[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20596-20598]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0648]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending an existing regulated navigation
area (RNA) on the Savannah River located between Fort Jackson, GA and
the Savannah River Channel Entrance Sea Buoy. This rule removes
inapplicable and/or outdated definitions, processes and requirements in
the RNA following a change in capability, infrastructure and layout of
the Southern Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility on the Savannah
River.

DATES: This rule is effective May 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble go to: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCG-2018-0648 in the ``SEARCH'' feature.
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Joseph Palmquist, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
ext. 221, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
DHS Department of Homeland Security
GT Gross Tons
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
FR Federal Register
GA Georgia
FiFi Fire Fighting
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
OMB Office of Management and Budget

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Revision for
Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah GA'' was published in the Federal
Register on June 13, 2019 (84 FR 25506). The NPRM proposed to amend the
regulated navigation area (RNA) on the Savannah River located between
Fort Jackson, GA (32[deg]04.93 N, 081[deg]02.19 W) and the Savannah
River Channel Entrance Sea Buoy in 33 CFR 165.756. The NPRM proposed to
remove inapplicable and/or outdated definitions, processes and
requirements in the RNA following a change in capability,
infrastructure and layout of the Southern Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
facility on the Savannah River. The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment
period, which closed on August 12, 2019. We received three comments on
the NPRM that are addressed below.

III. Legal Authority and Need for the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46
U.S.C. 70034. Through the NPRM and commenting period, the Coast Guard
has determined that the RNA needs to be amended to remove inapplicable
and/or outdated definitions, processes, and requirements due to changes
in capability, infrastructure, and layout of the Southern LNG facility
on the Savannah River.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes to the Rule

A. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received three comment submissions from the public
in response to the proposed rule. Two of the comments proposed
additional amendments and/or changes. One comment agreed to the Coast
Guard's proposed amendments to the RNA. The comments that proposed
additional amendments were from companies and/or parties directly
involved or impacted by the RNA, and the final comment received was
from a private citizen. All three comments received are discussed
below.
    The first comment agreed with the proposed changes; however, it
proposed further sections of the existing RNA, originally published on
September 10, 2007, be amended. The commenter proposed removal of three
paragraphs from the original RNA in Sec.  165.756: (d)(1)(iii)(D),
(d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(ii). This recommendation is due to the
possibility of smaller vessels calling to port at the Southern LNG
Facility in the future. The commenter's first preference is to remove
these paragraphs, but in the alternative, proposed to amend the three
paragraphs to apply only to LNG Tankships with cargo capacity of over
120,000 m\3\. In alignment with the purpose of this rule--to adapt the
RNA to the facility changes--the Coast Guard agrees that stating which
requirements apply only to large LNG Tankships will provide additional
clarity to the applicability of these requirements. This final rule
further amends existing Sec.  165.756(d)(1)(iii)(D), (d)(3)(i), and
(d)(3)(ii) (redesignated by this rule as Sec. Sec.
165.756(d)(1)(iii)(D), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(2)(ii), respectively) by
adding a statement that the requirements of those paragraphs only apply
to LNG Tankerships with cargo capacity of over 120,000 m\3\.
    The second commenter expressed concern with removing paragraph
(d)(5) of Sec.  165.756 as proposed in the NPRM due to potential safety
concerns. The commenter stated that, ``By removing the Docking Pilot as
a watch stander on the bridge of an LNG Tankship, one of the layers of
safety is being eliminated.'' While the Coast Guard agrees that having
a docking pilot onboard each moored vessel could have a positive impact
on the emergency response to a potential incident, this is not a
standard practice among other LNG facilities, nor is this a requirement
for other deep draft vessels moored throughout the Port of Savannah. In
addition, it is a standard practice for the vessel to maintain a bridge
watchstander while moored. No LNG vessels moor outside of the slip at
Southern LNG at Elba Island due to the changes in the facility layout.
Therefore, the passing arrangements and communications this
watchstander facilitated are no longer necessary. For these reasons, we
believe the requirement in paragraph (d)(5) to have an additional
watchstander on the bridge, such as a docking pilot, is an unnecessary
burden and are removing this requirement with this final rule. LNG
tankship vessels mooring in this

RNA can still utilize a bridge watch or docking pilot, if desired.
    The third and final comment stated that all of the proposed changes
in the NPRM are reasonable. The commenter agreed with the revision of
Sec.  165.756 due to changes in the facility layout and types of
vessels hailing to the facility. The commenter opined that the input
from the public meeting and comments received on the NPRM further
supports that changes to this RNA are necessary to ensure the safety of
operations and to appropriately reflect on the changes to the
facility's layout.
    Additionally, since the publication of the proposed rule, paragraph
(f) of Sec.  165.756 was deleted by a separate final rule titled
``Navigation and Navigable Waters, and Shipping; Technical,
Organizational, and Conforming Amendments for U.S. Coast Guard Field
Districts 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17'' (85 FR 8169, Feb. 13, 2020)
noting that it is an outdated penalty provision.

B. Discussion of Changes

    This rule contains three types of changes in the regulatory text
from the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM. First, based on the
comments received from the NPRM, the Coast Guard will amend Sec.
165.756 paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(D), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(ii) to clarify
the requirements therein are only applicable to LNG Tankships with a
cargo capacity of over 120,000 m\3\.
    Secondly, additional verbiage concerning communications, previously
required in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section, will be moved into
the newly added paragraph (d)(3). The additional language will require
vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater to make a broadcast on channel 13
at Buoys ``33'' and ``53'' to ensure awareness of vessel location
amongst pilots, tugs, and any other inbound and outbound vessels.
Additionally, this paragraph will state that the Coast Guard will issue
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) on channel 16 to ensure public
awareness of RNA enforcement. The communication methods added in
paragraph (d)(3) will help ensure safe navigation and situational
awareness.
    Third, since publication of the NPRM, the existing paragraph (f)
concerning enforcement was eliminated from Sec.  165.756.

