[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21869-21870]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0042]

Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments; reopen comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening the comment period for the
planned consolidation of redundant Coast Guard boat stations. In
response to the request for comments we published February 14, 2020, an
interested person asked that we extend the comment period.

DATES: The reopened comment period will close May 4, 2020. Your
comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0042 using the Federal rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
please call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces,
202-372-2463<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
GAO Government Accountability Office

II. Background and Purpose

    In the request for comments we published February 14, 2020 (85 FR
8601), we stated that in October of 2017, the Government Accountability
Office issued report GAO-18-9, titled ``Actions Needed to Close
Stations Identified as Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative.''
This GAO report recommended the consolidation of eighteen boat
stations. Due to environmental and operational factors, the Coast Guard
is not considering all eighteen boat stations identified in the GAO
report for consolidation. Instead, we anticipate consolidating five
stations, with implementation notionally scheduled for fiscal year
2021. These stations have been identified because there are other units
nearby capable of responding to cases in these areas, and because these
five stations respond to a low number of cases. We do not anticipate
any adverse effect on Coast Guard response capability. We expect an
improvement to the proficiency of boat operators as well as a less
complicated response system.

III. Discussion

    In response to a request from an interested person the Coast Guard
has reopened the comment period to allow additional input from the
public. The new due date for comments is close May 4, 2020. The
following information was provided in our February 14 request for
comments.
    Many stations were established at a time when boats lacked engines
and were powered by oars and paddles. With modern boat operating speeds
and improved direction finding technology, many calls for Coast Guard
assistance can be responded to by multiple units significantly faster
than when these boat stations were first established. The combination
of significantly improved response times, along with an overall
reduction in rescue calls due to boating safety improvements throughout
the nation, has resulted in a number of boat stations becoming
redundant. This consolidation will result in a more robust response
system by increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat
stations. Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities
for boat operators to properly train instead of missing training
opportunities while standing ready to respond to calls that do not
come. Station Oxford and Stations-Small Fishers Island, Shark River,
Roosevelt Inlet, and Salem have been identified for consolidation with
neighboring stations.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. In your submission, please include the docket number for
this notice and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions.

    Dated: April 14, 2020.
Matthew W. Sibley,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Capability.
[FR Doc. 2020-08205 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41838-41839]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17854]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 3236/July 12, 2011]

Order Approving Adjustment for Inflation of the Dollar Amount
Tests in Rule 205-3 Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

I. Background

    Section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act'') generally prohibits an investment adviser from
entering into, extending, renewing, or performing any investment
advisory contract that provides for compensation to the adviser based
on a share of capital gains on, or capital appreciation of, the funds
of a client (also known as ``performance compensation'' or
``performance fees'').\1\ Section 205(e) authorizes the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') to exempt any advisory contract
from the performance fee prohibition if the contract is with persons
that the Commission determines do not need the protections of the
prohibition, on the basis of certain factors described in that
section.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(a)(1).
    \2\ Under section 205(e), the Commission may determine that
persons do not need the protections of section 205(a)(1) on the
basis of such factors as ``financial sophistication, net worth,
knowledge of and experience in financial matters, amount of assets
under management, relationship with a registered investment adviser,
and such other factors as the Commission determines are consistent
with [section 205].'' 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act exempts an investment adviser
from the prohibition against charging a client performance fees in
certain circumstances, including when the client is a ``qualified
client.'' The rule allows an adviser to charge performance fees if the
client has at least $750,000 under the management of an investment
adviser immediately after entering into the advisory contract
(``assets-under-management test'') or if the adviser reasonably
believes the client has a net worth of more than $1,500,000 at the time
the contract is entered into (``net worth test''). The Commission last
revised the level of these dollar amount thresholds to account for the
effects of inflation in 1998.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exemption To Allow Investment Advisers To Charge Fees
Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon or Capital Appreciation of
a Client's Account, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1731 (July
15, 1998) [63 FR 39022 (July 21, 1998)].

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

II. Adjustment of Dollar Amount Thresholds Under the Dodd-Frank Act

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act \4\
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended section 205(e) of the Advisers Act to
provide that, by July 21, 2011 and every five years thereafter, the
Commission shall adjust for inflation the dollar amount thresholds
included in rules issued under section 205(e), rounded to the nearest
$100,000.\5\ As discussed above, there are two dollar amount thresholds
in rules issued under section 205(e), and they are in the assets-under-
management and net worth tests in rule 205-3's definition of
``qualified client.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \5\ See section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2011, the Commission published a notice of intent to
issue an order revising the dollar amount thresholds of the assets-
under-management test and the net worth test.\6\ We stated that, based
on calculations of inflation since 1998 when the dollar amount
thresholds were last revised, we intended to revise the threshold in
the assets-under-management test from $750,000 to $1 million, and in
the net worth test from $1.5 million to $2 million.\7\ We also stated
that these revised dollar amounts would take into account the effects
of inflation by reference to the historic and current levels of the
Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index, which is
published by the Department of Commerce and often used as an indicator
of inflation in the personal sector of the U.S. economy.\8\ The revised
dollar amounts would reflect inflation from 1998 to the end of 2010,
and are rounded to the nearest $100,000 as required by section 205(e)
of the Advisers Act, as amended by section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Investment Adviser Performance Compensation, Investment
Advisers Act Release No. 3198 (May 10, 2011) [76 FR 27959 (May 13,
2011)] (``Proposing Release''). The Commission also proposed for
public comment certain amendments to rule 205-3 that would reflect
any inflation adjustments to the rule that we issue by order, as
well as other rule amendments that would (i) provide that the
Commission will issue an order every five years adjusting for
inflation the dollar amount tests, (ii) exclude the value of a
person's primary residence from the test of whether a person has
sufficient net worth to be considered a ``qualified client,'' and
(iii) add certain transition provisions to the rule. The deadline
for comments on the proposed rule amendments was July 11, 2011. Id.
    \7\ See id. at nn.17-18 and accompanying text.
    \8\ See id. at nn.19-21 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's notice established a deadline of June 20, 2011 for
submission of requests for a hearing. No requests for a hearing have
been received by the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission has received comments on the rule amendments
that it proposed in May 2011, and those comments are available in
the public rulemaking file S7-17-11 (available on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-17-11/s71711.shtml).
Several commenters expressed concern about the Commission's
expressed intent to raise the dollar amount thresholds of rule 205-
3. The Dodd-Frank Act clearly mandates that the Commission adjust
the dollar amount thresholds that are the subject of this Order. The
Commission intends to evaluate the comments it receives on the
rulemaking proposal in its consideration of any adoption of the
proposed amendments. See Proposing Release, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Effective Date of the Order

