over $250 million. The face
value of a corporate debt security underlying a CDSO would be $100,000.
Proposed CBOE Rule 28.7 would provide that there would be up to five
expiration months, none further out than 15 months, but the Exchange
could list additional expiration months further out than 15 months
where a reasonable active secondary market exists.
    Series with strike prices in, at, and out-of-the-money initially
would be listed (up to ten per month initially). The Exchange
represents that it would delist CDSO series for which there is no open
interest. In addition, the Exchange proposes to limit the strike price
intervals that it could list for CDSO series, which, as proposed, would
be fixed at a percentage of principal amounts (based on a par quote
basis of $100) as follows:
     0.5% ($0.50) or greater, provided that the series to be
listed is no more than 5% above or below the current market price of a
corporate debt security either reported on TRACE during TRACE system
hours or effected through on or through the facilities of a national
securities exchange, as applicable, on the day prior to the day the
series is first listed for trading;
     1.0% ($1.00) or greater, provided that the series to be
listed is no more than 10% above or below the current market price of a
corporate debt security either reported on TRACE during TRACE system
hours or effected on or through the facilities of a national securities
exchange, as applicable, on the day prior to the day the series is
first listed for trading; and
     2.5% ($2.50) or greater, provided that the series to be
listed is greater than 10% above or below the current market price of a
corporate debt security either reported on TRACE during TRACE system
hours or effected on or through facilities of a national securities
exchange, as applicable, on the day prior to the day the series is
first listed for trading.
    The increments proposed herein are designed to allow the Exchange
flexibility to list strike increments at appropriate levels, while at
the same time would establish reasonable limits on the number of
strikes that may be listed in order to diminish any potential effect on
the Exchange's quote capacity thresholds. The Exchange affirms that, as
structured, it has sufficient systems capacity to support the listing
of CDSOs in the strike price increments proposed herein.
    According to the Exchange, the option premium would be quoted in
points where each point equals $1,000. The minimum tick would be 0.05
($50.00). The expiration date would be the Saturday immediately
following the third Friday of the expiration month. CDSOs would be
European-style options and could be exercised only on the last day of
expiration. Trading in CDSOs ordinarily would cease on the business day
(usually a Friday) preceding the expiration date. Trading hours would
be 8:30 a.m. to 3:02 p.m. Chicago time.
    Prices of CDSOs generally would be based on the prices of corporate
debt securities that are reported through TRACE by members of NASD. The
TRACE rules require NASD members dealing in corporate debt securities
to report transactions in eligible debt securities to TRACE within 15
minutes of execution. NASD currently notifies subscribers regarding
general TRACE reporting system outages via the following electronic
communications: (i) http://apps.nasd.com/Regulatory_Systems/ trace--sub.asp; and (ii) http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/dynamic/newsindex/
dynamic/newsindex/
vendoralerts--2005.stm.
    The settlement process for CDSOs would be the same as the
settlement process for equity options under CBOE rules, except as
necessary to take into account that the securities underlying CDSOs are
debt securities.\6\ CDSOs would be physically settled and exercise
notices that are properly tendered would result in delivery of the
underlying corporate debt securities on the third business day
following exercise. Payment of a CDSO's exercise price would be
accompanied by payment of accrued interest on the underlying corporate
debt security from, but not including, the last interest payment date
to, and including, the exercise settlement date, as specified in OCC
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If the outstanding debt issuance amount of an underlying
corporate debt security is insufficient to satisfy the delivery
requirements under CBOE Rule 11.3, OCC rules provide for special
settlement exercise procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE states that issuers generally calculate the accrued interest
in one of two methods, each of which is detailed in Appendix A to the
contract specifications set forth in Exhibit B. The Exchange would
notify OCC of the accrued interest calculation methodology that applies
to each corporate debt security prior to the listing thereof. CBOE has
proposed to establish tiered position limits based upon a policy to cap
position limits at 10% of the total float of the underlying bond. The
``total float'' of the underlying corporate debt security would exclude
amounts held by 10% holders of the corporate debt security. In other
words, if a person holds more than 10% of a particular corporate debt
security, the amount held by such person would not be included in the
``total float'' for purposes of determining the applicable position and
exercise limits. For example, if a person holds 14% of the total
outstanding issuance of a corporate debt security, the applicable
position and exercise limits would only be based on the remaining 86%
of the issuance that is not held by such person. The Exchange believes
that the 10% threshold amount is a reasonable measure of those market
participants, such as pension funds, that have purchased a corporate
debt security for long-term investment versus those that have purchased
a corporate debt security with a willingness to sell such security in
the short-term period and thus increase the amount of liquidity in the
particular issue. CBOE also believes this 10% level is sufficient to
inhibit market manipulation or to mitigate other possible disruptions
in the market. CBOE's proposed lowest position limit for equity options
is 13,500 contracts, which, if exercised, would represent approximately
19.28% of the minimum

