[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73290]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-237-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): MarkWest
Pioneer Quarterly FRP Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20141202-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1275-001.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Tariff Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20141202-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-173-001.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Correction to
Effective Date in RP15-173 to be effective 12/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20141202-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 3, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28864 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59776-59779]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0360]

Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests;
Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and
Clinical Laboratories; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Framework for Regulatory
Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs).'' This document
describes a risk-based framework for addressing the regulatory
oversight of a subset of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) referred to
as laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which are intended for clinical
use and designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory.
This document describes FDA's priorities for enforcing pre- and post-
market requirements for LDTs, and the process by which FDA intends to
phase in enforcement of FDA regulatory requirements for LDTs over time.
This draft guidance is not final, nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by February 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for single hard copies of the draft guidance document entitled
``Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests
(LDTs)'' to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy
Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach,
and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER),
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request. The guidance
may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-
402-7800.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Katherine
Serrano, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 5646, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Stephen Ripley, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1976, Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments (MDA),
which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
to create a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices
intended for use in humans. At that time, the definition of a device
was amended to make explicit that it encompassed in vitro diagnostic
devices (IVDs): ``The term `device'. . . means an instrument,
apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent,
or

other similar or related article . . .'' (section 201(h) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)). The definition of device applies equally to
IVDs manufactured by conventional device manufacturers and those
manufactured by laboratories. An IVD, therefore, meets the device
definition irrespective of where and by whom it is manufactured.
    Since the implementation of the MDA of 1976, FDA has exercised
enforcement discretion so that the Agency has generally not enforced
applicable provisions under the FD&C Act and FDA regulations with
respect to laboratory developed tests (LDTs), a subset of in vitro
diagnostic devices that are intended for clinical use and designed,
manufactured, and used within a single laboratory.
    In 1976, LDTs were mostly manufactured in small volumes by local
laboratories. Many laboratories manufactured LDTs that were similar to
well-characterized, standard diagnostic devices, as well as other LDTs
that were intended for use in diagnosing rare diseases or for other
uses to meet the needs of a local patient population. LDTs at the time
tended to rely on the manual techniques used by laboratory personnel.
LDTs were typically used and interpreted directly by physicians and
pathologists working within a single institution that was responsible
for the patient. In addition, historically, LDTs were manufactured
using components that were legally marketed for clinical use (i.e.,
general purpose reagents, immunohistochemical stains, and other
components marketed in compliance with FDA regulatory requirements).
    Although some laboratories today still manufacture LDTs in this
``traditional'' manner, the landscape for laboratory testing in
general, and LDTs along with it, has changed dramatically since 1976.
Today, LDTs are often used in laboratories that are independent of the
healthcare delivery entity. Additionally, LDTs are frequently
manufactured with components and instruments that are not legally
marketed for clinical use and also rely more heavily on complex, high-
tech instrumentation and software to generate results and clinical
interpretations. Moreover, technological advances have increased the
use of diagnostic devices in guiding critical clinical management
decisions for high-risk diseases and conditions, particularly in the
context of personalized medicine.
    Business models for laboratories have also changed since 1976. With
the advent of overnight shipping and electronic delivery of information
(e.g., device results), a single laboratory can now easily provide
device results nationally and internationally. Today, many new LDT
manufacturers are large corporations that nationally market a limited
number of complex, high-risk devices, in contrast to 1976 when hospital
or public health laboratories used a wide range of devices that were
generally either well characterized and similar to standard devices;
used to diagnose rare diseases; or designed specifically to meet the
needs of their local patients. Together, these changes have resulted in
a significant shift in the types of LDTs developed, the business model
for developing them, and the potential risks they pose to patients.
    Because of changes in the complexity and use of LDTs and the
associated increased risks, as described earlier, FDA believes the
policy of general enforcement discretion towards LDTs is no longer
appropriate. To initiate this step toward greater oversight, FDA held a
two-day public meeting on July 19 and 20, 2010, to provide a forum for
stakeholders to discuss issues and concerns surrounding greater
oversight of LDTs. Comments submitted to the public docket for the July
public meeting have been addressed, as appropriate, in the draft
guidance document.
    Once finalized and implemented, this guidance document is intended
to provide a risk-based oversight framework that will assure that
devices used in the provision of health care, whether developed by a
laboratory or a conventional IVD manufacturer, comply with the
appropriate levels of regulatory controls needed to assure that they
are safe and effective. Under the framework outlined in this guidance
document, FDA intends to continue to exercise enforcement discretion
for all applicable regulatory requirements for LDTs used solely for
forensic (law enforcement) purposes as well as certain LDTs for
transplantation when used in certified, high-complexity
histocompatibility laboratories. Additionally, FDA intends to exercise
enforcement discretion for applicable premarket review requirements and
quality systems requirements, but enforce other applicable regulatory
requirements, including registration and listing (with the option to
provide notification instead) and adverse event reporting, for low risk
LDTs (class I devices), LDTs for rare diseases, Traditional LDTs and
LDTs for Unmet Needs, as described in the draft guidance document. For
other high and moderate risk LDTs, FDA intends to enforce applicable
regulatory requirements, including registration and listing (with the
option to provide notification instead) and adverse event reporting,
and phase in enforcement of premarket and quality system requirements
in a risk-based manner.
    On July 31, 2014, as required by Section 1143 of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act, FDA provided notification to
Congress of its intent to issue this draft guidance and the
accompanying draft guidance entitled ``FDA Notification and Medical
Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Test (LDTs)'' (the
availability of the accompanying draft guidance is announced elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register). The anticipated details of
these draft guidance documents were included in the notification to
Congress.
    Although FDA was not accepting formal comments on its notification
to Congress, the Agency has received informal comments and questions
regarding the anticipated details of this draft guidance provided in
the notification to Congress. To give everyone an opportunity to
provide formal comments on the anticipated details as part of the
administrative record, the details of the draft guidance are identical
to that which were included in FDA's July 31, 2014, notification to
Congress with the exception of the following technical amendments: The
definition of companion diagnostic has been updated for consistency
with the final guidance on ``In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices''
issued on August 6, 2014, and the ``Traditional LDT'' factor regarding
whether the LDT is comprised only of components and instruments that
are legally marketed has been clarified to more accurately reflect
FDA's intent of considering whether the LDT is comprised of only
components and instruments that are legally marketed for clinical use.
    To provide greater transparency on certain questions and issues
that have been raised and to allow for broad public input, in addition
to welcoming comments on all aspects of this draft guidance, FDA seeks
feedback on the following specific issues:
     Traditional LDTs: In Section D.5.(a) of the draft
guidance, FDA has proposed continued enforcement discretion for
premarket review and quality system requirements for a category of LDTs
called ``Traditional LDTs'' based on whether the device is: (1) an LDT
(designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory); (2)
manufactured and used by a health care facility laboratory (such as one
located in a hospital or clinic) for a patient that is being diagnosed
and/or treated at that same health care facility or within the
facility's healthcare system; (3)