    This Order is effective as of September 19, 2011.

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to section 205(e) of the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 and section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
    It is hereby ordered that, for purposes of rule 205-3(d)(1)(i)
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [17 CFR 275.205-3(d)(1)(i)],
a qualified client means a natural person who or a company that
immediately after entering into the contract has at least $1,000,000
under the management of the investment adviser; and
    It is further ordered that, for purposes of rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A)
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [17 CFR 275.205-
3(d)(1)(ii)(A)], a qualified client means a natural person who or a
company that the investment adviser entering into the contract (and any
person acting on his behalf) reasonably believes, immediately prior to
entering into the contract, has a net worth (together, in the case of a
natural person, with assets held jointly with a spouse) of more than
$2,000,000 at the time the contract is entered into.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17854 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 105 (Monday, June 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33224-33231]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11647]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88940; File No. SR-GEMX-2020-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend GEMX's
Pricing Schedule

May 26, 2020.
    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 May 11, 2020, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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\ 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 GEMX's Pricing Schedule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 3,
titled ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates.''
    The Exchange originally filed the proposed pricing changes on April
30, 2020 (SR-GEMX-2020-11). On May 11, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted this filing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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
    GEMX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section
3, titled ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates.'' GEMX proposes to amend
its Regular Order Fees and Rebates in Penny Symbols. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes various amendments to its Maker Rebates and Taker
Fees, as well as qualification tiers. Each amendment is described
below.
Technical Correction
    The Exchange proposes to remove ``and SPY'' from the title ``Penny
Symbols and SPY'' as SPY has no separate pricing within Options 7,
Section 3 and SPY is part of the Penny Pilot Program and would
otherwise be subject to the pricing applicable to Penny Symbols.
Maker Rebates
    With respect to the Tier 1 Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols, the
Exchange currently pays a Market Maker \3\ a $0.28 per contract rebate,
a Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) \4\ a $0.25 per contract rebate,
a Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer \5\ a $0.25 per contract rebate, a
Professional Customer \6\ a $0.25 per contract rebate and a Priority
Customer \7\ a $0.25 per contract rebate. The Exchange proposes to
lower Tier 1 Maker Rebates for all non-Priority Customers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to lower a Market Maker from $0.28
to $0.20 per contract, a Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) from
$0.25 to $0.20 per contract, a Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer from
$0.25 to $0.20 per contract, and a Professional Customer from $0.25 to
$0.20 per contract. A Priority Customer will continue to receive a Tier
1 Maker Rebate of $0.25 per contract. Priority Customers would receive
the highest Tier 1 Maker Rebate with this proposal. While the Exchange
is lowering the Tier 1 Maker Rebate for all non-Priority Customers to
$0.20 per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange is proposing to add a
new Tier 5 Maker Rebate, as described in more detail below. This new
Tier 5 Maker Rebate will pay higher rebates to Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \4\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange. See GEMX Options 7, Section 1.
    \5\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is
an order submitted by a member for a broker-dealer account that is
not its own proprietary account. See GEMX Options 7, Section 1.
    \6\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See GEMX Options
7, Section 1.
    \7\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq GEMX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36). Unless otherwise noted, when used in this Pricing
Schedule the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail''. A
``Retail'' order is a Priority Customer order that originates from a
natural person, provided that no change is made to the terms of the
order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See GEMX Options 7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Tier 2 Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols, the
Exchange currently pays a Market Maker a $0.30 per contract rebate,
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers
and Professional Customers are not eligible for a Tier 2 Maker Rebate.
Priority Customers receive a $0.40 per contract Tier 2 Maker Rebate.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Tier 2 Maker Rebate for Market
Makers from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract. The Exchange is not otherwise
amending the Tier 2 Maker Rebates. Priority Customers would continue to
receive the highest Tier 2 Maker Rebates with this proposal. While the
Exchange is lowering the Tier 2 Maker Rebate for Market Makers to $0.25
per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange is proposing to add a new
Tier 5 Maker Rebate, as described in more detail below. This new Tier 5
Maker Rebate will pay higher rebates to Market Makers.
    With respect to the Tier 3 Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols, the
Exchange currently pays a Market Maker a $0.35 per contract rebate,
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers
and Professional Customers are not eligible for a Tier 3 Maker Rebate.
Priority Customers receive a $0.48 per contract Tier 3 Maker Rebate.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Tier 3 Maker Rebate for Market
Makers from $0.35 to $0.30 per contract. The Exchange is not otherwise
amending the Tier 3 Maker Rebates. Priority Customers would continue to
receive the highest Tier 3 Maker Rebates with this proposal. While the
Exchange is lowering the Tier 3 Maker Rebate for Market Makers to $0.30
per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange is proposing to add a new
Tier 5 Maker Rebate, as described in more detail below. This new Tier 5