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 the 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This proposed amendment
and revision has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the RNA. Vessel traffic will be
able to safely transit through the RNA with only the few restrictions
mentioned in the rule. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the RNA, and
there will be communication and coordination with the River Pilots,
tugs, and the facility. Furthermore, the RNA has been in place since
2007, and the Coast Guard has only made minor revision to the rule to
update the RNA.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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
RNA 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
contact 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 an RNA
lasting a minimum amount of time on the Savannah River when a LNG
tankship in excess of heel is transiting the area or moored at the LNG
facility. 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 where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

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, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.756 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), removing the definitions for ``Fire Wire'',
``Made-up'', and ``Make-up'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(D), (d)(2) and (3); and
0
c. Removing paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5) and (d)(6).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  165.756   Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah River, Georgia.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) While transiting the RNA, LNG Tankships of cargo capacity over
120,000 m\3\, carrying LNG in excess of heel, shall have a minimum of
two escort towing vessels with a minimum of 100,000 pounds of bollard
pull, 4,000 horsepower, and capable of safely operating in the indirect
mode. At least one of the towing vessels shall be FiFi Class 1
equipped.
    (2) Requirements while LNG tankships are moored inside the LNG
facility slip. (i) An LNG Tankship of cargo capacity over 120,000 m\3\,
moored inside the LNG facility slip shall have two standby towing
vessels with a minimum capacity of 100,000 pounds of bollard pull,
4,000 horsepower, and the ability to operate safely in the indirect
mode. At least one of the towing vessels shall be FiFi Class 1
equipped. The standby towing vessels shall take appropriate action in
an emergency.
    (ii) If two LNG tankships of cargo capacity over 120,000 m\3\ are
moored inside the LNG facility slip, each vessel shall provide a
standby towing vessel that is FiFi Class 1 equipped with a minimum
capacity of 100,000 pounds of bollard pull and 4,000 horsepower that is
available to assist.
    (3) Requirements for other vessels while within the RNA. (i)
Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater shall at a minimum, transit at bare
steerageway when within an area 1,000 yards on either side of the LNG
facility slip to minimize potential wake or surge damage to the LNG
facility and vessel(s) within the slip.
    (ii) Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater shall make a broadcast on
channel 13 at the following points on the Savannah River:
    (A) Buoy ``33'' in the vicinity of Fields Cut for inbound vessels;
    (B) Buoy ``53'' in the vicinity of Fort Jackson for outbound
vessels.
    (iii) Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater shall not meet nor
overtake within the area adjacent to either side of the LNG facility
slip when an LNG tankship is present within the slip.
    (iv) Except for vessels involved in those operations noted in
paragraph (c) of this section entitled Applicability, no vessel shall
enter the LNG facility slip at any time without the permission of the
Captain of the Port. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners on channel 16 upon enforcement of this RNA.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 27, 2020.
E.C. Jones,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2020-06894 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 22, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-15306

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. (SPIRIT) filed 4/15/05 for:

XX  Renewal of exemptions for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to
provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the terminal
point Cancun, Mexico.

Applicant rep: Anita M. Mosner<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: June 22, 2005, through June
22, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004


[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78254-78255]
[DOCID:fr28de06-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54978; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Thereto Relating to a Philadelphia Board of Trade Enterprise License
Fee For Dissemination of Certain Market Data

December 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
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 substantially prepared by the
Phlx. The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on
November 1, 2006.\3\ The Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change on December 20, 2006.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing
in its entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaces and supersedes the original filing
in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000 per
year or $850 per month that would be assessed by the Exchange's wholly
owned subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade (``PBOT''), on
eligible market data vendors or subvendors (collectively ``Vendors'')
for certain index values received over PBOT's Market Data Distribution
Network (``MDDN'').\5\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com
.

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

    \5\ The MDDN is an Internet protocol multicast network developed
by PBOT and SAVVIS Communications for the purpose of transmitting
index values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 the proposed rule change is to add an Enterprise
License Fee for eligible Vendors of market data disseminated over
PBOT's MDDN. Phlx has licensed market data in the form of current and
closing index values underlying most of Phlx's proprietary indexes to
PBOT for the purpose of selling, reproducing, and distributing the
index values over the MDDN (``Market Data''). The Exchange or its third
party designee objectively calculates and makes available to PBOT real-
time index values every 15 seconds and closing index values at the end
of each trading day. Pursuant to agreements with PBOT, Market Data
Vendors will make the real-time Market Data widely available to
subscribers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ PBOT has contracted with one or more major Market Data
Vendors to receive real-time and closing index values over the MDDN
and promptly redistribute such values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 2006, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposal to
allow PBOT to charge subscriber fees to Vendors of Market Data for all
the values of Phlx's proprietary indexes disseminated by PBOT's
MDDN.\7\ The subscriber fees are set out in agreements that PBOT
executes with various Market Data Vendors for the right to receive,
store, and retransmit the current and closing index values transmitted
over the MDDN. The fees approved by the Commission in its May 11, 2006
approval order include: a monthly fee of: (a) $ 1.00 per ``Device,'' as
defined in the Market Data agreements,\8\ that is used by Vendors and
their subscribers to receive and re-transmit Market Data on a real-time
basis (``device fee''), and (b) $.00025 per request for snapshot data,
which is essentially Market Data that is refreshed no more frequently
than once every 60 seconds,\9\ or $1,500 per month for unlimited
snapshot data requests (``snapshot fee'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53790 (May 11,
2006), 71 FR 28738 (May 17, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-04).
    \8\ The definition of ``Device'' in the agreements is complex
and incorporates a number of other defined terms. The agreements
provide that ``Device'' shall mean, in case of each Subscriber and
in such Subscriber's discretion, either any Terminal or any End
User. A Subscriber's Device may be exclusively Terminals,
exclusively End Users or a combination of Terminals or End Users and
shall be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way the
Vendor identifies such Subscriber's access to Vendor's data. By way
of further explanation, an ``End User'' is an individual authorized
or allowed by a Vendor to access and display real-time market data
that is distributed by PBOT over the MDDN; and a ``Terminal'' is any
type of equipment (fixed or portable) that accesses and displays
such market data.
    \9\ The Exchange has filed SR-Phlx-2006-59 proposing to increase
the snapshot data fee to $.0025 per request. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54890 (December 7, 2006), 71 FR 74975 (December 13,
2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-59).
    \10\ The index values may also be made available by Vendors on a
delayed basis (i.e., no sooner than twenty minutes following receipt
of the data by vendors) at no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee that
would be available to eligible Vendors as an alternative to the device
fee or snapshot fee.\11\ Specifically, where a Vendor is a firm acting
as a retail broker-dealer conducting a material portion of its business
via one or more proprietary Internet Web sites by which such firm
distributes Market Data to predominately non-professional Market Data
users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship (``Eligible
Firm''),\12\ that Eligible Firm may pay an Enterprise License Fee of
$10,000 per year or $850 per month for its receipt and re-transmittal
of Market Data. An Eligible Firm may also distribute Market Data to
professional users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship,
provided such Market Data distribution is predominantly to non-
professional users.\13\ Market Data distribution will be