comprised only of components and instruments that are legally marketed
for clinical use; and (4) interpreted by qualified laboratory
professionals without the use of automated instrumentation or software
for interpretation. FDA believes that these factors appropriately
mitigate risks associated with Traditional LDTs being used on patients
so that continued enforcement discretion with respect to premarket
review and quality system requirements is appropriate. However, FDA is
seeking public feedback as to whether the following three factors may
be sufficient to appropriately mitigate risk for this category of tests
and whether they may also be sufficient to support continued
enforcement discretion in full (i.e., for all regulatory requirements
rather than just for premarket review and quality system requirements):
(1) the test is an LDT (designed, manufactured and used within a single
laboratory); (2) the test makes use of only components and instruments
that are legally marketed for clinical use, which have a number of
regulatory controls in place, including reporting of adverse events;
and (3) the test is interpreted by laboratory professionals who are
appropriately qualified and trained as required by the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments regulations (e.g., 42 CFR 493.1449),
without the use of automated instrumentation or software for
interpretation.
     LDTs Used for Rare Diseases: In Section D.5.(a) of the
draft guidance, FDA has proposed continued enforcement discretion for
premarket review and quality system requirements for LDTs used for rare
diseases, which are those tests that meet the definition of LDT in the
guidance (designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory)
and meet the definition of a Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) under 21 CFR
814.102(a)(5). With these factors, FDA has attempted to balance the
need to mitigate the risks associated with these tests with their
potential benefit for patients. FDA invites stakeholders to provide
feedback on the suitability of these factors for LDTs for rare
diseases. Further, FDA is seeking feedback on whether a factor other
than the HUD definition should be considered, such as a factor based on
the number of tests for a rare disease or condition that would likely
(based on the prevalence of the condition) be conducted annually in the
United States, and if so what the annual number of tests should be for
the purpose of defining an LDT as an LDT for a rare disease. FDA also
seeks feedback on whether enforcement discretion should be limited to
tests that are designed, manufactured and used within a single
laboratory.
     Healthcare System: In Section D.5. of the draft guidance,
for the categories of tests called ``Traditional LDTs'' and ``LDTs for
Unmet Needs,'' FDA has identified factors it intends to consider in
continuing to exercise enforcement discretion for premarket review and
quality system requirements. One such factor is whether the LDT is both
manufactured and used by a healthcare facility laboratory (such as one
located in a hospital or clinic) for a patient that is being diagnosed
and/or treated at that same healthcare facility or within that
facility's healthcare system. To further clarify this factor, the
guidance document explains that ``healthcare system'' refers to a
collection of hospitals that are owned and operated by the same entity
and that share access to patient care information for their patients,
such as, but not limited to, drug order information, treatment and
diagnosis information, and patient outcomes. While FDA invites feedback
on all factors described in Section D.5. of the draft guidance, FDA
specifically requests feedback on whether enforcement discretion should
be limited, as proposed, to those LDTs that are both manufactured and
used by a healthcare facility laboratory. FDA also invites the public
to provide feedback to the Agency on which types of facilities would or
would not be considered within a healthcare system, or to offer an
alternative description of healthcare system for Agency consideration.
     Quality System (QS) Phase-in: In Section D.6. of the draft
guidance, FDA has proposed to continue to exercise enforcement
discretion with respect to QS regulation requirements, codified in 21
CFR Part 820, until a manufacturer of a given LDT submits a Premarket
Approval (PMA) or FDA issues a 510(k) clearance order for the LDT.
Under this enforcement policy, the clinical laboratory manufacturing
and using the LDT will be responsible for having a quality system in
place that meets the minimum requirements codified in 21 CFR Part 820,
either at the time of PMA submission (the facility that makes the
device must pass an inspection as a condition of PMA approval as a
matter of law (21 CFR 814.45(a)(3)), or prior to market launch for
cleared devices, as applicable. FDA invites feedback on the timeframe
for phase-in enforcement of QS regulation requirements. Specifically,
FDA is considering whether those LDTs in the highest-risk category of
devices (described in section D.5.(c) of the draft guidance), which FDA
intends to generally enforce premarket review requirements 12 months
following publication of the final Framework guidance, should remain
under enforcement discretion for the design control requirements (21
CFR 820.30(a-h) and (j)) of the QS regulation for up to 24 months after
publication of the final guidance.
     Notification: FDA notes that some laboratory networks
(i.e., more than one laboratory under the control of the same parent
entity) offer the same test in multiple laboratories throughout their
network. Although devices in this scenario do not meet FDA's definition
of an LDT (i.e., they are not designed, manufactured and used within a
single laboratory), FDA would like feedback on whether a single
notification from the laboratory network for that test is sufficient,
provided that the laboratory network indicates in the notification to
FDA that the test is offered at multiple sites. In addition, FDA seeks
comment on whether there are certain types of LDTs for which the Agency
should neither enforce requirements for registration and listing nor
request notification in lieu of registration and listing.
     FDA understands that members of the public may want more
clarity around specific issues; such as how laboratory sponsors could
interpret what elements make up a medical device, what might constitute
the label or labeling for their device, whether or not unique device
identifier requirements apply to LDTs, and how laboratory-physician
communication about a test and its result would be viewed by FDA, among
others. We invite public comment on these issues and any other issues
or questions that should be addressed in the guidance, including how
that issue or question should be addressed.
    Additionally, FDA intends to hold a public webinar in late October,
2014 to summarize the proposed oversight framework and answer
clarification questions from stakeholders. The webinar will not require
registration and will be announced at least one week in advance on
FDA's Web site. It will be recorded and made available on FDA's Web
site shortly thereafter.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on oversight of
laboratory developed tests. It does not create or confer any rights for
or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An

alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search
capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at
http://www.regulations.gov or the CBER Internet at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.
    Persons unable to download an electronic copy of ``Framework for
Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)'' may send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 1739 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 Subpart E have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 807 Subpart B and C have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0625; the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E, have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part
820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 806 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0359; the
collections of information in 21 CFR 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control
numbers 0910-0291 and 0910-0437.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments will also be accepted at a public meeting, which will be
held prior to finalizing this draft guidance. A 2-day meeting is
tentatively scheduled for early January, 2015 and will be announced
separately in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014-23596 Filed 9-30-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Annual Average Cost over (2007-2011)
Burden / Cost
Labor Cost
$635,698
Non-Labor Cost
$2,013,739
Total Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation
$2,649,437
Burden (labor hours)
9,152
Exhibit B-4: National Cost Summary for UCMR 2 Implementation (2007-2011)
1
(corresponds with Exhibit 12)
Type of Cost
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
Small Systems
Labor Cost
$106,942
$56,506
$56,506
$56,506
$0
$276,460
Non-Labor Cost
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0  $0
Total Small
System Cost
$106,942 $56,506
$56,506
$56,506
$0 $276,460
Large Systems
Labor Cost
$1,173,506
$366,726
$366,726
$366,726
$0
$2,273,683
Non-Labor Cost
$0
$5,635,795
$5,635,795
$5,635,795
$0
$16,907,385
Total Large
System Cost
$1,173,506
$6,002,521
$6,002,521
$6,002,521
$0
$19,181,068
Very Large Systems
Labor Cost $225,998
$150,293
$150,293
$150,293
$0
$676,877
Non-Labor Cost
$0
$2,954,765
$2,954,765
$2,954,765
$0
$8,864,295
Total Very
Large
System Cost
$225,998
$3,105,058
$3,105,058
$3,105,058
$0
$9,541,172
States
Labor Cost $617,360
$648,343
$600,227
$313,317
$274,447
$2,453,694
Non-Labor Cost
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0  $0
Total State Cost $617,360
$648,343
$600,227
$313,317
$274,447
$2,453,694
EPA
2
Labor Cost $397,311
$794,622
$794,622
$794,622
$397,311
$3,178,490
Non-Labor Cost
$300,000
$3,289,565
$3,239,565
$3,239,565
$0
$10,068,694
Total EPA Cost
$697,311
$4,084,187
$4,034,187
$4,034,187
$0
$13,247,184
National Total
Total with EPA
$2,821,118
$13,896,615
$13,798,499
$13,511,589
$671,758
$44,699,578
B-4

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
Exhibit B-4: National Cost Summary for UCMR 2 Implementation (2007-2011)
1
(corresponds with Exhibit 12)
Type of Cost
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
2007
Total without
EPA
$2,123,806
$9,812,428
$9,764,312
$9,477,402
$274,447
$31,452,394
Total Burden (hours) for All Responses
Small Systems 3,840 2,022
2,022
2,022
0  9,905
Large Systems
39,584
12,370
12,370
12,370
0
76,694
Very Large
Systems 6,354 4,226
4,226
4,226
0 19,031
States 11,635
11,861
10,649
5,371
5,295
44,811
EPA 5,720 11,440
11,440
11,440
5,720 45,760
Total with EPA
67,133
41,918
40,706
35,428
11,015
196,201
Total without
EPA 61,413 30,478
29,266
23,988
5,295 150,441