float of an equity security eligible to underlie a CBOE equity option
(seven million shares).\7\ Moreover, CBOE's proposed 13,500 equity
option contract limit applies to those options having an underlying
security that does not meet the requirements for a higher option
contract limit. CBOE believes the proposed 10% position limit for
CDSOs, which is significantly less than that for equity options, is
sufficiently high to account for the differences in liquidity between
the equity and debt markets. Therefore, CBOE proposes the following
tiers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Rule 4.11 (Position Limits).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Issue float                         Position limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$200,000,000-$499,999,000..............  200 contracts.
500,000,000-749,999,000................  500 contracts.
750,000,000-999,999,000................  750 contracts.
1,000,000,000-2,499,999,000............  1,000 contracts.
2,500,000,000 and greater..............  2,500 contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing comprehensive initial listing and ongoing
maintenance requirements for CDSOs, which are set forth in proposed
CBOE Rules 5.3.10 and 5.4.14. In addition to standards such as the
required amount of underlying security holders and outstanding float
amounts, the Exchange is also proposing as a criterion for listing a
particular corporate debt security for options trading that the issuer
of the corporate debt security or the issuer's parent, if the issuer is
a wholly-owned subsidiary, has at least one class of common or
preferred equity securities registered under section 12(b) of the
Act.\8\ This criterion is designed to ensure that there is adequate
information publicly available regarding the issuer of a corporate debt
security underlying an option traded on the Exchange. The corporate
debt security market is largely an OTC market and many corporate debt
securities, including those among the most actively traded, are not
themselves registered under section 12 of the Act. The issuers of many
unregistered corporate debt securities, however, have equity securities
registered under section 12 of the Act. These issuers are required to
provide periodic reports to the public due to the equity registration,
and the Exchange believes that the fact that their corporate debt
securities are unregistered does not diminish in practical terms the
information provided by their periodic reports. Thus, CBOE believes
that the proposed requirement would enable a wide array of actively
traded corporate debt securities to be eligible for options trading
while ensuring sufficient public disclosure of information about any
corporate debt securities underlying exchange-traded options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \9\ Proposed CBOE Rule 5.3.10 was amended to also include the
requirement that the issuer of a corporate debt security has
registered the offer and sale of the security under the Securities
Act of 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing as another listing criterion that the
stock of an issuer of a corporate debt security be eligible for options
trading under CBOE Rule 5.4. The provisions of CBOE Rule 5.4 would
require that an equity security underlying an option be itself widely
held and actively traded. The Exchange believes that a requirement that
the stock of an issuer of a corporate debt security meet the criterion
of CBOE Rule 5.4 would provide additional indicia that such issuer's
securities are subject to widespread investor interest. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that this requirement would ensure that a corporate
debt securities option is not used as a proxy for equity options
trading of an issuer whose stock does not meet the criterion of CBOE
Rule 5.4.
    With respect to credit ratings of corporate debt securities, the
initial listing standards would provide that corporate debt securities
on which options transactions are listed must have credit ratings
issued by Moody's Investors Service (``Moody's'') that are Caa \10\ or
higher and credit ratings issued by Standard & Poor's that are CC \11\
or higher. The proposed maintenance standards require that the
corporate debt securities maintain the ratings set forth in the initial
listing standards. CBOE believes that these initial and maintenance
standards are appropriate because they provide a measure of certainty
with respect to the satisfaction of regularly scheduled interest
payments on the corporate debt security, which triggers the
corresponding requirement to pay the accrued interest under proposed
CBOE Rule 28.15. The Exchange also believes that market participants
investing in corporate debt securities should have the opportunity to
use CDSOs to mitigate risk when the underlying corporate debt security
is subject to credit downgrades and potentially price declines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under Moody's rating definitions, ``obligations rated Caa
are judged to be of poor standing and are subject to very high
credit risk.'' Moody's has two ratings lower than Caa: Ca and C.
Moody's defines Ca-rated obligations as ``highly speculative and are
likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of
principal and interest.'' Moody's defines C-rated obligations as
``the lowest rated class of bonds and are typically in default, with
little prospect for recovery of principal or interest.''
    \11\ Under Standard & Poor's rating definitions, ``an obligation
rated CC is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment.'' Standard &
Poor's has two ratings lower than CC: C and D. Under Standard &
Poor's definitions, C-rated obligations ``may be used to cover a
situation where a bankruptcy petition has been filed or similar
action has been taken, but payments on this obligation are being
continued.'' Under Standard & Poor's definitions, ``an obligation
rated `D' is in payment default. The `D' rating category is used
when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due even if
the applicable grace period has not expired, unless Standard &
Poor's believes that such payments will be made during such grace
period. The `D' rating also will be used upon the filing of a
bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action if payments on
an obligation are jeopardized.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed margin (both initial and maintenance) for writing
uncovered puts or calls would be as follows. An \12\ option writer
would be required to deposit and maintain 100% of the current market
value of the option plus 10% of the aggregate contract value minus the
amount by which the option is out-of-the-money, if any, subject to a
minimum for calls equal to 100% of the current market value of the
option plus 5% of the aggregate contract value for any corporate debt
security that is rated investment-grade.\13\ For non-investment-grade
\14\ corporate debt securities, the margin requirement would be 100% of
the current market value of the option plus 15% of the aggregate
contract value minus the amount by which the option is out-of-the-
money, if any, subject to a minimum for calls equal to 100% of the
current market value of the option plus 10% of the aggregate contract
value. Writers of options on convertible corporate debt securities
would be required to deposit and maintain 100% of the current market
value of the option plus 20% of the aggregate contract value minus the

