[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 939-940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9768-6]

Notice of Public Meeting: Designation of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) in Eastern Long Island Sound;
Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Region 1 announces the rescheduled public meeting to
discuss the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) to Evaluate the Potential Designation of One or
More Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) to Serve the Eastern
Long Island Sound Region. The public meeting was originally scheduled
for November 15, 2012, but was delayed due to the recovery efforts
related to Superstorm Sandy. EPA is requesting written comments from
federal, state, and local governments, industry, non-governmental
organizations, and the general public on the need for action, the range
of alternatives considered, and the potential impacts of the
alternatives.

DATES: This public meeting will be held on January 9, 2013, from 2:30
p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Registration will begin at 2:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Suffolk Community College
Culinary Arts Center, 20 E. Main Street, Riverhead, New York 11901.
Directions are available at: http://department.sunysuffolk.edu/CulinaryArtsandHospitalityCenter_E/5009.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact: Ms. Jean Brochi, Mailing Address: U.S. EPA, Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone: (617)
918-1536, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>TDY:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Access: Seating at the meeting will
be on a first-come basis. Although the meeting facility does comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are unsure that your
specific needs can be accommodated, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least five business days prior
to the meeting.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: You may participate in this
meeting by providing oral or written comments: Oral comments: To the
extent that time permits, interested persons of the public may be
permitted to present oral comments at the meeting. A sign-in sheet will
be available at the registration desk for each individual or group
wishing to make brief oral comments. Written comments: Written comments
may be provided at the public meeting at the registration desk. Written
comments may also be provided by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail using
the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please note that
the comment period for the Notice of Intent will end on January 31,
2013.

    Dated: December 27, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA--New England.
[FR Doc. 2013-00055 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12680-12687]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74422; File No SR-CBOE-2015-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule To Adopt Fees for
Extended Trading Hours

March 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 18, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for its Extended Trading Hours
session. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently amended its rules to offer trading in two
exclusively listed options (SPX, including SPXW, and VIX) during
extended trading hours from 2:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Chicago time Monday
through Friday (``Extended Trading Hours'' or ``ETH''). The Exchange
intends to commence trading in the ETH session on Monday, March 2, 2015
for VIX and Monday, March 9, 2015 for SPX/SPXW. As such, the Exchange
proposes to establish fees for the trading of SPX, SPXW and VIX options
during ETH (all fees referenced herein are per-contract unless
otherwise stated). First, the Exchange proposes to adopt Footnote 37,
which provides general information regarding the two trading sessions
and indicates which products will be available in ETH.
Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes to assess the same fees regarding SPX, SPXW
and VIX in the ETH session as are assessed regarding SPX, SPXW and VIX
in the Regular Trading Hours session (``RTH'') \3\ (with a few
exceptions, which shall be explained herein). As in RTH, the
Proprietary Index Options Rate Table will apply during ETH. Transaction
fees for SPX (including SPXW) options will be as follows (all listed
rates are per contract):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1.1(qqq) defines ``Regular Trading Hours'' as the hours
during which transactions in options may be made on the Exchange as
set forth in Rule 6.1 (which hours are from 8:30 a.m. to either.
3:00 p.m. or 3:15 p.m. Chicago time).

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer (Premium > or = $1)...................................    $0.44
Customer (Premium <$1).........................................     0.35
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary.....................     0.25
CBOE Market-Maker/LMM..........................................     0.20
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder         0.40
 Market-Maker..................................................
Professional/Voluntary Professional (Premium > or = $1)........     0.40
Professional/Voluntary Professional (Premium <$1)..............     0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transaction fees for VIX options will be as follows (all listed
rates are per contract):