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37724-37727]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15260]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67209; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Distribution of Auction Messages

June 18, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 6, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III 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 rules regarding the distribution of
certain auction messages. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is: (i) To amend Rule
6.13A relating to the Simple Auction Liaison (``SAL''); (ii) to delete
Rule 6.14 relating to the Hybrid Agency Liaison system (``HAL''); (iii)
to amend Rule 6.14A relating to the Hybrid Agency Liaison 2 system
(``HAL2'') and rename HAL2 as HAL; and (iv) to amend Rule 6.53C
relating to Complex Orders on the Hybrid System. The proposed rule
change modifies the provisions in each of these rules regarding who is
eligible to respond to auction messages on a class-by-class basis to be
more consistent. The proposed rule change provides that all Trading
Permit Holders \3\ may respond to SAL, HAL2 and COA auction messages in
certain classes designated by the Exchange and that Trading Permit
Holders may redistribute auction messages in these classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ By definition, all Market-Makers are Trading Permit Holders;
therefore, references to ``Trading Permit Holders'' include all
Market-Makers. See Rule 8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAL
    Rule 6.13A governs the operation of SAL, a feature within the
Hybrid System that auctions marketable orders for price improvement
over the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''). The Exchange determines
the eligible order size, eligible order types, eligible origin code
(i.e., public customer orders, non-Market-Maker broker-dealer orders
and Market-Maker broker-dealer orders), and classes in which SAL is
activated.\4\ For these classes, SAL automatically initiates an auction
process for any order that is eligible for automatic execution by the
Hybrid System (``Agency Order'').\5\ Prior to commencing an auction,
SAL stops the Agency Order at the NBBO against Market-Maker quotations
displayed at the NBBO on the opposite side of the Market as the Agency
Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.13A(a).
    \5\ Id. SAL will not initiate an auction process if the
Exchange's disseminated quotation on the opposite side of the market
from the Agency Order does not contain sufficient Market-Maker
quotation size to satisfy the entire Agency Order.
    \6\ Rule 6.13A(b). These quotations may not be cancelled or
moved to an inferior price or size throughout the duration of the
auction. The auction may last no longer than two seconds, as
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis. Id. Rule
6.13A(c) describes the manner in which an Agency Order is allocated
under SAL, and Rule 6.13A(d) lists the circumstances in which an
auction would terminate early.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.13A(b) provides that auction responses may be submitted by
Market-Makers with an appointment in the relevant option class and
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders resting at the top of
the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order. Interpretation and
Policy .05 provides that in lieu of permitting auction responses by
Market-Makers with an appointment in the relevant option class and
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders resting at the top of
the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order (``Qualifying Trading
Permit Holders''), the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis
to permit SAL responses by all CBOE Market-Makers and Qualifying
Trading Permit Holders.
    The proposed rule change allows the Exchange to determine on a
class-by-class basis to permit all Trading Permit Holders to respond to
auction messages and eliminates the concept of Qualifying Trading
Permit Holders under this provision. Additionally, the proposed rule
change moves this language from Interpretation and Policy .05 to
paragraph (b), which relates to Auction responses. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 6.13A, Interpretation and Policy .02 to allow
Trading Permit Holders to redistribute