considered to be ``predominantly to non-professional users'' so long as
the Eligible Firm's Market Data distribution to professional users when
compared to Market Data distribution to all (professional and non-
professional) users does not exceed 10%.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A firm that qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee may
instead choose to pay the device fee and/or the snapshot fee as
appropriate.
    \12\ To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, the Exchange
would view a retail broker dealer as conducting a material portion
of its business via one or more Internet websites if at least twenty
percent (20%) of the broker dealer's business were conducted via the
Internet.
    \13\ A non-professional user is defined in the fee schedule as
any natural person who is not: (a) registered or qualified in any
capacity with the Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (b) engaged as an ``investment advisor'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of
1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(11), (whether or not registered or qualified
under that Act); nor, (c) employed by a bank or other organization
exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to
perform functions that would require registration or qualification
if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
    \14\ As an example, if data recipient ABC Corp. has 100
customers that receive PBOT Market Data of which 10 are professional
users and 90 are retail (non-professional) users the Enterprise
License Fee would be available to the firm because 10 professional
users / 100 total users = 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, an Eligible Firm
shall have to certify to PBOT that it qualifies for the Enterprise
License Fee, including in regard to distribution to professional and
non-professional users, and shall need to immediately notify PBOT if it
can no longer certify its qualification.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A firm that has entered into an agreement with PBOT to
receive Market Data over the MDDN but is not qualified for the
Enterprise License Fee may pay the device fee and/or the snapshot
fee as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the Enterprise License Fee, PBOT considered inquiries
from actual and potential broker dealer data recipients regarding the
availability of an Enterprise License for data transmitted over the
MDDN and considered that certain industry organizations have offered
fee structures that are available to some but not all data recipients,
similarly to the Enterprise License Fee.\16\ The Exchange believes that
the proposed fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month is fair and
reasonable and consistent with industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), a
self regulatory organization, has fee schedules that are as much as
twenty times higher for professional or corporate subscribers than
for non-professional subscribers for UTP Level 1 fees, TotalView
fees and Nasdaq MAX fees; and offers a TotalView Non-Professional
Enterprise Fee License to qualified firms that distribute TotalView
to their non-professional users with whom they have a professional
relationship. The Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''), a
national market system, offers an Enterprise Professional Subscriber
Fee to certain professional options data subscribers (these
professional subscribers do not qualify for the reduced fees charged
to nonprofessional subscribers) that is based on the number of
professional users that the subscribers have instead of the number
of devices. In addition, the Exchange believes that some industry
data vendors offer different fee structures to qualified data
recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act\18\ 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,
by providing an alternate fee structure to market data recipients and
thereby encouraging re-distribution of such data. The Exchange believes
that its proposal, which is designed to encourage dissemination of
market data, is likewise consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act\19\
in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among the Exchange's
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities as described
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2006-63 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-63 and should be submitted on or before
January 18, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22252 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 18 (Friday, January 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7613-7614]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0010]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C.

20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 13,
2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal
system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0010.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Tommy A. Phillips, Senior
Director--C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309.
    Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic
control system (TCS) on the D&H line, of the Keystone Division,
milepost (MP) HA 629.3 to MP HA 715.7. This includes control point (CP)
629, CP 631, CP 648, CP 650, CP 659, CP 661, CP 672, CP 673, CP 697, CP
699, CP 714, and CP 716, and six automatic signals. The main track and
sidings between MPs HA 629.3 and HA 631.5, HA 648.0 and HA 679.3, HA
697 and HA 699; and HA 714 and HA 715.7 will be converted to NS Rule
171 operation. One operable approach signal will be installed at MP HA
676.
    NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that
operations no longer require TCS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 15, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01950 Filed 1-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR

BRIDGE PERMIT APPLICATION GUIDE

OMB Control No.: 1625-0015

Collection Instruments: Instruction

A.	JUSTIFICATION

1.  Circumstances which make the collection of information necessary.

Under the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, and 525, it shall not be
lawful to construct a bridge or causeway over navigable waters of the
United States unless the plans and location of such structures have been
approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Commandant,
U. S. Coast Guard.  The plans and map of the location must be in such
detail as may be required for a full understanding of the bridge
project.  The procedures of obtaining an individual bridge permit are
set forth in 33 CFR 115.50 and 115.60.  The procedure essentially calls
for a letter of application with letter size drawings (plans) and map
showing the proposed bridge project and its location.

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended, requires federal agencies to assess in detail the
environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions on the quality
of the human environment.  40 CFR 1500-1508 sets forth the procedures,
and 40 CFR 1502.3 specifically mandates the requirement for impact
statements.

2.  Purpose of the Information Collection

It is against the law to build a bridge over the navigable waters of the
United States without approval of the plans and location of such
structures.  The Coast Guard, before a bridge permit is issued or
denied, uses the information provided by the applicant to evaluate the
effect the bridge project will have on the reasonable needs of
navigation and on the human environment.  The applicants are private
entities, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or organizations
employing more than 100 persons.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved information technology to
reduce the burden.