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer (Premium > or = $1)...................................    $0.48
Customer (Premium $0.11-$.99)..................................     0.27
Customer (Premium <$0.11)......................................     0.10
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary.....................     0.25
CBOE Market-Maker/LMM (Premium > or = $0.11)...................     0.23
CBOE Market-Maker/LMM (Premium <$0.11).........................     0.05
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder         0.40
 Market-Maker..................................................
Professional/Voluntary Professional............................     0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surcharges
    The Exchange also proposes to apply in ETH, like RTH, an Index
License Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract for SPX options, including
SPXW, and $0.10 per contract for VIX options for all non-customer
orders. The surcharges are assessed to help the Exchange recoup license
fees the Exchange pays to index licensors for the right to list S&P 500
Index-based products and volatility index options for trading.
Additionally, in order to have consistency and to avoid a cost
differential between the ETH and RTH sessions, the Exchange proposes to
apply the Customer Priority Surcharges for VIX and SPXW in ETH.
Specifically, as in RTH, all customer (C) contracts in VIX that have a
premium of $0.11 or greater, are executed electronically and that are
Maker non-Turner will be assessed a $0.10 surcharge.\4\ As in RTH, all
customer (C) contracts in SPXW executed electronically will be assessed
a $0.05 surcharge. The Exchange notes that as ETH opening trades will
not affect the Index Settlement price for VXST, the exception from the
SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge in RTH for SPXW options in the SPXW
electronic book that are executed during opening rotation on the final
settlement day of VXST options and futures and which have the
expiration that contribute to the VXST settlement calculation will not
exist in ETH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As of the date of this filing, the Customer Priority
Surcharge for VIX is waived for complex orders. This waiver will
also apply during ETH and will remain in effect until and unless a
rule filing is submitted reinstating the surcharge for VIX complex
orders. See Exchange Fees Schedule, Customer Priority Surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exceptions
    All of the proposed transaction fees and surcharges listed above
are the same amounts as those currently assessed for SPX, SPXW and VIX
during RTH, with certain exceptions. The first exception relates to
Professional/Voluntary Professional (``W'' origin code) fees.\5\
Particularly, the Exchange notes that SPX is traded on the Exchange's
Hybrid 3.0 system (``Hybrid 3.0'') during RTH, and the Professional and
Voluntary Professional designation is not available in Hybrid 3.0
classes. As such, Professionals and Voluntary Professionals trading SPX
are currently assessed the same fee amounts as customers during RTH.
During ETH however, SPX will be traded on the Hybrid Trading System
(``Hybrid''), which recognizes the difference between Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals and Customers. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to assess to Professionals/Voluntary Professionals the same
fee amount for SPX transactions during ETH as apply to the majority of
other proprietary index options trading on Hybrid (i.e., $0.40 per
contract). The Exchange also proposes to assess the Index License
Surcharge to SPX orders with the ``W'' origin code during ETH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Proprietary Index Options Rate
Table--Underlying Symbol List A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to have consistency between the two trading sessions, the
Exchange also proposes to provide that SPX orders that have a
Professional/Voluntary Professional designation (``W'' origin code)
during RTH will be assessed the same transaction fees as apply to the
other Underlying Symbol List A \6\ Products (i.e., $0.40 per contract).
The Exchange also proposes to apply the Index License Surcharge to SPX
orders that have a Professional/Voluntary Professional designation
during RTH (i.e., $0.13 per contract). The purpose of these proposed
rule changes is to minimize cost differentials between the two trading
sessions, as well as provide consistent fees for similar products.
Specifically, similarly situated Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
(i.e., Professional/Voluntary Professionals) will be assessed the same
transaction fees and Index License Surcharges regardless of session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As of the date of this filing, ``Underlying Symbol List A''
consists of OEX, XEO, SPX (including SPXW), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST,
Volatility Indexes and binary options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange notes that during RTH, the Automated Improvement
Mechanism (``AIM'') is activated for VIX options, but not SPX (or SPXW)
options. During ETH however, AIM will be activated for both VIX and SPX
(including SPXW) options. As such, SPX and SPXW transactions executed
via AIM during ETH will be assessed AIM Agency/Primary and AIM Contra
fees based on an order's origin code. As in RTH, the current AIM
Agency/Primary and AIM Contra fees for VIX options will apply during
ETH. The Exchange also proposes to make a minor, non-substantive change
to the title of the AIM fees column.

