[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46612-46613]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16789]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051; FRL--9949-18-Region 10]

Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-hour
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing its
decision to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for the
Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, on
the basis that the State has met the criteria for such an extension
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective August 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact Justin
Spenillo at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the
above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On May 18, 2016, the EPA proposed to grant a 1-year extension of
the attainment date for the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area to meet
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to
December 31, 2016, on the basis that the State has met the criteria for
such an extension under the CAA (81 FR 31202). An explanation of the
CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's
reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period
for this proposed rule ended on June 17, 2016. The EPA received no
comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    The EPA finds that the State has met the criteria for receiving a
1-year extension to the Moderate area attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as provided in section
188(d) of the Act. The State is implementing the requirements and
commitments in the applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5
NAAQS in the area, and the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air
quality value for 2015 is below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Accordingly, the State
has established that it meets the criteria of section 188(d) as the EPA
interprets those requirements for purposes of the 2006

PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA therefore exercises the discretion
granted to the Administrator by section 188(d) of the CAA to extend the
Moderate area attainment date for the Oakridge NAA from December 31,
2015 to December 31, 2016.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 7, 2016.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-16789 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64475-64478]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98375; File No. SR-BX-2023-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Equity 7,
Section 118(e)

September 13, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 1, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118(e), as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, Section 118(e), which consists of several
different credits and fees for Retail Orders \3\ and Retail Price
Improvement Orders \4\ under Rule 4780 (Retail Price Improvement
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a Non-Display
Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Rule 4702(b)(6).
    \4\ Retail Price Improving (``RPI'') Orders shall mean an Order
Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule
4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price
increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as
``RPI Interest.'' See Rule 4702(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of fees at Equity 7, Section 118(e). Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the qualifying criteria for an existing fee
for RPI Orders that provide liquidity.
    Currently, the Exchange charges a $0.0018 per share executed fee
for RPI Orders entered by a member that (i) quotes RPI Orders in at
least 1,200 symbols on average per day and (ii) provides liquidity
through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding an average daily volume of
2,500,000 shares. The Exchange proposes to amend the qualifying
criteria for the $0.0018 fee by eliminating the requirement to quote
RPI Orders in at least 1,200 symbols on average per day. Thus, a member
could qualify for the $0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI Orders if
the member provides liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding
an average daily volume of 2,500,000 shares.
    The Exchange hopes that the less strict qualifying criteria (i.e.,
removing the requirement to quote RPI Orders in at least 1,200 symbols
on average per day) will encourage members to increase liquidity
providing activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is
effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's
market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail Orders
to the benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and
Retail Orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of fees is
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[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'. . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to amend the
qualifying criteria for the $0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI
Orders by eliminating the requirement to quote RPI Orders in at least
1,200 symbols on average per day. As discussed above, the Exchange's
goal is to increase liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders on its
platform. It is reasonable and equitable to address this need by easing
the qualification requirements as an incentive for members to increase
their liquidity activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal
is effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the
Exchange's market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and
Retail Orders to the benefit of all participants, especially those who
submit RPI and Retail Orders.