amount by which the option is out-of-the-money, if any, subject to a
minimum for calls equal to 100% of the current market value of the
option plus 10% of the aggregate contract value. In the case of puts
for each of investment-grade, non-investment-grade, and convertible
corporate debt securities, the minimum margin required would be 100% of
the current market value of the option plus 5%, 10%, and 10%,
respectively of the put exercise price. This methodology incorporates
the same formula in CBOE Chapter 12 that the Exchange applies to all
other option classes, but with percentages that consider the specific
market factors pertaining to debt rating and type of the corporate debt
security. For example, the Exchange requires a deposit of 100% of the
current market value of the option plus a 20% Initial/Maintenance
Margin and a 10% Minimum Margin. This same level would apply to
convertible corporate debt securities that are the underlying for
options listed under the proposed CBOE Chapter 28 rules. For
investment-grade corporate debt securities that underlie options listed
under the proposed CBOE Chapter 28 rules, the Exchange is proposing a
10% Initial/Maintenance Margin and a 5% Minimum Margin because
investment grade corporate debt securities generally experience lower
price movements and lower volatility levels than stocks. CBOE states
that, since non-investment-grade corporate debt securities exhibit
price movements that are higher than investment-grade corporate debt
securities, it is proposing a 15% Initial/Maintenance Margin and a 5%
Minimum Margin for those securities. The Exchange believes that these
proposed margin levels also are consistent with the Commission's Net
Capital Rule for the underlying corporate debt securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pursuant to a telephone conversation between Angelo
Evangelou, Assistant General Counsel, and Dennis O'Callahan,
Director Research and Product Development, CBOE, and Bonnie Gauch,
Special Counsel, Marc McKayle, Special Counsel, and Ronesha Butler,
Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on June
1, 2006, the description contained in this paragraph was conformed
to reflect the provisions contained in proposed CBOE Rule 12.3.
    \13\ The definition of an investment-grade corporate debt
security is set forth in proposed CBOE Rule 12.3(a)(15). The
proposed definition mirrors the definition set forth in NASD rules
pertaining to TRACE. For purposes of CBOE Rule 12.3, the Exchange
would interpret the lowest of the four highest generic rated
categories referenced in the proposed definition for ``Investment
Grade'' to be, for example, Baa in the case of Moody's Investors
Services and BBB in the case of Standard and Poor's.
    \14\ The proposed definition of a non-investment-grade corporate
debt security is set forth in proposed CBOE Rule 12.3(a)(16). The
proposed definition mirrors the definition set forth in the NASD
rules pertaining to TRACE. The Exchange would interpret the lowest
of the four highest generic rated categories referenced in the
proposed definition for ``Non-Investment Grade'' to be, for example,
Baa in the case of Moody's Investors Services and BBB in the case of
Standard and Poor's.
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that the operational capacity used to accommodate the
trading of CDSOs on the Exchange would have a negligible effect on the
total capacity used by the Exchange to trade its products on a daily
basis.
    To the extent that features of CDSOs differ from other security
options, CBOE would issue a circular to its members before the
initiation of trading in CDSOs that would specify the special
characteristics of CDSOs. This circular would highlight the exercise
methodology of the series, explain the cash adjustment procedures,
identify the new symbols for the CDSO series, and identify the initial
expiration months and strike prices available for trading. The Exchange
notes that these procedures are similar to the procedures used when the
Exchange listed both A.M.- and P.M.-settled SPX Index options in 1992.
    The Exchange would monitor the media for rating downgrades and
other corporate actions to ensure the Exchange's maintenance standards
are fulfilled, and monitor for any corporate actions that may influence
the pricing of corporate debt securities and CDSOs. In addition, the
Exchange would work with OCC to revise the Options Disclosure Document
to incorporate CDSOs in a manner that is satisfactory to both the
Exchange and the Commission.
    The Exchange believes that the introduction of CDSOs would increase
the variety of listed options to investors and expand the risk
management choices for debt securities participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal, as amended, is consistent
with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade as well as to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange states that the
introduction of CDSOs would increase the variety of listed options to
investors and expand the risk management choices for debt securities
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which CBOE consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2003-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2003-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of CBOE. 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-
CBOE-2003-41 and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E6-9154 Filed 6-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 48685]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP18-75-006.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing FRQ Settlement Compliance Filing 3
re Docket RP18-75 to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200730-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-953-001.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance with RP20-953 Order to be
effective 7/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200804-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 5, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17611 Filed 8-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 44790]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX23-6-000]