Particularly, the Exchange notes that throughout the Fees Schedule,
when listing proprietary products, ``VIX'' generally precedes ``VXST.''
To remain consistent, the Exchange proposes switching the order of
these products in the AIM fees column.
    The Exchange next notes that the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge
will not apply in ETH. As described above, while SPX is traded on
Hybrid 3.0 during RTH, SPX will be traded on Hybrid during ETH, and
thus the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge would not be applicable.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that as the ETH session will not
support trading in FLEX options, all fees relating to FLEX in RTH,
would not apply in ETH. Finally, unlike RTH, the Exchange does not
propose to assess a Tier Appointment Fee \7\ to SPX/SPXW or VIX at this
time, as the Exchange does not want to discourage Market-Makers from
participating in ETH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit and Tier
Appointment Fees Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LMM Rebate
    In the filing that adopted Extended Trading Hours, CBOE stated that
it would submit a separate rule filing to adopt all fees applicable to
Extended Trading Hours, including the amount of a rebate to be provided
to Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs'') that satisfy a heightened quoting
standard.\8\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to provide that LMM's
that meet a certain heightened quoting standard (which shall be
explained herein), will receive a pro-rata share of a ``compensation
pool'' equal to $25,000 times the number of LMMs in that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73704 (November
28, 2014), 79 FR 233 (December 4, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-062).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, pursuant to subparagraph (e)(iii)(A) of Rule
6.1A, the Exchange may approve one or more Market-Makers to act as LMMs
in each class during Extended Trading Hours in accordance with Rule
8.15A for terms of at least one month.\9\ However, to the extent the
Exchange approves Market-Makers to act as LMMs during ETH, subparagraph
(e)(iii)(B) of Rule 6.1A provides that LMMs must comply with the
continuous quoting obligation and other obligations of Market-Makers
described in subparagraph (ii) of Rule 6.1A,\10\ but not the
obligations set forth in Rule 8.15A \11\ during Extended Trading Hours
for their allocated classes. It further provides that LMMs do not
receive a participation entitlement as set forth in Rules 6.45B and
8.15B during ETH. Rather, pursuant to subparagraph (e)(iii)(C) of Rule
6.1A, if an LMM (1) provides continuous electronic quotes in at least
the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted series or 100% of the non-
adjusted series minus one call-put pair in an ETH allocated class
(excluding intra-day add-on series on the day during which such series
are added for trading) during ETH in a given month and (2) ensures an
opening of the same percentage of series by 2:05 a.m. for at least 90%
of the trading days during ETH in a given month, the LMM will receive a
rebate for that month in an amount to be set forth in the Fees
Schedule.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide in the
Fees Schedule (new Footnotes 38) that if a LMM meets the heightened
standard described above, the LMM will receive a pro-rata share of an
LMM compensation pool totaling an amount of $25,000 per month, per LMM,
per class. To clarify how the rebate will work, the Exchange proposes
to include in the Fees Schedule the following example: ``if three LMMs
are appointed in SPX, a compensation pool will be established each
month totaling $75,000. If each LMM meets the heightened continuous
quoting standard in SPX during a month, each will receive $25,000. If
two LMM's meet the heightened continuous quoting standard in SPX during
a month, those two LMM's would each receive $37,500 and the third LMM
would receive nothing. If only one LMM meets the heightened continuous
quoting standard in SPX during a month, that LMM would receive $75,000
and the other two would receive nothing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On September 22, 2014, the Exchange issued Regulatory
Circular RG14-134 which announced that the Exchange had appointed 3
LMMs in SPX options and 3 LMMs in VIX options during ETH. The LMM
appointments will be effective for a one-year period, beginning on
the launch date for ETH trading of the applicable class.
    \10\ Rule 6.1A(e)(ii) provides that notwithstanding the 20%
contract volume requirement in Rule 8.7(d)(ii), Market-Makers with
appointments during Extended Trading Hours must comply with the
quoting obligations set forth in Rule 8.7(d)(ii) (except during ETH
the Exchange may determine to have no bid/ask differential
requirements as set forth in subparagraph (A) and there will be no
open outcry quoting obligation as set forth in subparagraph (C)) and
all other obligations set forth in Rule 8.7 during that trading
session. Additionally, notwithstanding the 90-day and next calendar
quarter delay requirements in Rule 8.7(d), a Market-Maker with an
ETH appointment in a class must immediately comply with the quoting
obligations in Rule 8.7(d)(ii) during ETH.
    \11\ Rule 8.15A (and Rule 1.1(ccc)) requires LMMs to provide
continuous electronic quotes in at least the lesser of 99% of the
non-adjusted series or 100% of the non-adjusted series minus one
call-put pair within their appointed classes, with the term call-put
pair referring to one call and one put that cover the same
underlying instrument and have the same expiration date and exercise
price, for 90% of the time.
    \12\ Notwithstanding Rule 1.1(ccc), for purposes of subparagraph
(C) of Rule 6.1A, an LMM is deemed to have provided ``continuous
electronic quotes'' if the LMM provides electronic two-sided quotes
for 90% of the time during Extended Trading Hours in a given month.
If a technical failure or limitation of a system of the Exchange
prevents the LMM from maintaining, or prevents the LMM from
communicating to the Exchange, timely and accurate electronic quotes
in a class, the duration of such failure shall not be considered in
determining whether the LMM has satisfied the 90% quoting standard
with respect to that option class. The Exchange may consider other
exceptions to this quoting standard based on demonstrated legal or
regulatory requirements or other mitigating circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the rebate, the Exchange believed it was more
fitting to implement an incentive program with a rebate during ETH,
rather than the obligation/benefit structure that currently exists
during RTH. LMMs will not be obligated to satisfy heightened continuous
quoting and opening quoting standards during ETH. Instead, LMMs must
satisfy a heightened standard to receive a rebate, which the Exchange
believes will encourage LMMs to provide significant liquidity during
ETH. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it expects that TPHs may
need to undertake significant expenses to be able to quote at a
significantly heightened standard during ETH, such as performing system
work and adding personnel. The Exchange believes providing a rebate
will incent appointed LMMs to increase liquidity during ETH, as the
rebate could offset the costs that accompany providing quotes during
ETH.
CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale
    Next, the Exchange proposes to apply the CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale in ETH. The CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale table
provides that Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction
fees and transaction fees for Non-Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Affiliates in Underlying Symbol List A \13\ are reduced provided a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``Clearing TPH'') reaches certain
average daily volume (``ADV'') thresholds in all underlying symbols
excluding Underlying Symbol List A and mini-options on the Exchange in
a month. The Exchange proposes to provide that if a TPH reaches these
thresholds in RTH, that TPH would be entitled to reduced proprietary
transaction fees during both RTH and ETH. Specifically, if a TPH meets
the ADV thresholds in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying
Symbol