Maker Rebate will pay higher rebates to Market Makers.
    With respect to the Tier 4 Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols, the
Exchange currently pays a Market Maker a $0.45 per contract rebate,
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers
and Professional Customers are not eligible for a Tier 4 Maker Rebate.
Priority Customers receive a $0.53 per contract Tier 4 Maker Rebate.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Tier 4 Maker Rebate for Market
Makers from $0.45 to $0.41 per contract. The Exchange is not otherwise
amending the Tier 4 Maker Rebates. Priority Customers would continue to
receive the highest Tier 4 Maker Rebates with this proposal. While the
Exchange is lowering the Tier 4 Maker Rebate for Market Makers to $0.41
per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange is proposing to add a new
Tier 5 Maker Rebate, as described in more detail below. This new Tier 5
Maker Rebate will pay higher rebates to Market Makers.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Tier 5 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols. The Exchange proposes to pay a Market Maker a $0.45 per
contract rebate, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm
Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers would not be
eligible for a Tier 5 Maker Rebate. Priority Customers would receive a
$0.53 per contract Tier 5 Maker Rebate. With this proposal, Priority
Customers would receive the highest Tier 5 Maker Rebate. The Exchange
believes that these new Tier 5 Maker Rebates for Market Makers and
Priority Customers will attract a greater amount of order flow on GEMX
in Penny Symbols because of the opportunity to receive these rebates.
Taker Fees
    With respect to the Tier 1 Taker Fee in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently assesses Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers a
$0.50 per contract fee. Priority Customers are assessed a $0.48 per
contract fee. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Tier 1 Taker
Fee for Priority Customers from $0.48 to $0.49 per contract. The
Exchange is not otherwise amending the Tier 1 Taker Fees. Priority
Customers would continue to pay the lowest Tier 1 Taker Fee with this
proposal. While the Exchange is increasing the Tier 1 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers to $0.49 per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
is proposing to add new Tier 5 Taker Fees, as described in more detail
below. The new Tier 5 Taker Fee will offer lower fees for Priority
Customers.
    With respect to the Tier 2 Taker Fee in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently assesses Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers a
$0.50 per contract fee. Priority Customers are assessed a $0.47 per
contract fee. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Tier 2 Taker
Fee for Priority Customers from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract. The
Exchange is not otherwise amending the Tier 2 Taker Fees. Priority
Customers would continue to pay the lowest Tier 2 Taker Fee with this
proposal. While the Exchange is increasing the Tier 2 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers to $0.48 per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
is proposing to add a new Tier 5 Taker Fee, as described in more detail
below. The new Tier 5 Taker Fee will offer lower fees for Priority
Customers.
    With respect to the Tier 3 Taker Fee in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently assesses Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers a
$0.50 per contract fee. Priority Customers are assessed a $0.47 per
contract fee. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Tier 3 Taker
Fee for Priority Customers from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract. The
Exchange is not otherwise amending the Tier 3 Taker Fees. Priority
Customers would continue to pay the lowest Tier 3 Taker Fee with this
proposal. While the Exchange is increasing the Tier 3 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers to $0.48 per contract in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
is proposing to add a new Tier 5 Taker Fee, as described in more detail
below. The new Tier 5 Taker Fee will offer lower fees for Priority
Customers.
    With respect to the Tier 4 Taker Fee in Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently assesses Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM) a $0.48 per contract fee. The Exchange currently assesses Firm
Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers a $0.49 per
contract fee. Priority Customers are assessed a $0.45 per contract fee.
The Exchange is proposing to decrease the Tier 4 Taker Fee for Priority
Customers from $0.45 to $0.43 per contract. The Exchange is not
otherwise amending the Tier 4 Taker Fees. Priority Customers would pay
an even lower Tier 4 Taker Fee with this proposal, which should attract
a greater amount of Priority Customer order flow on GEMX in Penny
Symbols because of the opportunity to obtain lower fees.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Tier 5 Taker Fees in Penny
Symbols. The Exchange proposes to assess a Market Maker and a Non-
Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) a $0.48 per contract fee. The Exchange
proposes to assess a Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer and a Professional
Customer a $0.49 per contract fee. Priority Customers would be assessed
a $0.42 per contract fee. With this proposal, Priority Customers would
pay the lowest Tier 5 Taker Fee. Proposed Tier 5 Taker Fees will
attract a greater amount of order flow on GEMX in Penny Symbols because
of the opportunity to obtain lower Priority Customer fees.
    Further, note 4 in Options 7, Section 3 would be applicable to this
new Tier 5 Taker Fee. Therefore, non-Priority Customer orders would be
charged the Taker Fee for trades executed during the Opening Process.
Priority Customer orders executed during the Opening Process will
receive the applicable Maker Rebate based on the tier achieved.\8\
Additionally, note 13 would be applicable to this new Tier 5 Taker Fee.
Therefore, non-Priority Customer orders will be charged a Taker Fee of
$0.50 per contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer.
Priority Customer orders will be charged a Taker Fee of $0.49 per
contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer. Currently,
Taker Fee Tiers 1-4 are subject to notes 4 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange proposes to replace the phrase ``opening
rotation'' with ``Opening Process'' to conform the title within note
4 to the title of Options 3, Section 8. The Exchange also proposes
to capitalize the terms ``Maker Rebate'' and ``Taker Fee'' in notes
3, 4, 5, 13 and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Qualifying Tiers within Options
7, Section 3. Currently, there are 4 qualifying tiers:

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Total affiliated member  Priority customer maker
         Tier             % of customer  total     % of customer  total
                          consolidated volume      consolidated volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................  Executes less than       Executes Priority
                         0.65% of Customer        Customer Maker volume
                         Total Consolidated       of less than 0.10% of
                         Volume.                  Customer Total
                                                  Consolidated Volume.
Tier 2................  Executes 0.65% to less   Executes Priority
                         than 1.5% of Customer    Customer Maker volume
                         Total Consolidated       of 0.10% to less than
                         Volume.                  0.65% of Customer
                                                  Total Consolidated
                                                  Volume.
Tier 3................  Executes 1.5% to less    Executes Priority
                         than 2.50% of Customer   Customer Maker volume
                         Total Consolidated       of 0.65% to less than
                         Volume.                  1.20% of Customer
                                                  Total Consolidated
                                                  Volume.
Tier 4................  Executes 2.5% or         Executes Priority
                         greater of Customer      Customer Maker volume
                         Total Consolidated       of 1.20% or greater of
                         Volume.                  Customer Total
                                                  Consolidated Volume.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All market participants can qualify for Tiers 1 through 4, provided
they meet the requisite volume thresholds specified in Table 1 above.
The maker and taker fees for all market participants represented in
Table 1, displayed above, are dependent on qualifying for a particular
tier. With respect to these tiers, the highest tier threshold attained
applies retroactively in a given month to all eligible traded contracts
and applies to all eligible market participants. All eligible volume
from affiliated Members will be aggregated in determining applicable
tiers, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the
Members as reflected on each Member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the current Qualifying Tier
Thresholds. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 4
Qualifying Tier Threshold. The Exchange proposes to amend the
description of Tier 4 in the Total Affiliated Member % of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume,\9\ which currently requires that a member
execute 2.5% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. The
Exchange proposes to instead require that a member execute 2.5% to less
than 3.5% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. The Exchange also
proposes to amend the description of the Tier 4 Priority Customer Maker
% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume,\10\ which currently requires
that a member executes Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20% or
greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. The Exchange proposes to
instead require that a member execute Priority Customer Maker volume of
1.20% to less than 2.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of measuring Total Affiliated Member % of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume, Customer Total Consolidated
Volume means the total volume cleared at The Options Clearing
Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in that
month.
    \10\ The Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume category includes all Priority Customer volume
that adds liquidity in all symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier
Threshold which for purposes of Total Affiliated Member % of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume requires a member to execute 3.5% or greater
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. Also, the Exchange proposes to
adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier Threshold, with respect to Priority
Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which requires
a member to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 2.75% or greater
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
    The Exchange is amending the Tier 4 Qualifying Tier Threshold so
that it may add a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier Threshold. The Exchange
believes that Members may execute a greater amount of volume on GEMX to
qualify for higher rebates and lower fees. The proposed pricing is
intended to continue to reward Members that submit Priority Customer
order flow to the Exchange and thereby increase liquidity and trading
opportunities for all Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\14\ (``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\15\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (DC Cir. 2010).
    \15\ See NetCoalition, at 534--535.
    \16\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \17\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maker Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1 Maker Rebates in Penny

Symbols to pay all non-Priority Customers a $0.20 per contract rebate
and lower the Tier 2 Maker Rebate (from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract),
the Tier 3 Maker Rebate (from $0.35 to $0.30 per contract) and the Tier
4 Maker Rebate (from $0.45 to $0.41 per contract) for Market Makers is
reasonable. With this proposal, Priority Customers would receive the
highest Maker Rebates in Tiers 1-4, respectively. While the Exchange is
lowering the Tier 1 Maker Rebate for all non-Priority Customers as well
as the Tier 2, 3 and 4 Maker Rebates for Market Makers, the Exchange is
proposing new Tier 5 Maker Rebates, which would provide Market Makers
and Priority Customers an opportunity to obtain higher rebates,
provided they meet the qualifications. While the proposal generally
decreases Maker Rebates for Market Makers and non-Priority Customers,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rebate structure will remain
attractive to all Members.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols to pay all non-Priority Customers a $0.20 per contract rebate
and lower the Tier 2 Maker Rebate (from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract),
the Tier 3 Maker Rebate (from $0.35 to $0.30 per contract) and the Tier
4 Maker Rebate (from $0.45 to $0.41 per contract) for Market Makers is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Tier 1 Maker Rebates
will uniformly pay all non-Priority Customers a $0.20 per contract
rebate. Also, Priority Customers would receive the highest Tier 1 Maker
Rebate with the proposal. While the Exchange is lowering the Tier 2, 3
and 4 Maker Rebates for Market Makers, the proposal will continue to
pay Priority Customers the highest Tier 2, 3 and 4 Maker Rebates,
respectively. Market Makers have different requirements and obligations
to the Exchange that other market participants do not (such as quoting
requirements).\18\ Incentivizing Market Makers to provide greater
liquidity benefits all market participants through the quality of order
interaction. Also, Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See GEMX Options 2, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols is reasonable. The Exchange proposes to pay a Market Maker a
$0.45 per contract Tier 5 rebate and Priority Customers a $0.53 per
contract Tier 5 rebate. Priority Customers would receive the highest
Tier 5 Maker Rebate. As has historically been the case, incentivizing
Market Makers and Priority Customers with more favorable Maker Rebates
encourages order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's proposal
amends the Tier 4 Taker Fee for Priority Customers from $0.45 to $0.43
per contract. The Exchange believes that this amendment, along with the
potential to qualify for an even lower Tier 5 Taker Fee of $0.42 per
contract, will encourage Members to send order flow to GEMX.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Market Makers
have different requirements and obligations to the Exchange that other
market participants do not (such as quoting requirements).\19\
Incentivizing Market Makers to provide greater liquidity benefits all
market participants through the quality of order interaction. Also,
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taker Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1-4 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers \20\ is reasonable. The Exchange's proposal, while
increasing the Tier 1-3 Taker Fees for Priority Customers, will remain
attractive to all Members. Priority Customers would continue to pay the
lowest Tier 1-3 Taker Fees with this proposal. Further, decreasing the
Tier 4 Taker Fee for Priority Customers will attract a greater amount
of Priority Customer order flow on GEMX in Penny Symbols because of the
opportunity to receive this lower fee. Also, the Tier 4 Taker Fee for
Priority Customer will remain the lowest Tier 4 Taker Fee. With this
proposal, Market Makers and Priority Customers will continue to be
incentivized to submit order flow on GEMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange's proposal increases the Tier 1 Priority
Customer Taker fee from $0.48 to $0.49 per contract. The Tier 2
Priority Customer Taker fee is being increased from $0.47 to $0.48
per contract. The Tier 3 Priority Customer Taker Fee is being
increased from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract. Finally, the Tier 4
Priority Customer Taker Fee is being decreased from $0.45 to $0.43
per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1--4 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The
proposed amendments continue to provide Priority Customers with the
lowest Tier 1--4 Taker Fees. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1-4 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The
proposed amendments continue to provide Priority Customers with the
lowest Tier 1-4 Taker Fees. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunites, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Taker Fees \21\ is
reasonable. The proposed Tier 5 Taker Fees will attract a greater
amount of Priority Customer orders on GEMX in Penny Symbols because of
the opportunity to obtain these lower fees by submitting qualifying
order flow. All Members may obtain the Tier 5 Taker Fees provided they
submit qualifying order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange proposes the following Tier 5 Taker Fees:
Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) would be
assessed a $0.48 per contract fee; Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers
and Professional Customers would be assessed a $0.49 per contract
fee; and Priority Customers would be assessed a $0.42 per contract
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Taker Fees is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX
Market Maker (FarMM) would be assessed lower fees as compared to other
non-Priority Customer market participants. The Exchange does not
believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to assess lower Tier 5 Taker
Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) as
these market participants have obligations in the marketplace, which
other market participants do not have, such as quoting. Also these
market participants provide liquidity. With this proposal, Priority
Customers would pay the lowest Tier 5 Taker Fees. The Tier 5 Taker Fees
would be assessed to those