Auction messages in classes in which the Exchange allows all Trading
Permit Holders to submit Auction responses. The purpose of this
proposed change is to increase the opportunities for all types of
market participants (e.g., public customers, broker-dealers and market-
makers) to participate in SAL auctions in certain classes. This broader
participation could lead to more robust competition in these auctions
because more market participants will be able to submit responses in
these auctions, which responses may result in better prices for
customers.
    The proposed rule change also adds a new Interpretation and Policy
.05 to provide that all pronouncements regarding determinations by the
Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.13A and the Interpretations and Policies
thereunder will be announced to Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory
Circular. This method of notification will allow the Exchange to
promptly inform Trading Permit Holders of any new or modification to
any determinations made by the Exchange, such as in which classes all
Trading Permit Holders will be allowed to respond to auction messages.
HAL
    Rule 6.14 governs the operation of HAL, a feature within the Hybrid
System that provides automated order handling in designated classes
trading on the Hybrid System for qualifying electronic orders that are
not automatically executed by the Hybrid System. The Exchange proposes
to delete Rule 6.14, as it is outdated and no longer applicable. In
connection with the Exchange's adoption of updated linkage rules in
2009, the Exchange created HAL2, which created an opportunity for price
improvement, similar to HAL but with advanced functionality.\7\ After
enabling HAL2 (which was gradually rolled out so that for a period of
time some classes traded pursuant to HAL while others traded pursuant
to HAL2), the Exchange phased out the use of HAL, which is now no
longer used for any classes. Rule 6.14A currently governs automated
order handling on the Hybrid System through HAL2 for all designated
classes. This proposal also amends Rules 6.2B, 6.13, 6.14A, 6.25 and
6.53 to delete cross-references to Rule 6.14 and HAL and correct other
cross-references to conform to numbering changes in this proposal
throughout the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-60551 (August 20,
2009), 74 FR 43196 (August 26, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-040) (approval of
proposed rule change to amend and adopt new CBOE rules to implement
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAL2 \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change renames
``HAL2'' as ``HAL'' in the CBOE Rules since the initial HAL is no
longer in use and is being deleted. The Exchange believes this will
eliminate any potential confusion that investors may have if there
was a HAL2 but no HAL. However, for purposes of this filing, this
filing uses the current terms ``HAL'' and ``HAL2'' to distinguish
between the two separate mechanisms and avoid any confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.14A governs the operation of HAL 2, a feature within the
Hybrid System that provides automated order handling in designated
classes trading on Hybrid for qualifying electronic orders that are not
automatically executed by the Hybrid System. The Exchange determines
the eligible order size, eligible order types, eligible origin code
(i.e., public customer orders, non-Market-Maker broker-dealer orders
and Market-Maker broker-dealer orders), and classes in which HAL2 is
activated.\9\ When the Exchange receives a qualifying order that is
marketable against the NBBO and/or the Exchange's best bid or offer
(``BBO''),\10\ HAL2 electronically exposes the order \11\ at the NBBO
price to allow Market-Makers appointed in that class as well as all
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders at the top of the
Exchange's book in the relevant series (or all Trading Permit Holders
if allowed by the Exchange) \12\ to step-up to the NBBO price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 6.14A(a).
    \10\ HAL2 will not electronically expose the order if the
Exchange's quotation contains resting orders and does not contain
sufficient Market-Maker quotation interest to satisfy the entire
order.
    \11\ The duration of the exposure period may not exceed one
second. Rule 6.14A(c) describes the manner in which an exposed order
is allocated under HAL2, and Rule 6.14A(d) lists the circumstances
in which an exposure period would terminate early.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that, pursuant to this authority under
Rule 6.14A(b), it currently permits all Trading Permit Holders to
respond to HAL2 exposure messages, effective August 23, 2010. See
CBOE Regulatory Circular RG10-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.14A(b) provides that the exposure message will be made
available to all Market-Makers appointed to the relevant option class
and all Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders at the top of
the Exchange's book in the relevant option series, or to all Market-
Makers or all Trading Permit Holders on a class-by-class basis, as
determined by the Exchange. The proposed rule change revises the
language to be more consistent with similar provisions in other rules
discussed in this filing and provides that all Market-Makers with an
appointment in the relevant option class and all Trading Permit Holders
acting as agent for orders at the top of the Exchange's book in the
relevant option series, or all Trading Permit holders if determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, may submit responses to
exposure messages. The proposed rule change also clarifies that only
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders at the top of the
Exchange's book in the relevant option series may respond to exposure
messages if they represent orders on the opposite side of the order
submitted to HAL. The System currently only accepts responses that are
on the opposite side of the exposed order; this proposed change amends
the Rule to more clearly reflect this current practice. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 6.14A, Interpretation and Policy .01 to
allow Trading Permit Holders to redistribute HAL2 exposure messages in
classes in which the Exchange allows all Trading Permit Holders to
submit HAL2 Auction responses. The purpose of this proposed change is
to increase the opportunities for all types of market participants
(e.g., public customers, broker-dealers and market-makers) to
participate in HAL2 auctions in certain classes. This broader
participation could lead to more robust competition in these auctions
because more market participants will be able to submit responses in
these auctions, which responses may result in better prices for
customers.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (b) in Rule 6.14A to
change the word ``flashed'' to ``exposed.'' The Rule contains
variations of the word ``expose'' throughout to describe the exposure
of orders in HAL2, except in two instances in paragraph (b). The
Exchange proposes to amend these two instances to create consistency of
terminology in this Rule.
    The proposed rule change also adds a new Interpretation and Policy
.03 to provide that all pronouncements regarding determinations by the
Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.14A and the Interpretations and Policies
thereunder will be announced to Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory
Circular. This method of notification will allow the Exchange to
promptly inform Trading Permit Holders of any new or modification to
any determinations made by the Exchange, such as in which classes all
Trading Permit Holders will be allowed to respond to exposure messages.
COA
    On a class-by-class basis, the Exchange may activate the electronic
complex order request for responses (``RFR'') auction (``COA''), which
is a