Currently applicants can submit the required material electronically to
the Coast Guard via email, CD-ROM or posting documents to applicant
websites for Coast Guard download.  Development of the Bridge Permit
Application Guide (BPAG), COMDTPUB P16591.3 (series) and the Bridge
Administration Manual (BAM), CONDTINST M16590.5 (series) have prevented
waste within the Coast Guard.  The BPAG provides a standard for
assisting applicants in compiling the required information and
documents.    The BAM provides the same standard for Coast Guard field
units and Headquarters to review and evaluate permit applications.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

The granting of a bridge permit over the navigable waters of the United
States is a unique function that falls solely under the jurisdiction of
the Coast Guard.  There is no duplication in the collection of necessary
information to complete an application.  The procedures for developing
environmental assessments or environmental impact statements (40 CFR
1506) require that duplicative efforts be eliminated between federal,
state and local governments.  Thus, where practicable, joint public
meetings or hearings are held, joint public notices can be issued, and
environmental documents/statements, reports, and analyses can be
referenced and/or adopted.  Additionally, Executive Order 13604:
Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure
Projects, directed federal agencies to improve the permitting and review
process for infrastructure projects throughout the country.  Agency
implementation of the EO further reduced duplicative efforts for the
collection of materials from bridge permit applicants between the Coast
Guard and other federal agencies.

5.  Methods used to minimize the burdens to small business.

Not applicable.  The respondents are, with private entities, Federal,
state, or local government agencies, or organizations employing more
than 100 persons.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were not done or
conducted less frequently.

The result of either not collecting this information or conducting it
less frequently would be noncompliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements.  The Coast Guard’s bridge permit program would become
ineffective and their inability to make informed decisions on whether
proposed bridges or bridge modifications would meet the reasonable needs
of navigation with due consideration of the effects on the human
environment could jeopardize maritime navigation.   Every application
for a Coast Guard bridge permit must go through this collection process.
 The Coast Guard has no influence on how many bridge applications it
receives annually.  Federal funding for transportation projects is the
largest influence.

7.  Special circumstances that require collection to be conducted in an
inconsistent manner.

None.

8.  Solicitation of Comments.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

Not applicable.  Neither applicants nor respondents to public notices on
bridge projects are compensated for providing data or information.

10.  Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

Not applicable.  Bridge permit case records are public records and
subject to applicable provisions of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 7, Public Availability of Information Transportation (49 CFR 7).
(From COMDTINST M16590.5C, Bridge Administration Manual, paragraph
1.M.2.).

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

Not applicable.  The Bridge Permit Application Guide contains no
questions of a personal or private nature.

12.	Estimate of annual hour and cost burden.

Frequency of Response:  Usually once, when applying for Coast Guard
approval of proposed bridge construction or bridge modification.

Applicant cost to provide the information contained in the Bridge Permit
Application Guide can vary greatly depending upon the level of
environmental documentation required under NEPA.  There are three levels
of NEPA documentation: categorical exclusions (CE), environmental
assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS).  For the
purposes of this OMB evaluation categorical exclusions shall be
considered low impact projects by the Bridge Program since they
typically require minimal coordination and documentation.  Also, all
calculations are based on FY14 figures. FY14 is the larger data set over
the past three fiscal years and is reflective of the 17% yearly increase
in permit applications. Application preparation for low impact projects
account for approximately 61% of Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications.
 EAs and EISs require a much more rigorous analysis and take more time
and capital to produce so they are considered to be high impact projects
by the Program.  Application preparation for high impact projects
account for approximately 39% of Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications.

Number of Bridge Permit Applicants (Respondents):

FY14 – Low Impact 81 + High Impact 52 = 133 total

FY13 – Low Impact 74 + High Impact 43 = 117 total

FY12 – Low Impact 66 + High Impact 33 = 99 total

The majority of the applications received by the Coast Guard are from
federal applicants such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
for which the Coast Guard is not the lead federal agency for NEPA.  The
Coast Guard is not the lead federal agency for approximately 77% of
Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications because all Federal actions must
comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969.  For these 77% the applicant is another federal agency
(FHWA, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)/Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), etc).  Any Federal applicant for a bridge permit
becomes responsible as the lead federal agency under NEPA to conduct a
NEPA evaluation.   The NEPA documentation has already been prepared at
the time of application since the lead federal agency is required to
prepare NEPA documentation when federal funding is involved.  The below
numbers do not include the number of hours and associated costs a
federal applicant spends on NEPA documentation since the documentation
is not a sole requirement of the Coast Guard, but a requirement that is
met before a Coast Guard Bridge permit application is considered.

Due to staffing limitations, the Coast Guard typically requires the
applicant to prepare the NEPA documentation when the Coast Guard is the
lead federal agency, approximately 23% of the time.  NEPA documentation
requirements vary based upon the impacts and complexity of the project.
Implementation procedures are based on Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulations found in 40 CFR 1500-1508.   When a private
entity/owner applies for a Coast Guard bridge permit the Coast Guard
must now assume lead federal agency responsibilities for NEPA.  The
Coast Guard Bridge Program often coordinates with the private applicant
to have them produce the NEPA documentation for the Coast Guard to
expedite the permit process, as allowed by the CEQ regulations.  The
cost to do this then falls to the applicant.  Market research suggests
that low impact (CE) projects typically take 120 hours to produce a NEPA
document at an estimated cost of $12,000.  High impact (EA and EIS)
projects typically take between 500 (EA) and 5,000 (EIS) hours to
produce a NEPA document at an estimated cost of between $50,000 (EA) and
$500,000 (EIS).  Sections a. and b. below represent low and high impact
projects, respectively.

The calculations contained below are based upon the level of NEPA
documentation required for the proposed project and reflect the low
impact/high impact determination.  The costs shown are also based upon
the schedule of hourly rates for personnel contained in enclosure (2) to
COMDTINST 7310.1P.  Total estimated respondent financial cost for FY14
is shown in Section d. at $941,322.00.  These calculations do not
include the hours and cost for NEPA documentation preparation described
above.

Application preparation by the applicant for low impact projects
(categorical exclusions).  These projects account for approximately 61%
of Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications.  Rates are based on COMDTINST
7310.1P Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard Rate dated

11 February 2015.

	Within government (I/G)

	Outside government (O/G)

	Pre-application consultations w/federal, state, local govt.

			(GS-13/14, O/G $101)  X  8 hrs		=	$808.00

	Application preparation (GS-11, O/G $61)  X  40 hrs	=	$2,440.00

	Clerical (GS-5/8, O/G $50)  X  4 hrs	=	$200.00

	Drawings prepared (GS-9, O/G $51)  X  10 hrs	=	$510.00

	Respondent financial burden per application		=	$3,958.00

Respondent burden hours per application, low impact 	= 	62 hrs

	Total Respondent hours - 62  X  81 applications (61% of 133, FY14)	=
    5,022hrs

	Total Respondent Cost - $3,958.00  X  81 applications	=
$320,598.00

Application preparation for high impact projects (environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements).  These projects
account for approximately 39% of Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications.