participants that submit qualifying volume on GEMX. All market
participants that submit qualifying volume are able to obtain lower
fees with more qualifying volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to apply current note 4 of GEMX Options 7,
Section 3 to the Tier 5 Taker Fee is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Similar to Tiers 1-4 of the Taker Fees, the
Exchange states that during the Opening Process, non-Priority Customers
would be charged the Taker Fee for trades executed. Also, Priority
Customers executed during the Opening Process will receive the
applicable Maker Rebate based on the tier achieved. The Exchange
believes that it is fair and equitable to charge its ``taker'' fee for
non-Priority Customers executed during the Opening Process in order to
avoid the negative economics associated with paying a rebate on both
sides of each trade. In addition, the fee is reasonable, because the
Exchange desires to attract Priority Customers into its Opening Process
and therefore proposes to pay those orders certain rebates. The
Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory not to
similarly charge its ``taker'' fee to Priority Customers. In general,
Priority Customers are provided higher rebates and lower fees than
other market participants on the Exchange. The Exchange believes
continuing to provide rebates to Priority Customers whose orders are
executed during the Opening Process, similar to the Tier 1-4 Taker
Fees, will attract order flow to GEMX and thereby create liquidity to
the benefit of all market participants who trade on the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to apply current note 13 of GEMX Options 7,
Section 3 to the Tier 5 Taker Fee is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Non-Priority Customers will be charged a Taker
Fee of $0.50 per contract for trades executed against a Priority
Customer. Also, Priority Customers will be charged a Taker Fee of $0.49
per contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer. This
proposed fee structure in note 13 is similar to the Tier 1-4 Taker
Fees. The Exchange's pricing structure for Penny Symbols offers
Priority Customers the highest rebates and lowest fees. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the fee
charged to non-Priority Customers that trade against a Priority
Customer or a Priority Customer that trades against another Priority
Customer as this proposal is designed to offset the higher rebates and
lower fees offered to Priority Customers. The Exchange believes that
Members will benefit from the additional liquidity which the Exchange
attracts through its favorable pricing (higher rebates and lower fees)
that is offered to Priority Customers in Penny Symbols. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to assess a higher Taker Fee
for trades executed against a Priority Customer. Finally, the Exchange
will uniformly assess the higher Taker Fee to Non-Priority Customers
and Priority Customers for trades executed against a Priority Customer.
Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the description of Tier 4 of the
Qualifying Tier Thresholds with respect to the Total Affiliated Member
% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume,\22\ which currently requires
that a member execute 2.5% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume, to instead require that a member execute 2.5%, to less than
3.5% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is reasonable. Also, the
Exchange's proposal to amend the description of the Tier 4 of
Qualifying Tier Threshold with respect to the Priority Customer Maker %
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume,\23\ which currently requires
that a member executes Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20% or
greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, to instead require that
a member execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20% to less than
2.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is reasonable. With this
proposal, the Exchange adopts a new Tier 5 Maker Rebate and a new Tier
5 Taker Fee with certain qualifications that currently would fall
within the Tier 4 Maker Rebate and the Tier 4 Taker Fee, respectively.
The new Tier 5 Maker Rebate offers higher rebates and the new Tier 5
Taker Fee offers lower fees than the equivalent Tier 4 Maker Rebate and
Tier 4 Taker Fee. The Exchange believes that amending the Tier 4
Qualifying Tier Threshold will allow Members to continue to receive the
same rebates and fees as today, provided they continue to submit the
same qualifying volume, with the possibility of achieving higher
rebates and lower fees with the new Tier 5 Maker Rebate and Tier 5
Taker Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes of measuring Total Affiliated Member % of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume, Customer Total Consolidated
Volume means the total volume cleared at The Options Clearing
Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in that
month.
    \23\ The Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume category includes all Priority Customer volume
that adds liquidity in all symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the description of Tier 4 of the
Qualifying Tier Thresholds with respect to the Total Affiliated Member
% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which currently requires that
a member execute 2.5% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume,
to instead require that a member execute 2.5%, to less than 3.5% of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Also, the Exchange's proposal to amend the description
of the Tier 4 of Qualifying Tier Threshold with respect to the Priority
Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which currently
requires that a member executes Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20%
or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, to instead require
that a member execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20% to less
than 2.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. All Members that meet the qualifications of
the Tier 4 Qualifying Tier Threshold would be eligible, uniformly, to
receive the corresponding rebates and fees.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier
Threshold that for purposes of Total Affiliated Member % of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume requires a member to execute 3.5% or greater
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is reasonable. Further, the
Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier Threshold
with respect to Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume that requires a member to execute Priority Customer
Maker volume of 2.75% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
is reasonable. The Exchange's proposal seeks to incentivize Members to
submit a greater amount of order flow on GEMX in order to earn higher
rebates and lower fees. The Exchange believes that adopting a new Tier
5 Qualifying Tier Threshold in conjunction with a new Tier 5 Maker
Rebate and a new Tier 5 Taker Fee will encourage Members to submit a
greater amount of order flow on GEMX in Penny Symbols.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier
Threshold that for purposes of Total Affiliated Member % of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume requires a member to execute 3.5% or greater
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Further, the Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5
Qualifying Tier Threshold with respect to Priority Customer Maker % of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume that requires a member to execute
Priority Customer Maker volume of