Ventasso Energy Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 5, 2023, pursuant to section 211 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ section 9.3.3 of the San Diego Gas &
Electric Company (SDG&E) Transmission Owner Tariff (TO Tariff),
Ventasso Energy Storage, LLC (Ventasso Energy Storage) filed an
application requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issue an order requiring SDG&E to provide interconnection
and transmission services for Ventasso Energy Storage's proposed
battery energy storage facility under the terms and conditions of the
Transmission Control Agreement between SDG&E and the California
Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), the TO Tariff, CAISO's
Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff, and the Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement between Ventasso Energy Storage and SDG&E,
dated October 10, 2022, as it may be in effect from time to time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824j (2018).
    \2\ The LGIA is associated with CAISO Queue Position #1662 for
facilities interconnecting at the 69 kV bus of the El Cajon
Substation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 26, 2023.

    Dated: July 7, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14858 Filed 7-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35094-35095]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0485]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewis Creek Channel,
Chincoteague, VA

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 SR 175 Bridge, mile 0.0 across the
Lewis Creek Channel, at Chincoteague, VA. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate
bridge maintenance work.

DATES: The deviation is effective from Noon, on September 20, 2017,
through 6 p.m. on September 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0485] 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 Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6422, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates the SR 175 Bridge, mile 0.0 across the Lewis
Creek Channel, at Chincoteague, VA, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.5, to
perform maintenance on the movable span.
    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the
closed-to-navigation position from Noon on September 20, 2017, through
6 p.m. on September 21, 2017. The bridge is a bascule span drawbridge
with a vertical clearance of 15 feet above mean high water in the
closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the
open position.
    The Lewis Creek Channel is used by recreational vessels. The Coast
Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic
on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position while
maintenance is being performed. The Coast Guard will also inform the
users of the waterway through our Local Notice 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: July 24, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-15920 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16110-16112]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1233]

Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases To Support Clinical
Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro Diagnostics; Guidance
for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the final guidance entitled ``Use of Public Human
Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and
Genomic-Based In Vitro Diagnostics; Guidance for Stakeholders and Food
and Drug Administration Staff.'' This guidance document describes how
publicly accessible databases of human genetic variants can serve as
sources of valid scientific evidence to support the clinical validity
of genotype-phenotype relationships in FDA's regulatory review of
genetic and genomic-based tests. This guidance further outlines the
process by which administrators of genetic variant databases could
voluntarily apply to FDA for recognition, and how FDA would review such
applications and periodically reevaluate recognized databases.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1233 for ``Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to
Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro
Diagnostics; Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration
Staff.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff office
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled ``Use
of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity
for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro Diagnostics; Guidance for
Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff '' to the Office of
the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Koontz, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4553, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This guidance document describes one part of FDA's effort to create
a flexible regulatory approach to the oversight of genetic and genomic-
based tests. FDA held three workshops on this issue: ``Use of Databases
for Establishing the Clinical Relevance of Human Genetic Variants'' on
November 13, 2015, ``Patient and Medical Professional Perspectives on
the Return of Genetic Test Results'' on March 2, 2016, and ``Adapting
Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing-Based Tests'' on
September 23, 2016. The goal of this effort is to help ensure patients
receive accurate and meaningful results, while promoting innovation in
test development. This guidance document describes how publicly
accessible databases of human genetic variants can serve as sources of
valid scientific evidence to support the clinical validity of genotype-
phenotype relationships in FDA's regulatory review of genetic and
genomic-based tests. FDA is also issuing a guidance entitled
``Considerations for Design, Development, and Analytical Validation of
Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs)
Intended to Aid in the Diagnosis of Suspected Germline Diseases--
Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff,''
which is being released concurrently elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
    NGS can enable rapid, broad, and deep sequencing of a portion of a
gene, entire exome(s), or a whole genome and may be used clinically for
a variety of diagnostic purposes, including risk prediction, diagnosis,
and treatment selection for a disease or condition. The rapid adoption
of NGS-based tests in both research and clinical practice is leading to
identification of an increasing number of genetic variants (e.g.,
pathogenic, benign, and of unknown significance), including rare
variants that may be unique to a single individual or family. This
guidance document describes FDA's considerations in determining whether
a genetic variant database is a source of valid scientific evidence
that could support the clinical validity of genetic and genomic based
tests. This guidance further outlines the process by which
administrators of genetic variant databases could voluntarily apply to
FDA for recognition, and how FDA would review such applications and
periodically reevaluate recognized databases. A draft guidance was
announced in the Federal Register on July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44611) and
made available for public comment. The comment period closed on October
6, 2016. FDA reviewed and considered all public comments received and
revised the guidance as appropriate.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on the ``Use of Public Human Genetic Variant
Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In
Vitro Diagnostics.'' It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This
guidance document is also available at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download
an electronic copy of ``Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases
to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro
Diagnostics; Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration
Staff'' may send an email request to [email protected] to
receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document
number 16008 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information. These collections of information are subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in
the guidance document ``Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases
to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro
Diagnostics; Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration
Staff'' have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0850. The
collections of information in the guidance document ``Requests for
Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and
Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff; Guidance for Industry
and Food and Drug Administration Staff'' have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0756. The collections of information regarding
premarket submissions have been approved as follows: The collections of
information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB
control number