Note: the hourly differences between an environmental assessment and an
environmental impact statement are evident in the NEPA document
preparation, and not with the other Bridge Permit Application
requirements, as described below.

Within government (I/G)

Outside government (O/G)

	Pre-application consultations w/federal, state, local govt.

		(GS-13/14, O/G $101)  X  87 hrs		=	$8,787.00

	Application preparation (GS-11, O/G $61)  X  40 hrs	=	$2,440.00

	Clerical (GS-5/8, O/G $50)  X  4 hrs	=	$200.00

	Drawings prepared (GS-9, O/G $51)  X  10 hrs	=	$510.00

	Respondent financial burden per application		=       	$11,937.00

	Respondent burden hours high impact (87+40+4+10 hrs)	=	141 hrs

Total Respondent hours - 141 hrs  X  52 applications (39% of 133, FY14)
=       	7,332 hrs

	Total Respondent Cost - $11,937.00  X  52 applicants	=	$620,724.00

FY14 total respondent hours (5,022+7,332) = 12,354 hrs

FY14 total respondent cost ($320,598+$620,724) = $941,322.00

13.	Provide an estimate of the annualized capital/start-up costs to
respondents.

The estimated cost for the copying, postage and handling of a bridge
permit application:

Low Impact Project 							=	$50.00

Total Respondent Cost - $50.00 X 81 applications	=        $4,050.00

		(61% of 133, FY14)

High Impact Project 							=	$200.00

Total Respondent Cost - $200.00 X 52 applications	=        $10,400.00

		(39% of 133, FY14)

FY 14 estimated total cost							=	$14,450.00

14.  Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The estimated annual federal cost for administration for FY14 is
$1,580,160.50; this number will change slightly from year to year
depending on the number of applications received in that year.  This
estimate is primarily federal personnel salary and overhead costs
associated with field and headquarters time expended in processing a
respondent's application for a bridge permit or permit amendment.  The
costs are directly related to working with and evaluating the
information collected from respondents in order to make the federal
decision required on bridge project impacts on navigation and on the
human environment.  Personnel costs are calculated from information in
enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1P.

Prepare District jurisdictional and navigational determinations, review
and provide feedback for application package, prepare and distribute
Coast Guard public notice and agency notifications, review and address
public concerns, and prepare District Findings of Fact (total 78.4
hours).  These actions differ very little between low impact and high
impact projects as well as between Coast Guard lead vs. non-lead federal
agency.

	CG application review and acknowledgment

		(GM-12, I/G $67)  X   12 hrs	 =	 $804.00

	CG jurisdictional/navigation clearance determinations & coordination

		(GM-12, I/G $67)  X   25 hrs	 =	$1,675.00

	Prepare and distribute CG Public Notice/Agency Notifications

		(GS-13/14, I/G $94)  X   .50 hrs	 =	 $47.00

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   11 hrs	 =	 $737.00

	Review and prepare public notice responses

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   3.5 hrs	 =	 $234.50

Prepare District Findings of Fact.  Same for low and high impact, same
                                 for Coast Guard lead vs. non-lead

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   26 hrs	 =	 $1,742.00

		78 hrs		 $5,239.50

When the Coast Guard IS NOT the lead federal agency, review and comment
on preliminary and final environmental documents, attend
resource/regulatory agency meetings and draft Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) for high impact projects.
These projects account for approximately 80% of Coast Guard Bridge
Permit Applications.

	Review and comment on preliminary and final environmental documents.

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   18 hrs	 =	$1,206.00

	Attend resource/regulatory agency meetings.

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   3 hrs	 =	$201.00

	Draft FONSI or ROD for high impact projects.

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   5 hrs	 =	$335.00

			26 hrs	$1,742.00

When the Coast Guard IS the lead federal agency review environmental
documents, to include reviewing applicant prepared environmental
documents and coordination and consultation with natural resource
agencies (average for low and high impact = 37 hours).  These projects
account for approximately 20% of Coast Guard Bridge Permit Applications.

Please note that the following dollar amounts; $1675.00, $804.00,
$1541.00 and $446.50; are used in both the LOW and HIGH impact
calculations.

Review applicant-prepared preliminary and final environmental documents

 (GS-12, I/G $67)   X   25 hrs	 =	$1,675.00

Attend resource/regulatory agency meetings.

		(GS-12, I/G $67)   X   12 hrs	 =	$804.00

Circulate and address comments and concerns.

	Low Impact

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   17 hrs	 =	$1,139.00

	High Impact

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   60 hrs	 =	$4,020.00

Draft CE determination, FONSI or ROD, review and comment on final
environmental document.

	Low Impact

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   8 hrs	 =	$536.00

	High Impact

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   58hrs	 =	$3,886.00

Prepare final environmental document/cover for agency signature, prepare
permit package for District/Commandant review, prepare transmittal
letter/case file and completion report.

	Same for low and high impact

		(GS-12, I/G $67)  X   23hrs	 =	$1,541.00

		(GS-13/14, I/G $94)  X   4.75 hrs	 =	$446.50

			89.75 hrs	Low impact =  	$6,141.50

			182.75 hrs	High impact = 	$12,372.50

Coast Guard HQ receives application package, evaluates impacts on
navigation and the environment, prepares written evaluations, bridge
permit or denial, and transmittal letter to District.  This section
applies to all applications.