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members that submit RPI and Retail Orders on the Exchange and by
extension attract more liquidity to the market, improving market wide
quality and price discovery. Although net adders of liquidity for RPI
Orders will benefit most from the proposal, this result is fair insofar
as increased liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders will help to
improve market quality and the attractiveness of the Exchange to all
existing and prospective retail participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposal is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. The
proposal eases the qualification requirements for the $0.0018 per share
executed fee for RPI Orders. Members may modify their businesses so
that they can meet the required threshold and pay lower charges. As
noted above, all members of the Exchange will benefit from any increase
in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Moreover, members are
free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the fees
assessed, and credits provided, are not attractive. As one can observe
by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposed modification to its
schedule of fees will not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from the other live exchanges and from off-
exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems that trade
national market system stock. 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 and with
alternative trading systems 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.
    The proposed change is reflective of this competition because, as a
threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small market so its
ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In this regard,
even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume has less than 20%
market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as
having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted
above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and
among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry
volume.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed change to its fees to
increase member incentives to engage in the addition of liquidity on
the Exchange. If the change proposed herein is unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-BX-2023-022 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-BX-2023-022. 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 (https://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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-BX-2023-022 and should be submitted on
or before October 10, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20167 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13312]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1029]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Fox River, Oshkosh, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the establishment of remote drawbridge
operating procedures for the Canadian National Railway Bridge across
the Fox River at Mile 55.72 at Oshkosh, Wisconsin. After careful
consideration of the comments from all parties it was determined to be
in the best interest of navigation to withdraw the NPRM.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published December 8, 2010, at
75 FR 76322, is withdrawn on March 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-1029 in the ``Keyword'' box and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or e-mail Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing material in the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 8, 2010, we published an NPRM entitled Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Fox River, Oshkosh, WI. in the Federal Register
(75 FR 76322). The rulemaking concerned the request by the drawbridge
owner, Canadian National Railway (CN RR), for the District Commander to
approve remote operation of the drawbridge in accordance with 33 CFR
117.42. The drawbridge has been remotely operated without specific
authorization from the District Commander for approximately 3-4 years,
and is currently required to open on signal year round. Vessel
operators have recently informed the Coast Guard that the drawbridge
was formerly left in the open-to-navigation position and only closed
when a train was crossing, but this practice was no longer used and
vessels were reporting unreasonable delays, including no response from
the remote bridge operator to signals for openings, and difficulties
establishing communications with the remote operator. During the summer
of 2010 the U.S. Coast Guard met with CN RR officials and developed the
operating regulation proposed in the NPRM, including a set of visual
warning signals to provide adequate warning to vessels that the
railroad bridge was about to move from the open-to-navigation position
to the closed-to-navigation position. Between April 15 and October 15
each year, the proposed regulation would require the bridge to remain
in the open-to-navigation position unless train traffic is crossing,
then reopen once train traffic has passed. The proposed light and sound
signals would provide vessels with a method of warning when the bridge
is expected to either close for train traffic or reopen for vessel
traffic without having to establish direct communication with the
remote bridge operator. The bridge would also be required to maintain
and operate a marine radiotelephone, along with the equipment to
visually monitor the waterway and communicate with vessels using all
signaling methods described in 33 CFR 117.15. The proposed regulation
also would have established a permanent winter operating schedule by
requiring vessels to provide at least 12 hours advance notice for a
bridge opening during winter, or during the traditional non-boating
season, between approximately October 16 and April 14 each year.

Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard received four comments regarding the NPRM, two that
were successfully received by the Docket Management Facility that were
negative and two received by direct emails that were positive.
    Both negative comments characterized the proposed 10-minute advance
visual warning method to vessel operators as a required 10-minute delay
for trains, resulting in slowed or stopped trains, blockages of City of
Oshkosh streets, and impacts to emergency response providers. The two
negative comments also suggested a 2-minute warning method for vessels.
The NPRM never suggested or implied any change to train operations, or
that trains must change speed or stop and wait 10 minutes on either
bridge approach, or on City streets. Among the positive comments to the
NPRM the local marine law enforcement entity stated it is not uncommon
for ten to twenty vessels to be waiting for a bridge opening on
weekends and holidays. For public safety reasons the area around the
bridge is a county regulated slow no-wake speed zone for all vessels
and the suggested 2-minute warning would not provide adequate warning
before the span transitioned between the open and closed positions.
    The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcement of the federal
drawbridge regulations in 33 CFR part 117. Any decision by the Coast
Guard to authorize remote operations or promulgate a drawbridge
operation regulation must ensure that the proposed action provides for
the safety and reasonable needs of navigation. After careful
consideration of the comments from all parties it is determined to be
in the best interest of navigation to withdraw the proposed rule. The
bridge will be required to be manned by drawtenders and to conform to
the general requirements and regulations found in Subpart A of Part 117
of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Authority

    This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR
1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-5662 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P