process by which eligible complex orders \13\ are given an opportunity
for price improvement before being booked in the electronic complex
order book (``COB'') or once on a PAR workstation. Rule 6.53C(d)
provides that prior to routing a complex order to the COB or once on
PAR, eligible complex orders may be subject to a COA. On receipt of a
COA-eligible order and request from a Trading Permit Holder
representing the order that it be COA'd, the Exchange will send an RFR
message to all Trading Permit Holders who have elected to receive RFR
messages.\14\ Each Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant
option class and each Trading Permit Holder acting as agent for orders
resting at the top of the COB in the relevant options series may then
submit responses to the RFR message during the Response Time
Interval.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ An eligible complex order, referred to in Rule 6.53C as a
``COA-eligible order,'' means a complex order that, as determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA
considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks
away from the current market), size, complex order type and complex
order origin type (i.e., non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-
dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange). All determinations by the Exchange on COA-eligible order
parameters are announced to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory
Circular. See Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2) and Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 6.53C.
    \14\ See Rule 6.53C(d)(ii). The RFR message will identify the
component series, the size of the COA-eligible order and any
contingencies, but will not identify the side of the market.
    \15\ See Rule 6.53C(d)(iii). A ``Response Time Interval'' means
the period of time during which responses to the RFR may be entered,
the length of which is determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis but may not exceed three seconds. See Rule
6.53C(d)(iii)(2). RFR response sizes will be limited to the size of
the COA-eligible order for allocation purposes and may be expressed
on a net price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment or in a
small [sic] increment that may not be less than $0.01, as determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis. RFR responses are not
visible other than by the COA system. See Rule 6.53C(d)(iii)(1).
Paragraphs (d)(iv)-(viii) of Rule 6.53C describe the processing,
execution and routing of COA-eligible orders, firm quote
requirements for COA-eligible orders and handling of unrelated
complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.53(C)(d)(iii) provides that Market-Makers with an
appointment in the relevant option class and Trading Permit Holders
acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the COB in the
relevant option series may submit responses to the RFR messages during
the Response Time Interval. Interpretation and Policy .07 provides that
in lieu of permitting auction responses by Market-Makers with an
appointment in the relevant option class and Trading Permit Holders
acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the Exchange's book
opposite the Agency Order (``Qualifying Trading Permit Holders''), the
Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis to permit COA
responses by all CBOE Market-Makers and Qualifying Trading Permit
Holders.
    The proposed rule change allows the Exchange to determine on a
class-by-class basis to permit all Trading Permit Holders to respond to
auction messages and eliminates the concept of Qualifying Trading
Permit Holders under this provision. Additionally, the proposed rule
change moves this language from Interpretation and Policy .07 to
paragraph (d)(iii), which relates to RFR responses. The proposed rule
change also clarifies that only Trading Permit Holders acting as agent
for orders at the top of the Exchange's book in the relevant option
series may respond to exposure messages if they represent orders on the
opposite side of the order submitted to COA. The System currently only
accepts responses that are on the opposite side of the Agency Order;
this proposed change amends the Rule to more clearly reflect this
current practice. The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation
and Policy .05 to Rule 6.53C to allow Trading Permit Holders to
redistribute RFR messages in classes in which the Exchange allows all
Trading Permit Holders to submit RFR responses. The purpose of this
proposed change is to increase the opportunities for all types of
market participants (e.g., public customers, broker-dealers and market-
makers) to participate in COAs in certain classes. This broader
participation could lead to more robust competition in these auctions
because more market participants will be able to submit responses in
these auctions, which responses may result in better prices for
customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\16\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
allow the Exchange to open up auctions in certain classes to all
Trading Permit Holders and allow redistribution of the auction messages
in these classes protects investors and is in the public interest
because it will increase the opportunities for all types of market
participants (e.g., public customers, broker-dealers and market-makers)
to participate in SAL auctions, HAL2 auctions and COAs in these
classes. This broader participation could lead to more robust
competition in these auctions because more market participants will be
able to submit responses in these auctions, which responses may result
in better prices for customers. Ultimately, this proposal will provide
additional opportunities for price improvement over the NBBO for its
customers, because responses to exposure or RFR messages, as
applicable, may be better than the NBBO. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that deleting Rule 6.14 regarding HAL, which is no longer in
use, and renaming HAL2 as HAL protects investors and is in the public
interest because the deletion of the obsolete language will alleviate
any potential confusion by investors.
    The Exchange also believes that having consistent language among
these rules regarding which Trading Permit Holders are eligible to
respond to auction messages will provide more clarify [sic] and
uniformity to these auction rules. These changes simplify and
reorganize these provisions so that the requirements related to auction
responses for each auction type are included in a single paragraph,
making it easier to read and understand. Additionally, allowing this
information to be more widely available to market participants rather
than only Trading Permit Holders also helps remove impediments to and
to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system.

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

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

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

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

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-CBOE-2012-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-048. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-048, and should be
submitted on or before July 13, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15260 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31261-31262]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 553-244]