	Low Impact

		(GS-15, I/G $109)  X    3.50 hrs	=	$381.50

		(GS-13, I/G $80)   X   33.50 hrs	=	$2,680.00

			37 hrs	Low impact =	$3,061.50

	High Impact

		(GS-15, I/G $109)  X    5.50 hrs	=	$599.50

		(GS-13, I/G $80)   X   47.50 hrs	=	$3,800

			53 hrs	High impact =	$4,399.50

FY14 Coast Guard hours per response:

	Low impact projects, Coast Guard not the lead federal agency 	= 141.00
hrs (a+b+d(low))

	Low impact projects, Coast Guard is the lead federal agency 	= 204.75
hrs (a+c(low)+d(low))

	High impact projects, Coast Guard not the lead federal agency 	= 157.00
hrs (a+b+d(high))

High impact projects, Coast Guard is the lead federal agency 	= 313.75
hrs (a+c(high)+d(high))

FY14 Total Cost burden hours:

The calculations in this section are based upon 133 projects for FY14.
61% were considered low impact (81 applications).  Of this 22% were
Coast Guard lead (18 applications) and 78% were not Coast Guard lead (63
applications).  39% of the applications were considered high impact
projects (52 applications).   Of this 17% were Coast Guard lead (9
applications) and 83% were not Coast Guard lead (43 applications).
These numbers are used to generate the Coast Guard burden hours.

Total Coast Guard burden hours (low impact projects, Coast Guard not the
lead federal agency)   = 8,883 hrs (63 applications X 141 hrs)

Total Coast Guard burden hours (low impact projects, Coast Guard is the
lead federal agency)      = 3,685.50 hrs (18 applications X 204.75 hrs)

Total Coast Guard burden hours (high impact projects, Coast Guard not
the lead federal agency)   = 6,751 hrs (43 applications X 157 hrs)

Total Coast Guard burden hours (high impact projects, Coast Guard is the
lead federal agency)     = 2,823.75 hrs (9 applications X 313.75 hrs)

Total Coast Guard burden hours, FY 11 = 22,143.25 hrs

FY14 Federal government financial burden

Coast Guard financial burden (low impact projects/Coast Guard not the
lead federal agency)        = $632,709.00 ($10,043.00(a+b+d(low) X 63
applications)

Coast Guard financial burden (low impact projects/Coast Guard is the
lead federal agency)          = $259,965.00 ($14,442.50 (a+c(low)+d(low)
X 18 applications)

Coast Guard financial burden (high impact projects/Coast Guard not the
lead federal agency)      = $489,383.00 ($11,381.00 (a+b+d(high) X 43
applications)

Coast Guard financial burden (high impact projects/Coast Guard is the
lead federal agency)         = $198,103.50 ($22,011.50
(a+c(high)+d(high) X 9 applications)

Total Federal Cost (FY14, 133 applications) 	=      $1,580,160.50

15.  Reason for changes or adjustments in the burden.

Total public burden hours for FY 14 are calculated to be 12,354.
Starting with the last OMB approval period, the Program utilizes
quarterly reporting data (Bridge Program Quarterly Activities Report)
from each district office to generate more accurate permit data then
previously available.  The data presented in this justification
represents the best information currently available.

Growth identified between FY12 and FY14 (average of 17%) is indicative
of normal permit request growth rates currently being experienced within
the Program and this rate of growth is anticipated to continue in the
future.

16.	Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

Not applicable.  No publication of collected information or statistical
analysis is planned.

17.	Approval for not to explain the OMB expiration date.

USCG will display the OMB control number and expiration date of OMB
approval of this information collection on the next revision to the BPAG
(currently under development).

18.	Exception to the certification statement.

There are no exceptions.

B.    COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

Not applicable.  The collection does not employ statistical methods.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14300]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05099]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9787-5]

Proposed CERCLA Settlement Relating to the 1244 White Drive Site
in North Brunswick, Middlesex County, NJ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement and Opportunity
for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed Administrative
Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs
(``Agreement'') pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, with Rusony
Shiau and Katrina Shiau (``Settling Parties''). The Settling Parties
are potentially responsible parties, pursuant to Section 107(a) of
CERCLA, and thus are potentially liable for response costs incurred at
or in connection with the 1244 White Drive Site (``Site''), located in
North Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Under the Agreement, the
Settling Parties agree to pay a total of $429,783.54 to EPA for past
response costs over a period of three years with most of that money
coming from the sale of seven properties that the Settling Parties own.
The Settling Parties will pay the money in accordance with the
following schedule. Within 30 days of the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties will pay EPA 10%
($42,978.35) of the total leaving a balance of $386,805.19. Within
three years of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, the
Settling Parties will sell the seven properties that they own and pay
EPA 60% of the net proceeds from the sale of each of the seven
properties until the balance of $386,805.19 is paid in full. In the
event that any balance remains due after the sale of the seven
properties the remaining balance will be paid out of the Settling
Parties' estates. EPA will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the Agreement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed
Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to
any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA
Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be provided by April 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Agreement is available for public inspection at EPA
Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Comments should reference the 1244 White Drive Site, located in North
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey, Index No. CERCLA-02-2013-2004.
To request a copy of the Agreement, please contact the EPA employee
identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Burke, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Walter E. Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-05099 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51425]
[DOCID:fr07se07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-525-001]

Energy West Development, Inc; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Energy West Development, Inc.
(Energy West) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 29, become effective
September 1, 2005.
    Energy West states that the filing is being made in compliance
filing with the Letter Order issued in this docket on August 10, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17662 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58567-58569]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29010; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Chevak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Chevak, AK.
Two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being
developed for the Chevak Airport at Chevak, AK. Adoption of this
proposal would result in revision of existing Class E airspace upward,
from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface, at the Chevak
Airport, Chevak, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29010/Airspace
Docket No. 07-AAL-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also
submit comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may

review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza
level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above
address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29010/
Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's)

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html
.