0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814,
subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0231.

    Dated: April 9, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-07686 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 918-921]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00056]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0903: FRL-9768-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Open
Burning and Enforcement Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Oregon's State
Implementation Plan submitted to the EPA by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality on February 16, 2001, July 14, 2005, August 28,
2006, and May 20, 2008. The February 16, 2001 submittal relates to open
burning rules. The July 2005, August 2006, and May 2008 submittals
relate to enforcement procedures, civil penalties, and procedures in
contested cases (appeals).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2008-0903, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Justin A. Spenillo, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and
Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Justin A. Spenillo,
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2008-0903. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin A. Spenillo at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Why are we proposing to approve these revisions?
    A. EPA's Review of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter
340, Division 264 Open Burning Rules (February 16, 2001 Submittal)
    B. EPA's Review of OAR Chapter 340, Division 12 Rules (July 14,
2005 and August 28, 2006 Submittals)
    C. EPA's Review of OAR Chapter 340 Division 11 Rules (May 20,
2008 Submittal)
    D. EPA's Review of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (February 16, 2001, July 14,
2005, August 28, 2006, and May 20, 2008 Submittals)
    E. EPA's Review of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (July 14, 2005 Submittal)
III. Summary of Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. This Action

    Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended by Congress in 1990,
specifies the general requirements for states to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and EPA's actions regarding approval of
those SIPs. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve and
incorporate by reference revisions to Oregon's open burning rules
submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on
February 16, 2001. Oregon's open burning rules are currently codified
at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 264.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve but not incorporate by
reference (with certain exceptions explained below) the enforcement
provisions in Chapter 340, Division 12 submitted by ODEQ on July 14,
2005 and August 28, 2006.
    We are also proposing to approve but not incorporate by reference
revisions related to procedures in contested cases (that is, appeals
from ODEQ actions) found at OAR Chapter 340, Division 11. These
revisions were submitted by ODEQ on May 20, 2008.
    Each of the above described submittals (the February 16, 2001, July
14, 2005, August 28, 2006, and May 20, 2008 submittals) contains an
amendment to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, which describes the State's procedures
for adopting its Clean Air Act Implementation Plan and references all
of the state air regulations that have been adopted by the
Environmental Quality Commission for approval into the SIP (as a matter
of state law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or
approved by the EPA. We are proposing no action on the revisions to OAR
340-200-0040 in each of ODEQ's SIP submittals because it is unnecessary
to take action on a provision addressing State SIP adoption procedures
and because the federally-approved SIP consists only of

regulations and other requirements that have been submitted by ODEQ and
approved by EPA.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to take no action on the expedited
enforcement process set forth in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> included in ODEQ's
July 14, 2005 submittal because this section applies to underground
storage tank regulations and does not relate to attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or other requirements of section 110 of the
CAA.

II. Why are we proposing to approve these revisions?

    We are proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by ODEQ on
February 16, 2001; July 14, 2005; August 28, 2006; and May 20, 2008,
subject to the exceptions discussed in more detail below, because they
serve to clarify and strengthen Oregon's existing SIP and are
consistent with CAA requirements. A more detailed explanation of the
basis for our approval is provided below and in the materials included
in the docket.