Seattle City Light; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing
and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 553-244.
    c. Date Filed: April 28, 2023.
    d. Applicant: Seattle City Light (City Light).
    e. Name of Project: Skagit River Hydroelectric Project (project)
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Skagit River,
in Whatcom, Snohomish, and Skagit Counties, Washington. The project
occupies Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Chris Townsend, Director of Natural Resources
and Hydropower Licensing, Seattle City Light, P.O. Box 34023, Seattle,
WA 98124; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The project consists of three
hydroelectric developments (i.e., Ross, Diablo, and Gorge), a
transmission line corridor that is about 100 miles long containing
multiple transmission lines, two company towns (i.e., Newhalem and
Diablo), and numerous recreation and interpretive facilities. The
project also includes 10,803.4 acres of fish and wildlife mitigation
land.
    The Ross Development is located at river mile (RM) 105.1 on the
Skagit River and consists of: (1) a 540-foot-high, 1,300-foot-long
concrete arch and gravity dam with two spillways, each of which has six
20-foot-high, 19.5-foot-wide radial tainter gates, two butterfly valves
at an elevation of 1,346.2 feet, and two jet valves at elevations of
1,275.2 and 1,260.2 feet; (2) the 11,725-surface-acre Ross Lake with a
storage capacity of 1,432,000 acre-feet at normal maximum water surface
elevation of 1,608.76 feet; (3) two bifurcated intake structures with
four 20-foot-wide, 198.13-foot-long openings and trashracks; (4) one
1,800-foot-long and one 1,634-foot-long, 24.5-foot-diameter concrete-
lined power tunnels; (5) four 16-foot-diameter, 350-foot-long
penstocks; (6) a powerhouse containing four generating units with a
total authorized installed capacity of 352.5 MW; (7) two 230-kilovolt
(kV), 3.8-mile-long transmission lines extending from the power plant
to Diablo Switchyard; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    The Diablo Development is located at RM 101.2 on the Skagit River
and consists of: (1) a 389-foot-high, 1,180-foot-long concrete arch and
gravity dam, with a northern spillway that has 12 19-foot-tall, 20-
foot-wide radial tainter gates and a southern spillway with seven 19-
foot-high, 20-foot-wide radial tainter gates, and a valve house
containing three butterfly valves and one Larner Johnson type valve at
an elevation of 1,050.6 feet; (2) the 905-surface-acre Diablo Lake with
a gross storage capacity of 88,880 acre-feet at normal maximum water
surface elevation of 1,211 feet; (3) two bifurcated intake structures
with four approximately 16.75- to 18.75-foot-wide, 153.71-foot-long
openings and trashracks; (4) a 19.5-foot-diameter, 1,990-foot-long
power tunnel, of which 1,800 feet is concrete-lined and the other 190
feet is steel-lined; (5) two 15-foot-diameter penstocks and two 5-foot-
diameter penstocks each 290 feet long; (6) a surge tank; (7) a
powerhouse containing four generating units with a total authorized
installed capacity of 158.47 MW; (8) a switchyard; (9) a 230-kV, 5.8-
mile-long transmission line extending from Diablo Switchyard to the
Gorge Switchyard; (10) three 230-kV, 87.6-mile-long transmission lines
running from Diablo Switchyard to Bothell Substation; and (11)
appurtenant facilities.
    The Gorge Development is located at RM 96.6 on the Skagit River and
consists of: (1) a 300-foot-high, 670-foot-long combination concrete
arch and gravity dam with a 94-foot-wide spillway that has two 50-foot-
high, 47-

foot-wide fixed wheel gates and a log chute; (2) the 235-surface-acre
Gorge Lake with a gross storage capacity of 8,200 acre-feet at normal
maximum water surface elevation of 881.5 feet; (3) a bifurcated intake
structure with two 20-foot-wide, 88.9-foot-long openings and
trashracks; (4) a 20.5-foot-diameter, 11,000-foot-long concrete-lined
power tunnel; (5) three 10-foot-diameter penstocks and one 15-foot-
diameter penstock, each 1,600 feet long and each fitted with a 10-foot-
diameter butterfly biplane and relief valves; (6) a surge tank; (7) a
powerhouse containing four generating units with a total authorized
installed capacity of 189.3 MW; (8) a switchyard; (9) a 230-kV, 36.8-
mile-long transmission line extending from Gorge Switchyard to North
Mountain Substation; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    The three project developments are hydraulically coordinated to
operate as a single project. Project operation under the existing
license is designed to meet four objectives, which are prioritized as
follows: (1) flood control, (2) salmon and steelhead protection flows
downstream of Gorge Powerhouse, (3) recreation, and (4) power
generation. To achieve these goals, City Light adheres to specific
license requirements for Ross Lake levels and for stream flows and
ramping rates downstream of Gorge Powerhouse.
    Under existing operations, Ross Lake is drawn down on a yearly
basis during winter to capture flows from spring runoff and to provide
for downstream flood control. The drawdown typically begins after Labor
Day and continues until the lake reaches its lowest level in late March
or early April. The current license requires City Light to draw down
Ross Lake to a level that provides 60,000 acre-feet of storage for
flood control by November 15 and 120,000 acre-feet by December 1 and to
maintain this available storage through March 15. Ross Lake levels are
also managed to meet recreational needs during the summer months. The
current license requires City Light to fill Ross Lake as soon as
possible after April 15, achieve full pool depth by July 31, and
maintain full pool depth through Labor Day.
    The Diablo Development is operated to regulate flow between the
Ross and Gorge Developments. Under normal operation, Diablo Lake
typically fluctuates between 4 and 5 feet per day.
    The Ross Powerhouse and Diablo Powerhouse are typically operated
continuously to pass flow downstream, although generation is
occasionally increased or decreased for short periods to help meet
load-following demand or other project purposes.
    The Gorge Development is operated primarily to provide a
continuous, stable flow regime in the upper Skagit River for salmon and
steelhead protection. City Light typically limits Gorge Lake
fluctuations to about 3 to 5 feet and does not typically operate the
powerhouse to meet load-following demand. The Gorge Development creates
a 2.5-mile-long bypassed reach of the Skagit River between the dam and
powerhouse. There are no minimum flow requirements in the existing
license for the Gorge bypassed reach. Therefore, except during spill
events at Gorge Dam, bypassed reach flow is limited to accretion flow,
spill-gate seepage, tributary input, and precipitation runoff.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., license application) via
the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document (P-553).
For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). At this time, the Commission
has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Light files final study report for     March 2024.
 Study CR-04 Properties with Traditional
 Cultural Significance Study \1\.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for    April 2024.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary      June 2024.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ City Light indicates in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Final License
  Application Exhibit E that the study results for this Commission staff-
  approved study would be filed in the first quarter of 2024.