    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would revise the Class E airspace
at the Chevak Airport, in Chevak, AK. The intended effect of this
proposal is to revise Class E airspace upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200
ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Chevak Airport, AK.
    The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance
Branch has developed two new SIAPs for the Chevak Airport. The new
approaches are (1) the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) RWY 02, Original (Orig) and (2) the RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, 0rig.
Class E controlled airspace extending upward, from 700 ft. and 1,200
ft. above the surface, in the Chevak Airport area would be revised by
this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in size to contain
aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Chevak Airport,
Chevak, AK.
    The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200
foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to create Class E

airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument
procedures at Chevak Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort
to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Chevak, AK [Revised]

Chevak, Chevak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]32'27''N., long. 165[deg]35'03''W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of the Chevak Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Chevak Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on October 5, 2007.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
 [FR Doc. E7-20314 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15781-15784]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53534; File No. SR-FICC-2005-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Repo Collateral
Substitution Process of FICC's Government Securities Division

March 21, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On September 30, 2005, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') and on December 20, 2005, amended proposed rule change
SR-FICC-2005-18 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published in the
Federal Register on January 5, 2006.\2\ No comment letters were
received. On March 20, 2006, FICC filed an amendment to the proposed
rule

change.\3\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53036 (December 29,
2005), 71 FR 629.
    \3\ The amendment, as noted below, is not substantive and did
not require republication of the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    In general, FICC is enhancing the repo collateral substitution
process of its Government Securities Division (``GSD''). The rule
change: (i) Permits the repo dealer or repo broker, as appropriate, to
submit a substitution notification to FICC without information about
the replacement collateral, (ii) revises the repo collateral
substitution process deadline and fee schedule, and (iii) implements
certain risk management measures and technical changes.

A. Initial Substitution Notification Without Replacement Collateral
Information

    The GSD's repo collateral substitution process provides a mechanism
for a repo dealer to process its right to substitute the original
collateral it provided as part of a repo transaction with replacement
collateral. With respect to a brokered transaction, typically the repo
dealer notifies the broker that it wishes to substitute the repo
collateral before it specifically identifies the replacement
collateral.\4\ The repo broker then contacts the reverse repo dealer
and informs it that a repo collateral substitution process is being
initiated. The reverse repo dealer then sends the original repo
collateral to FICC. However, since under FICC's current system the repo
dealer's substitution notification that it must send to FICC must
contain information about the replacement collateral, often the
substitution notification is not delivered to FICC by the time FICC
receives the returned original repo collateral from the reverse repo
dealer. When the repo dealer does determine what securities will
constitute the replacement collateral, it often delivers the
replacement collateral to FICC before sending the repo collateral
substitution notification. Thus the original and replacement collateral
frequently are delivered to FICC before FICC is able to forward the
collateral to the appropriate party. This leaves FICC in an overdraft
position at the clearing bank, which can cause expense and risk to FICC
and to its members and can cause settlement processing delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ With respect to a non-brokered repo transaction, the repo
dealer would contact the reverse repo dealer directly about the repo
collateral substitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change permits the repo dealer or repo broker, as
appropriate, to submit a substitution notification to FICC without
information about the replacement collateral. FICC will deliver the
original collateral to the repo party's account at its clearing bank
upon receipt of the substitution notification so the original
collateral will no longer linger in FICC's account.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The changes necessary to reflect this part of the rule
change are contained in GSD Rule 18, sections 3(a), (b), (c), and
(d) and in the Schedule of Required and Accepted Data Submission
Items for a Right of Substitution. A new schedule, titled Schedule
of Required and Accepted Data Submission Items for New Securities
Collateral, is being added to the rules to reflect that information
on the replacement collateral will be contained in a separate
submission to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revised Repo Collateral Substitution Process Deadline and Fee
Schedule

    The rule change in repo processing requires a revision to GSD's
schedule of time frames. Currently, there is a two-tiered deadline for
a repo party to submit a substitution notification and associated late-
fee.\6\ The rule change establishes: (i) An 11 a.m. Eastern Time
deadline \7\ for a repo party to submit a substitution notification and
(ii) a late-fee of $100 for each substitution notification that is
received after the deadline. The rule change also establishes a two-
tiered deadline for a repo party to submit replacement collateral
information and an associated late-fee schedule. The deadlines for
submission of replacement collateral information are: (i) 12 p.m.
Eastern Time and (ii) 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The late-fee assessments
are: (i) $100 for each submission of replacement collateral information
that is received after the first deadline but before the second
deadline and (ii) $250 for each submission of replacement collateral
information that is received after the second deadline.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The current deadlines are 12 p.m. Eastern Time and 12:30
p.m. Eastern Time. The deadlines are extended by one hour on days
that: (i) FICC determines are high-volume days or (ii) The Bond
Market Association announces in advance will be high-volume days.
FICC assesses a late-fee of: (i) $100 for each substitution
notification that is received after the first deadline but before
the second deadline and (ii) $250 for each substitution notification
that is received after the second deadline.
    \7\ The proposed 11 a.m. Eastern Time deadline will not be
extended on high-volume days.
    \8\ The allocation of collateral deadlines will be extended by
one hour on days that: (i) FICC determines are high-volume days or
(ii) The Bond Market Association announces in advance will be high-
volume days. The rule changes necessary to affect this part of the
proposed rule are contained in the Schedule of Timeframes and in the
Fee Structure under ``Late Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to accommodate members' preparations to comply with the
time frames contained herein, the proposed changes to the schedule of
time frames and applicable late-fees will be implemented at a later
date than the other rule changes contained in this filing. FICC will
announce the implementation of the proposed schedule of time frames by
Important Notice at least thirty calendar days prior to implementation.
Until such implementation, currently existing time frames and late-fees
applied to repo collateral substitutions shall remain in effect.

C. Risk Management Measures and Technical Changes

    Generally, FICC is implementing certain measures to address the
risk presented to it by the failure of a party to submit in a timely
manner information regarding the replacement collateral to FICC.
Specifically, FICC is: (i) Increasing the clearing fund calculation of
the repo dealer and allowing margining with respect to replacement
collateral based on applicable generic CUSIP numbers only \9\ and (ii)
imposing mark-to-market consequences on both the repo dealer and the
reverse dealer with respect to unknown replacement collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Generic CUSIP numbers represent the range of permissible
securities that can constitute the replacement collateral. For
example, there is a generic CUSIP number which represents Treasury
securities with remaining maturity of fewer than thirty years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Clearing Fund Calculation and Permissible Margin Offsets
    With respect to the calculation of the repo dealer's clearing fund
requirement, FICC is assigning a value of 150 percent of the contract
value of the original securities collateral to a repo transaction where
FICC has not received information regarding the replacement
collateral.\10\ FICC also is applying the highest applicable margin
factor in its rules in connection with the repo transaction. In GSD's
rules, the highest margin factor is the factor for securities with a
remaining maturity of 15 years and 16 days or greater. Therefore, if
the generic CUSIP number that is assigned to the unknown replacement
collateral is the generic CUSIP number for Treasury securities with a
remaining maturity of 15 years and 16 days or greater, FICC will use
the existing margin factor of 1.450 (applicable to