2.75% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. Members that meet the qualifications for
these Tier 5 Qualifying Tier Thresholds would be eligible, uniformly,
to receive the corresponding Tier 5 Maker Rebates and Tier 5 Taker Fees
in Penny Symbols. As has historically been the case, incentivizing
Market Makers and Priority Customers with more favorable Maker Rebates
encourages order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's proposal
amends the Tier 4 Taker Fee for Priority Customers from $0.45 to $0.43
per contract. The Exchange believes that this amendment, along with the
potential to qualify for an
even lower Tier 5 Taker Fee of $0.42 per contract, will encourage
Members to send order flow to GEMX.
Technical Correction
    The Exchange's proposal to remove ``and SPY'' from the title
``Penny Symbols and SPY'' is reasonable as SPY has no separate pricing
within Options 7, Section 3 and SPY is part of the Penny Pilot Program
and would otherwise be subject to the pricing applicable to Penny
Symbols. The Exchange's proposal to remove ``and SPY'' from the title
``Penny Symbols and SPY'' is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
as this amendment will not cause a change in pricing to any market
participant. All other technical amendments to capitalize terms and
rename the ``opening rotation'' to refer to ``Opening Process'' are
non-substantive amendments.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory
standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
    The proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on
intramarket competition.
Maker Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols to pay all non-Priority Customers a $0.20 per contract rebate
and lower the Tier 2 Maker Rebate (from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract),
the Tier 3 Maker Rebate (from $0.35 to $0.30 per contract) and the Tier
4 Maker Rebate (from $0.45 to $0.41 per contract) for Market Makers
does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Tier 1 Maker
Rebates will uniformly pay all non-Priority Customers a $0.20 per
contract rebate. Also, Priority Customers would receive the highest
Tier 1 Maker Rebate with the proposal. While the Exchange is lowering
the Tier 2, 3 and 4 Maker Rebates for Market Makers, the proposal will
continue to pay Priority Customers the highest Tier 2, 3 and 4 Maker
Rebates, respectively. Market Makers have different requirements and
obligations to the Exchange that other market participants do not (such
as quoting requirements).\24\ Incentivizing Market Makers to provide
greater liquidity benefits all market participants through the quality
of order interaction. Also, Priority Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See GEMX Options 2, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Maker Rebates in Penny
Symbols does not impose an undue burden on competition. Market Makers
have different requirements and obligations to the Exchange that other
market participants do not (such as quoting requirements).\25\
Incentivizing Market Makers to provide greater liquidity benefits all
market participants through the quality of order interaction. Also,
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taker Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1-4 Taker Fees for
Priority Customers does not impose an undue burden on competition. The
proposed amendments continue to provide Priority Customers with the
lowest Tier 1-4 Taker Fees. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new Tier 5 Taker Fees does not
impose an undue burden on competition. Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq
GEMX Market Maker (FarMM) would be assessed lower fees as compared to
other non-Priority Customer market participants. The Exchange does not
believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to assess lower Tier 5 Taker
Fees for Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) as
these market participants have obligations in the marketplace, which
other market participants do not have, such as quoting. Also these
market participants provide liquidity. With this proposal, Priority
Customers would pay the lowest Tier 5 Taker Fees. The Tier 5 Taker Fees
would be uniformly assessed to those participants that submit
qualifying volume on GEMX. All market participants that submit
qualifying volume are able to obtain lower fees with more qualifying
volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to apply current note 4 of GEMX Options 7,
Section 3 to the Tier 5 Taker Fee does not impose an undue burden on
competition. Assessing a ``taker'' fee for non-Priority Customers
executed during the Opening Process avoids the negative economics
associated with paying a rebate on both sides of each trade. In
general, Priority Customers are provided higher rebates and lower fees
than other market participants on the Exchange. Providing rebates to
Priority Customers executed during the Opening Process, similar to the
Tier 1-4 Taker Fees, will attract that order flow to GEMX and thereby
create liquidity to the benefit of