A. EPA's Review of OAR Chapter 340, Division 264 Open Burning Rules
(February 16, 2001 Submittal)

    The federally-approved open burning rules previously codified at
OAR Chapter 340, Division 23, have been recodified at OAR Chapter 340,
Division 264. In addition to the recodification, ODEQ's February 16,
2001 submittal includes revisions to ODEQ's federally-approved open
burning rules that fall into several categories: changes related to
growth, additional requirements, delegation, alterations to exemptions,
and clarifications. The first category of revisions updates the list of
open burning control areas to reflect population growth since the SIP
was last revised. For example, commercial burning is now prohibited
except by permit in Madras, Tillamook, and Warranton, and adjoining
areas within three miles of these cities' limits (all located in
Lincoln County). See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (previously at OAR 340-023-055).
In general, this category of revisions imposes more stringent
requirements on additional geographic areas, and thus makes the open
burning requirements more stringent.
    A second category consists of revisions that impose additional
requirements in all geographic areas and thus make the open burning
regulations overall more stringent. For example, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2)
(previously at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>) now requires that a person responsible
for a fire not only constantly attend the open burning, but also be
capable of and have the necessary equipment for extinguishing the fire
and completely extinguish the fire before leaving it. As another
example, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(8) (previously at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>) requires
that most open burning debris be burned on site unless a letter permit
is issued.
    OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and -0075 are new provisions that allow ODEQ to
delegate authority to issue and enforce open burning permits to a city,
county, fire protection district, forest protection district or other
state agency that ODEQ determines is capable of effectively
administering the permit program and authorizes ODEQ to withdraw any
such delegation upon a finding that the entity is not effectively
administering the program. Given the narrow scope of the delegation to
local agencies, that the delegated authority will continue to be
carried out under the SIP-approved open burning regulations, and that
ODEQ has the ultimate responsibility under this provision, EPA believes
these provisions do not affect the stringency of ODEQ's open burning
regulations and are consistent with the requirements of the CAA. See
CAA 110(a)(2)(E).
    Another category of revisions to ODEQ's open burning rules exempts
open burning that is subject to restrictions under the current SIP. OAR
340-264-0040 (previously at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>) adds three narrow
activities to the list of activities exempt from ODEQ's open burning
rules: fires set for disposal of dry tumbleweed; agricultural burning
for disease or pest control when authorized in writing by the
Department of Agriculture; and open burning of animal carcasses by the
Department of Agriculture because of an animal disease emergency. That
regulation also expands the exemption for slash burning on forest land
conducted under Oregon's Smoke Management program to lands within one-
eighth of a mile of forest land. Given the very narrow scope of these
changes and the other revisions that make ODEQ's open burning rules
more stringent than the open burning rules currently approved in the
SIP, EPA believes these revisions will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or other requirements of the CAA.
    The remaining revisions clarify existing requirements. For example,
revisions to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (previously at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>) clarify
that persons responsible for open burning activities are also strictly
liable for violations of the rules and clarify ODEQ's authority to
extinguish existing fires. As another example, revisions to OAR 340-
264-0040(3) (previously at OAR 340-023-035(3)) clarify that open
burning fires otherwise exempt from the open burning rules are still
subject to the requirements and prohibitions of local jurisdictions and
the State Fire Marshall.
    One set of clarifications to ODEQ's rules requires further
discussion. Based on statutory clarifications to ODEQ's authority to
regulate agricultural open burning in 1999, ODEQ has revised its open
burning rules to make clear that it does not have authority to regulate
agricultural open burning except for its explicit statutory and
regulatory authority to regulate field burning in the Willamette Valley
as provided in ORS 468A.555 to -620 and OAR Division 340, Chapter 266.
The open burning rules currently in the SIP do have provisions that
purport to make agricultural open burning in some areas outside of the
Willamette Valley subject to the general statewide requirements and
prohibitions for open burning. See, e.g., OAR 340-023-022, -040, -042,
-055, -060, -065, -070, -075, -080, -085, -090. The underlying
statutory authority approved into the SIP, however, has for many years
exempted all agricultural operations and the growing or harvesting of
crops from regulation--except for field burning in the Willamette
Valley regulated under ORS 468A.555 to 468A.620. See 56 FR 30006 (July
30, 1991); 60 FR 37013 (July 19, 1995). On December 27, 2011, EPA
approved revisions to Oregon's SIP which include statutory and
regulatory changes narrowing the exemption for agricultural operations
(76 FR 80747). These changes, however, narrow the agricultural
operations exemption only to the extent necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA. Because there is no express requirement to
regulate agricultural open burning in the CAA and no information
showing that the lack of regulation of agricultural open burning in
Oregon is interfering with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, the
most recent SIP revisions to the agricultural operations exemption do
not have a bearing on whether the regulation of agricultural open
burning has ever been or currently is subject to regulation by ODEQ.
EPA therefore concludes that agricultural open burning (except for
field burning in the Willamette Valley) has not previously been subject
to regulation by ODEQ under the SIP and, therefore, Oregon's revision
of its open burning rules to make this clear (and EPA's approval of
those revisions) does not affect the stringency of the SIP-approved
open burning rules.
    Based on EPA's review and analysis of OAR Chapter 340, Division
264, EPA is proposing to approve this revision to Oregon's SIP as
meeting the requirements of section 110 of the Clean