category 1 members with positions in non-zeros).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ New subsection 3(f) is being added to Rule 18 in order to
effect this change. It should be noted that the application of the
150 percent for clearing fund purposes applies to both the receive/
deliver and repo volatility components of the clearing fund
calculation.
    \11\ The GSD's margin factor schedules apply different margin
factors to category 1 and category 2 dealers. In this example, if
the member were a category 2 member electing to receive credit
forward mark adjustment payments, the applicable margin factor under
the proposed rule change would be 2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed risk management measures applicable to non-timely
allocation of replacement collateral will further affect the clearing
fund calculation of the repo dealer by limiting permissible offsets. A
regular part of the GSD's margining system is to permit offsets between
resulting margin amounts of long and short net settlement positions.
The GSD's rules contain disallowance factor tables that set forth
specific limits on these permissible offsets. For example, where a
short net settlement position in Treasury Offset Class A is to be
offset against a long net settlement position in Treasury Offset Class
B, the applicable disallowance factor table provides that 30 percent of
this offset will be disallowed.\12\ For offset purposes under the
proposed rule change, FICC is defining two new offset classes to
capture the generic CUSIP numbers that can be assigned to unknown
replacement collateral. These new offset classes are identified as
``H'' for Treasury securities and ``h'' for non-mortgage-backed Agency
securities. Under the proposed rule change, as a further risk
management measure, FICC will not permit offsets between Offset Classes
H and h or between Offset Classes H or h and any other existing GSD
Offset Class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As originally filed, FICC mistakenly stated that 20 percent
of the offset would be disallowed. In its March 20, 2006, amendment,
FICC changed this to 30 percent to accurately reflect the
disallowance factor for such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modified Mark-to-Market Calculation
    FICC also is calculating a modified mark-to-market obligation with
respect to the replacement collateral and imposing this on both the
repo dealer and the reverse repo dealer in the case where a generic
CUSIP number is used for underlying collateral. In a typical scenario
where the replacement collateral is identified, FICC reverses any
previous mark-to-market calculation for the old collateral and
recalculates, collects, and passes through a mark-to-market associated
with the actual replacement collateral. This computation is defined as
the Forward Mark Adjustment Payment.\13\ In the scenario where the
replacement collateral has not been identified, FICC will calculate a
modified Forward Mark Adjustment Payment to protect FICC against market
risk. Specifically, the definition of Forward Mark Adjustment Payment
is amended by noting that with respect to a repo transaction for which
a substitution request has been made but for which replacement
collateral information has not been provided to FICC, a new Forward
Unallocated Sub Mark will be applied. This new mark will take into
account repo interest that has accrued with respect to the repo
transaction to date, as well as changes in the repo rate (to reflect
the difference between the contract rate and the market rate for the
remaining term of the repo transaction).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Forward Mark Adjustment Payment is the sum of two
components: the Collateral Mark and the Financing Mark. The
Collateral Mark is the absolute value of the difference between the
trade's contract value and market value. The Financing Mark reflects
the financing cost that would be incurred by FICC if it replaced the
reverse side of the repo by buying securities and putting them out
on repo.
    \14\ The following new definitions effect this change: Accrued
Repo Interest-to-Date, Repo Interest Rate Differential, and Forward
Unallocated Sub Mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical Changes
    Additionally, FICC is making certain technical changes to its GSD
rules relating to repo collateral substitutions and repo transactions
generally.
    a. Section 3(a) of Rule 18: Delete the requirement that details
regarding the rights of substitution match between counterparties.
Details regarding rights of substitution are not a required trade
reporting item and thus will not be a required match item in GSD's
system. References in this respect are deleted to reflect actual
operating practice.
    b. Sections 3(e) and 3(f) of Rule 18: Delete the requirement that
upon receipt of either the original or the replacement collateral, FICC
will promptly redeliver the securities to the appropriate party. As
stated in the narrative above, FICC may receive securities that are the
subject of a repo collateral substitution request but may not yet have
the requisite information for delivery of those securities. These
provisions are deleted to reflect actual operating practice and also to
make the rule consistent with the proposed changes.
    c. Section 3(h) of Rule 18: Delete the provision regarding
implications of repo collateral substitutions on margin and mark-to-
market requirements. This provision is redundant because the effects of
repo substitutions on such requirements are covered in the rules
governing these items and the rules to be modified by the proposed rule
change.
    d. Section 4 of Rule 18: Make optional a requirement that for
general collateral, forward-starting repos, the specific CUSIP and par
value be submitted prior to the repo start date. FICC typically does
not receive such allocations from its members prior to the repo start
date and thus the proposed change aligns the rule with industry
practice. The proposed change further reflects operating practice as
well as industry expectations that a general collateral, forward-
starting repo will be removed from the GSD's books if FICC does not
receive the specific CUSIP by the time noted in the rule. Members
typically submit new transactions with the specific CUSIPs and expect
that the general collateral transaction will be removed from the GSD's
books.
    e. Section 5 of Rule 18: Amend the provision that addresses repo
transactions with maturing collateral. The proposed rule change
provides that the repo party in such a repo transaction must make the
required substitution of collateral by the time noted in the rule or
FICC will remove the transaction from its books. This is because the
underlying contract terminates if the collateral is not replaced in
time, and therefore, the proposed rule change reflects industry
practice. The proposed rule change further reflects industry practice
by deleting the requirement that the replacement collateral meet
certain specific criteria and by replacing that requirement with a
requirement that the replacement collateral be ``in accordance with the
terms of the transaction.'' This change also reflects industry
practice.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\15\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible.\16\ The Commission finds that FICC's rule change is
consistent with these requirements. By revising its repo substitution
rules to more accurately reflect industry practice, FICC's proposed
rule change should result in repo substitution transactions being
completed in a more timely

manner. FICC's proposed rule change also includes revised risk
management measures (e.g., revised clearing fund calculation and margin
offsets) to address potential risk resulting from the revised repo
substitution rules. As such, FICC's proposed rule change also should
result in FICC being able to safeguard securities and funds which are
in its possession and control or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2005-18) be
and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4527 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P