all market participants who trade on the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to apply current note 13 of GEMX Options 7,
Section 3 to the Tier 5 Taker Fee does not impose an undue burden on
competition. This proposed fee structure in note 13 is similar to the
Tier 1-4 Taker Fees. The Exchange's pricing structure for Penny Symbols
offers Priority Customers the highest rebates and lowest fees. The
Exchange believes that it does not impose an undue burden on
competition to increase the fee charged to non-Priority Customers that
trade against a Priority Customer or a Priority Customer that trades
against another Priority Customer as this proposal is designed to
offset the higher rebates and lower fees offered to Priority Customers.
The Exchange believes that Members will benefit from the additional
liquidity which the Exchange attracts through its favorable pricing
(higher rebates and lower fees) that is offered to Priority Customers
in Penny Symbols. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to assess a higher Taker Fee for trades executed against a
Priority Customer. Finally, the Exchange will uniformly assess the
higher Taker Fee to Non-Priority Customers and Priority Customers for
trades executed against a Priority Customer.
Qualifying Tier Thresholds
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the description of Tier 4 of the
Qualifying Tier Thresholds with respect to the Total Affiliated Member
% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which currently requires that
a member execute 2.5% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume,
to instead require that a member execute 2.5%, to less than 3.5% of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume does not impose an undue burden on
competition. Also, the Exchange's proposal to amend the description of
the Tier 4 of Qualifying Tier Threshold with respect to the Priority
Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which currently
requires that a member executes Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20%
or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, to instead require
that a member execute Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.20% to less
than 2.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume does not impose an
undue burden on competition. All Members that meet the qualifications
of the Tier 4 Qualifying Tier Threshold would be eligible, uniformly,
to receive the corresponding rebates and fees.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5 Qualifying Tier
Threshold that for purposes of Total Affiliated Member % of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume requires a member to execute 3.5% or greater
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume does not impose an undue burden
on competition. Further, the Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 5
Qualifying Tier Threshold with respect to Priority Customer Maker % of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume that requires a member to execute
Priority Customer Maker volume of 2.75% or greater of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume does not impose an undue burden on competition.
Members that meet the qualifications for these Tier 5 Qualifying Tier
Thresholds would be eligible, uniformly, to receive the corresponding
Tier 5 Maker Rebates and Tier 5 Taker Fees in Penny Symbols. As has
historically been the case, incentivizing Market Makers and Priority
Customers with more favorable Maker Rebates encourages order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's proposal amends the Tier 4 Taker Fee for
Priority Customers from $0.45 to $0.43 per contract. The Exchange
believes that this amendment, along with the potential to qualify for
an even lower Tier 5 Taker Fee of $0.42 per contract, will encourage
Members to send order flow to GEMX.
Technical Correction
    The Exchange's proposal to remove ``and SPY'' from the title
``Penny Symbols and SPY'' does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the amendment will not cause a change in pricing to
any market participant. All other technical amendments to capitalize
terms and rename the ``opening rotation'' to refer to ``Opening
Process'' are non-substantive amendments.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \27\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-GEMX-2020-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2020-12. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All

submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2020-12 and should be
submitted on or before June 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11647 Filed 5-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42301]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2217-000]

Power Dave Fund LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Power Dave Fund LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 1, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17427 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12279]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-95-001]

Enogex LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 21, 2012, Enogex LLC submitted a
revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating Conditions to
comply with an unpublished Delegated letter order issued on February
10, 2012, as more fully described in the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 5, 2012.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4768 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21064]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0202]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Willamette River, Portland, OR

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 Hawthorne Bridge across the
Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. This deviation is
necessary to accommodate Portland's Rock-n-Roll Half Marathon. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to allow
for the safe movement of event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective on May 19, 2013, from 3 a.m. until
12:01 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0202] 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. You may also visit 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Randall Overton, Bridge
Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County has requested that the
Hawthorne lift bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate
safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Rock-n-Roll
Half Marathon event. The Hawthorne Bridge crosses the Willamette River
at mile 13.1 and provides 49 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia
River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels which do not
require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge
during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge
operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897 which allows for the bridge
to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday
through Friday. This deviation period is from 3 a.m. on May 19, 2013,
until 12:01 p.m. May 19, 2013. The deviation allows the Hawthorne
Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, to remain in the closed
position and not open for maritime traffic from 3 a.m. on May 19, 2013,
until 12:01 p.m. May 19, 2013. The bridge shall operate in accordance
to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of
the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and
barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept
informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice
to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as
appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if needed, for
vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure
period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 25, 2013.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-08171 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53547]
[DOCID:fr19se07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1193-000]

CPV Liberty, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

September 13, 2007.
    CPV Liberty, LLC (CPV Liberty) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed
market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity
and ancillary services at market-based rates. CPV Liberty also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, CPV
Liberty requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18
CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by CPV Liberty.
    On September 10, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by CPV Liberty, should file a protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
October 10, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, CPV Liberty is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of CPV Liberty, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of CPV Liberty's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18425 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


51802 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules change to the existing approved information collection. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

Drafting Information The principal author of this document was Francis W. Foote, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U. S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise.

Proposed Amendment to the Regulations For the reasons stated above, it is proposed to amend Part 12 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 12) as set forth below.

PART 12— SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The authority citation for Part 12 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 5 U. S. C. 301; 19 U. S. C. 66, 1202 (General Note 23, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;

* * * * * 2. A new center heading and new § 12.145 are added to read as follows:

Steel Products § 12.145 Entry of certain steel products.

Except in the case of merchandise that is eligible for informal entry under § 143.21 of this chapter, in any case in which a steel import license number is required to be obtained under regulations promulgated by the U. S. Department of Commerce, that license number must be included on the entry summary, Customs Form 7501, or on an electronic equivalent.

Robert C. Bonner,

Commissioner of Customs. Approved: August 6, 2002.