Air Act. In addition, EPA proposes to remove from the SIP the
regulations previously codified at OAR Chapter 340, Division 023
because they have been recodified and no longer exist at the location
previously approved in the SIP.

B. EPA's Review of Division 12 Rules (July 14, 2005 and August 28, 2006
Submittals)

    ODEQ has submitted two SIP revisions to OAR 340, Division 12, one
on July 14, 2005 and one on August 28, 2006. Division 12 contains
enforcement procedures and civil penalty provisions that apply across
all programs implemented by ODEQ, including the air quality regulations
that EPA has approved into the SIP. Division 12 provides the authority
and procedures under which ODEQ notifies regulated entities of
violations, determines the appropriate penalties for violations, and
assesses penalties for such violations. The revisions to Division 12
made by ODEQ in 2005 and 2006 clarify the differences between formal
and informal enforcement processes, make adjustments to the penalty
matrices, and streamline and reorganize the rules to more closely track
ODEQ's enforcement and penalty calculation process.
    EPA has reviewed the revisions to Division 12 and finds that they
continue to provide ODEQ with adequate authority for enforcing the SIP
as required by Section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR 50.230(b).
Importantly, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(3) gives ODEQ the discretion to deviate
from the penalty matrices and assess penalties of up to $10,000 per
day, per violation based on the facts and circumstances of the
individual case. EPA is therefore proposing to approve into the SIP the
revisions to Division 12 submitted by ODEQ, subject to the
qualifications and in the manner discussed below.
    First, where ODEQ submitted a regulation in Division 12 as part of
its July 14, 2005 submittal and that regulation was subsequently
revised and submitted as part of ODEQ's August 28, 2006 submittal, EPA
is proposing to approve the version of the regulation submitted as part
of the August 28, 2006 submittal. The docket contains a chart showing
the version of the regulations in Division 12 we are approving.
    Second, EPA's authority to approve SIPs extends to provisions
related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out
other specific requirements of Section 110 of the CAA. Therefore, EPA
is not approving the following regulations in Division 12 that do not
relate to air emissions: OAR-340-012-0055, -0060, -0065, -0066, -0067,
-0068, -0071, -0072, -0074, -0079, -0081, -0083, -0097. In addition,
EPA is approving the remaining sections in Chapter 340, Division 12
only to the extent they relate to enforcement of requirements contained
in the Oregon SIP.
    Finally, although EPA is approving the rules in Division 12 in the
manner discussed above, EPA is not incorporating these rules by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations because EPA relies on
its independent enforcement procedures and penalty provisions in
bringing enforcement actions and assessing penalties under the CAA.
    In approving these SIP revisions, EPA also notes that ORS 468.126
prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water
or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days'
advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into
compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day
period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's Title V
program or to any other program if the application of the notice
provision would disqualify the program from Federal delegation. Oregon
has previously confirmed that, because the application of the notice
provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance
notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

C. EPA's Review of Division 11 Rules (May 20, 2008 Submittal)

    Oregon's May 20, 2008 submittal revises OAR Chapter 340, Division
11, which addresses procedures in contested cases (appeals of ODEQ
actions). These rule revisions were adopted by Oregon on October 17,
2007 and became effective on March 20, 2008. The rules were revised to
improve the clarity and completeness of contested case appeals coming
before the Environmental Quality Commission.
    Division 11 provides authority needed for implementing the SIP and
is consistent with the Clean Air Act requirements for the issuance of
permits and enforcement authority. It is not appropriate to incorporate
these rules by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, however,
because EPA relies on its own administrative and enforcement procedures
in enforcing the Clean Air Act.

D. EPA's Review of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (February 16, 2001, July 14, 2005,
August 28, 2006, and May 20, 2008 Submittals)

    On February 16, 2001, July 14, 2005, August 28, 2006 and May 20,
2008, Oregon submitted revisions to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. EPA is proposing
no action on these revisions because it is unnecessary to take action
on provisions addressing State SIP adoption procedures and
incorporating by reference all of the revisions adopted by the
Environmental Quality Commission for approval into the Oregon SIP (as a
matter of state law).