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 9, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10357 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35652-35653]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13998]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69712; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make a Clerical Correction to the Nasdaq Rulebook

June 6, 2013.
    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 28, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 make a clerical correction to the Nasdaq
rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
    4120. Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts
    (a) No Change
    (b) No Change
    (c) Procedure for Initiating a Trading Halt
    (1)-(6) No Change
    (7)(A) No Change
    (B) A trading halt initiated under Rule 4120(a)(7) shall be
terminated when Nasdaq releases the security for trading. Prior to
terminating the halt, there will be a 15-minute Display Only Period
during which market participants may enter quotes and orders in that
security in Nasdaq systems. In addition, beginning at [7]4:00 a.m.,
market participants may enter Market Hours Day Orders in a security
that is the subject of an Initial Public Offering on Nasdaq and
designate such orders to be held until the beginning of the Display
Only Period, at which time they will be entered into the system. At the
conclusion of the 15-minute Display Only Period, the security shall be
released for trading unless Nasdaq extends the Display Only Period for
up to six additional 5-minute Display Only Periods pursuant to
subparagraph (C) or (D) below. At the conclusion of the Display Only
Period(s), there shall be an additional delay of between zero and 15
seconds (randomly selected) and then trading shall resume pursuant to
Rule 4753.
    (C)-(D) No Change
* * * * *
    (b) Not applicable.
    (c) Not applicable.
* * * * *

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
    On March 5, 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
extend the pre-market hours of the Exchange to 4:00 a.m. EST, from the
current opening time of 7:00 a.m. EST (the ``4 a.m. Filing'').\3\ The
changes proposed in that filing became operative on March 18, 2013. The
change to the text of rule 4120(c)(7)(B) was inadvertently omitted from
that filing. The purpose of this filing is to change the reference to
``7 a.m.'' in rule 4120(c)(7)(B) to ``4:00 a.m.'' in order to make it
consistent with the other changes in the 4 a.m. Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69151 (March 15,
2013), 78 FR 17464 (March 21, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-033).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect

investors and the public interest. The original 4 a.m. Filing promoted
this goal by offering additional trading opportunities to NASDAQ
members that desire them, without imposing burdens on NASDAQ members
that do not. This proposal merely corrects a rule to make it consistent
with the previous filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As in the original filing,
NASDAQ believes that offering a competing early trading session is pro-
competitive in that it will increase competition for order flow, for
execution services and for listings.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
the Exchange is required to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has determined to waive the requirement that NASDAQ
provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the filing
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change will
provide greater clarity and consistency to NASDAQ's rules applicable to
trading hours and does not negatively impact the rights of any of the
Exchange's members. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-076 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-076. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of
NASDAQ. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2013-076, and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-13998 Filed 6-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54391-54393]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0695]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Susquhanna River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of the
Susquehanna River at Havre de Grace, MD, on September 10, 2022, (with
alternate date of September 11, 2022) from potential hazards during a
fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on September 10, 2022,
through 11 p.m. on September 11, 2022. This rule will be enforced from
8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on September 10, 2022, or those same hours on
September 11, 2022, in the case of inclement weather on September 10,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0695 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Courtney Perry, Sector Maryland-National Capital
Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-
576-2596, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Under
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to
this rule. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to publish an NPRM becasue we must take

immediate action to establish this safety zone by September 10, 2022,
to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks
display. Potential safety hazards include the accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. Event sponsors did not notify the Coast Guard of the event
until August 2, 2022.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port, Maryland-
National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the fireworks to be used in this September 10, 2022,
display will be a safety concern for anyone near these fireworks
discharge sites. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. on September 10,
2022, until 11 p.m. on September 11, 2022. The zone will be enforced
from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 10, 2022, or, if necessary due to
inclement weather on September 10, 2022, from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on
September 11, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 600 feet of a barge in the Susquehanna River located in
approximate position latitude 39[deg]32'19.0'' N, longitude
076[deg]04'58.3'' W, at Havre de Grace, MD. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure safety of vessels and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the scheduled 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. fireworks display. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration and
time-of-day of the safety zone, which will impact a small designated
area of the Susquehanna River for a total of no more than one hour of
total enforcement-hours during the evening when vessel traffic is
normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to
Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel
16 about the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2.5
hours that will prohibit entry within 600 feet of a barge within a
portion of the Susquehanna River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0695 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0695  Safety Zone; Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Susquehanna River within 600 feet of a fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude 39[deg]32'19.0'' N, longitude
076[deg]04'58.3'' W, at Havre de Grace, MD. These coordinates are based
on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National
Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced from 8
p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 10, 2022. If necessary due to inclement
weather on September 10, 2022, it will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11
p.m. on September 11, 2022.

    Dated: August 30, 2022.
James R. Bendle,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-19127 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P