Timothy E. Skud,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 02– 20165 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820– 02– P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 630 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA– 2001– 11130]

RIN 2125– AE29 Work Zone Safety AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

SUMMARY: The FHWA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on February 6, 2002 (67 FR 5532), to obtain comments on the current work zone safety regulation. The purpose of the ANPRM was to seek comments regarding improvements that can be made to its regulation on Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones to better address work zone mobility and safety concerns. On June 6, 2002, the comment period closed, and the FHWA began to analyze the comments provided. This meeting is being held to highlight the reasons for the ANPRM, present a summary of the comments received, and discuss, based on the comments received, the possible impacts that a rulemaking might have on the current regulation. DATES: The meetings will be held Thursday, August 29, Thursday, September 19, and Wednesday, September 25, 2002 from 10: 00 to 2: 00 p. m. ADDRESSES: Cambridge Systematics, 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Telephone: (301) 347– 0100 and Fax: (301) 347– 0101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Materials associated with this meeting may be examined at the office of Cambridge Systematics, 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Persons needing further information or who request to speak at this meeting should contact Mike Harris at PB Farradyne, Inc. by telephone at (703) 742– 5759 or by Fax at (703) 742– 5989. The U. S. DOT contact is Scott Battles, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D. C. 20590, (202) 366– 4372. Office hours are from 7: 45 a. m. to 4: 15 p. m., e. t., Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem, and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512– 1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http:// www. nara. gov/ fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web site at http:// www. access. gpo. gov.

Authority: 23 U. S. C. 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, and 402( a); 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48; sec. 1051, Pub. L. 102– 240, 105 Stat. 2001; sec. 358( b), Pub. L. 104– 59, 109 Stat. 625.

Issued on: August 6, 2002. Gary E. Maring, Director, Office of Freight Management and Operations. [FR Doc. 02– 20249 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910– 22– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 49 [Docket #: A– 2000– 25; FRL– 7254– 3]

RIN 2012– AA01 Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice to re open the public comment period and to hold a public hearing.

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is re opening the public comment period on EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking `` Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, '' published March 15, 2002 at 67 FR 11748. The original 90 day public comment period closed on June 13, 2002 but several commenters requested additional time to provide comments on the proposal and one commenter requested a public hearing. In response to these requests, EPA will re open the comment period and provide an additional 60 days for interested and affected parties to submit comments. The new comment period will close on October 10, 2002. In addition, EPA will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed rule on September 10, 2002, beginning at 7 p. m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) at the Liberty Theater in Toppenish, WA. All comments received by EPA during the public comment period will be considered in the final rulemaking. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received or postmarked no later than October 10, 2002. Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held on September 10, 2002, beginning at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater in VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 16: 57 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP1. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 09AUP1 51803 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Toppenish, WA. Additional requests for a public hearing must be received by EPA no later than August 23, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be addressed to: David Bray, Office of Air Quality (OAQ– 107), U. S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101– 1128. Comments may also be submitted by email to `` bray. dave@ epa. gov. '' Please cite the administrative docket, #A– 2000– 25, upon which you are providing comment. Public Hearing. The hearing on September 20, 2002 will take place at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater, 211 S. Toppenish Avenue, Toppenish, WA. Docket. Docket A– 2000– 25, containing all information supporting this action is available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. and 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Daylight Time at EPA's Central Docket Section, Office of Air and Radiation, Room 1500 (M– 6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's Central Docket Section is scheduled to move between August 12 and August 27, and material will not be available for viewing in Washington, DC, during this time. After August 27, 2002, the docket will be available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. and 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Daylight Time at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington DC 20460. The docket is also available between 8: 30 a. m. and 3: 30 p. m. PDT at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies. A copy of the March 15, 2002 proposed rule and all comments submitted as of June 13, 2002, are available at the Toppenish Library, 1 South Elm, Toppenish, WA 98948 during regular library hours. Web site. Information on this proposed rulemaking is also available on EPA Region 10's Web site at: www. epa. gov/ r10earth/ tribalairrules. htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bray, Office of Air Quality (OAQ– 107), U. S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101– 1128, (206) 553– 4253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 15, 2002 (67 FR 11748), EPA solicited public comment on its proposal to promulgate Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 39 Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The FIPs would include basic air quality regulations for the protection of communities on those Indian reservations. These rules would be implemented and enforced by EPA. EPA received requests to extend the public comment period to allow more time to review the proposal and to prepare comments. EPA also received a request on behalf of the residents of the Yakama Indian Reservation to hold a public hearing. As a result of the requests to extend the public comment period, EPA is reopening the comment period for 60 days. All comments received or postmarked by October 10, 2002 will be considered in the development of a final rule. A copy of all comments, including the requests to extend the public comment period, have been placed into the docket and may be reviewed during normal business hours at the locations listed above. Interested parties are invited to comment on all aspects of EPA's March 15, 2002 proposal. Comments should be addressed to David Bray at the address listed above. EPA also invites interested parties to provide comments at a public hearing to be held on September 10, 2002 at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater in Toppenish, WA.

Dated: July 24, 2002. L. John Iani, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 02– 19440 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [NC93– 200122a; FRL– 7206– 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans North Carolina: Approval of Revisions to The Open Burning Regulations Within the Forsyth County Local Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) revision submitted by the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, through the State of North Carolina, for the purpose of amending regulations relating to open burning, transportation conformity, and the general provisions section of the Air Quality Permits subchapter. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the Forsyth county LIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2002.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Randy Terry at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 8960. Copies of the State submittal( s) are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 8960. Randy Terry, 404/ 562– 9032. Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, 537 North Spruce Street, Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy B. Terry at 404/ 562– 9032, or by electronic mail at terry. randy@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 1, 2002. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 02– 20226 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL– 7256– 6]

Rhode Island: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 16: 57 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP1. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 09AUP1