E. EPA's Review of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (July 14, 2005 Submittal)

    ODEQ's July 14, 2005 SIP submittal included OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. We
are taking no action on this submittal because this section applies to
underground storage tank regulations and does not relate to attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS or other requirements of section 110 of the
CAA.

III. Summary of Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to OAR, Chapter 340,
Divisions 11, 12, and 264 because they are consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements. We are also proposing to take no action on revisions
to OAR, Chapter 340, Division 200-0040 submitted on February 16, 2001,
July 14, 2005, August 28, 2006, and May 20, 2008 and OAR, Chapter,
Division 150-0250 submitted on July 14, 2005 for the reasons discussed
in Section II.
    Oregon has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce the
Oregon Administrative Rules within ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151. Therefore, this proposed SIP approval does not extend to
``Indian Country'' in Oregon.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 27, 2012.
Kate Kelly,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-00056 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60316-60318]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0311]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Quantuck Canal, Westhampton
Beach, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Beach Lane Bridge across Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1, at
Westhampton Beach, New York. This action is necessary to allow for an
unexpected delay in the rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and
painting of the bridge. A temporary deviation was previously granted
for a length of 180 days. As the Coast Guard

may not approve extensions beyond that allotted timeframe nor approve
back-to-back or sequential deviations, it is necessary to issue this
rule in order to allow the bridge owner to complete the remaining work
items.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 20,
2017 until 11:59 p.m. on January 11, 2018. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 on December 1, 2017
until December 20, 2017.''

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0048 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On September 13, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled,
``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Beach Lane Bridge, Quantuck Canal,
Westhampton Beach, NY'' in the Federal Register (see 82 FR 42940).
Although we did not request public comments, outreach conducted with
mariners utilizing the waterway indicated no objections to the
temporary deviation. No complaints were submitted during the temporary
deviation.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Due to
unanticipated difficulties and delays impacting the schedule and pace
of rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge
additional time is required to finalize and complete the work necessary
in order to restore the bridge to full operational capacity. We must
modify the operation schedule of the bridge by December 1, 2017 to
allow the completion of rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and
painting of the bridge. We therefore lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the modification.
    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the
reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the
Beach Lane Bridge across Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1, at Westhampton
Beach, New York. The Beach Lane Bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge
offering mariners a vertical clearance of 13.9 feet at mean high water
and 16.2 feet at mean low water in the closed position.
    The existing drawbridge regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.799(d). The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the bridge
owner, has requested this modification as additional time is required
to complete the final rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting
of the bridge.
    The Suffolk County Department of Public Works has also requested
that the Beach Lane Bridge be allowed to open on signal only one of two
bascule spans for bridge openings with the understanding that dual
lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring such an opening
provided a 48 hour advance notice was furnished to the owner of the
bridge.
    The bridge generally opens for seasonal recreational craft and
small scale tug/barge combinations occasionally transit the waterway.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at
all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is
no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when
in the closed position.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule, which permits a temporary
deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Beach Lane
Bridge across Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York.
The rule is necessary to accommodate the completion of rehabilitation
of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge. This rule allows for
single-leaf operations upon signal and dual lift-span operations will
be provided for vessels requiring such an opening given 48 hours of
advance notice.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action
determination is based on the ability of the majority of vessels to
successfully transit through the draw of the bridge with a single-leaf
opening. Vessels requiring dual lift-span operations may continue to
transit the draw provided submission of advance notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this interim rule will not have a significant

economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Mariners requiring
dual lift-span operations have been able to transit the draw following
provision of advance notice. Single-leaf operations will be furnished
on signal for those vessels requiring such an opening.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.799, effective from 12:01 a.m. on December 20, 2017,
through 11:59 p.m. on January 11, 2018, suspend paragraph (d) and add
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.799  Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway
Inlet to Shinnecock Canal.

* * * * *
    (j) The draws of the West Bay bridge, mile 0.1, across Quantuck
Canal, Quoque bridge, mile 1.1, across Quoque Canal and the Smith Point
bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay shall open on signal from October 1
through April 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from May 1 through September
30 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At all other times during these periods, the
draws shall open as soon as possible but no more than one hour after a
request to open is received.
    (1) The draw of the Beach Lane bridge, mile 1.1, across Quantuck
Canal shall open only one of two bascule spans on signal for bridge
openings. Dual lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring
such an opening provided a 48 hour advance to the owner of the bridge.

    Dated: December 5, 2017.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-27403 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P