List A and mini-options, the Exchange would then calculate the
proprietary product volume thresholds by aggregating VIX and SPX/SPXW
volume in ETH with RTH volume in Underlying Symbol List A (i.e., a
TPH's total volume in Underlying Symbol List A during both RTH and ETH
in a calendar month would be divided by the total volume in Underlying
Symbol List A executed with an ``F'' or ``L'' origin code during both
RTH and ETH in the same calendar month).\14\ The Exchange proposes to
apply the Proprietary Products Sliding Scale during ETH in order to
avoid a cost differential between the two sessions. Additionally, the
Exchange believes applying the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale
to the ETH session will encourage Clearing TPHs to provide liquidity
during ETH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ SROs are currently excluded from the CBOE Proprietary
Products Sliding Scale. See Exchange Fees Schedule, CBOE Proprietary
Products Sliding Scale.
    \14\ For example, Clearing Trading Permit Holder A executes ADV
of 25,000 options contracts on CBOE across all classes excluding
Underlying Symbol List A and Mini-Options during RTH in March 2015.
Clearing Trading Permit Holder A also executes a total of 600,000
Firm (F or L origin code) contracts in Underlying Symbol List A
during RTH and 200,000 Firm (F or L origin code) contracts in SPX
and/or VIX during ETH in March 2015. In March 2015, 7,605,000 total
Firm (F or L origin code) options contracts in Underlying Symbol
List A are executed on CBOE during RTH and 4,095,000 total Firm (F
or L origin code) options contracts in SPX and VIX are executed
during ETH (for a monthly total of 11,700,000 Firm contracts).
Clearing Trading Permit Holder A's total 800,000 contracts
represents 6.84% of the total monthly Firm (F or L origin code)
options contracts volume in Underlying Symbol List A. Trading Permit
Holder A's transaction fees for classes in Underlying Symbol List A
for January 2015 are $0.20 per contract on the first 760,500
contracts (6.50% x 11,700,000), or $152,100, and $0.10 per contract
on the remaining 39,500 contracts, or $3,950, for a total of
$156,050, or $0.195/contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Large Trade Discount
    The Customer Large Trade Discount program (the ``Discount'')
provides a discount in the form of a cap on the quantity of customer
(``C'' origin code'') contracts that are assessed transactions fees in
certain options classes. The Discount table currently in the Fees
Schedule sets forth the quantity of contracts necessary for a large
customer trade to qualify for the Discount, which varies by product.
Currently, under the ``Products'' section in the Discount table, the
following S&P products for which the Discount is in effect are listed:
``SPX, SPXw, SPXpm, SRO.'' Customer transaction fees for each of these
products are currently charged up to the first 15,000 contracts in a
qualifying customer transaction. Additionally, the Fees Schedule
currently provides that regular customer transaction fees will only be
assessed for the first 10,000 VIX options contracts in a qualifying
customer transaction. The Exchange proposes to apply the Discount in
ETH, the same as RTH. The Exchange notes however, that as the trading
sessions will have separate order books and require separate logins for
access, and as there will be no ``rolling'' of orders by the Exchange
between the two sessions, in order to be eligible to qualify for the
Discount, an order must be executed in its entirety in either RTH or
ETH, but not partly in both. As in many cases there will be separate
personnel staffing the ETH and RTH sessions, with different logins,
different systems and different customer relationships, and as orders
entered into each session will have different Order Routing System
(ORS) IDs, and as there will be no Floor Broker participants in ETH
who, during a normal RTH session may need to execute a large and/or
complex order using different means and mechanisms, the Exchange does
not wish to offer a cross-session Discount program at this time.
Trading Permits
    The Exchange next seeks to set forth the access fees for ETH
Trading Permit types as well as a description of each Trading Permit
type. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge $1,000 per month
for each ETH Market-Maker Trading Permit and $500 per month for each
ETH Electronic Access Trading Permit. The ETH Market-Maker Trading
Permit will entitle the holder to act as a Market-Maker in ETH and will
provide an appointment credit of 1.0, a quoting and order entry
bandwidth allowance, and up to three logins. The ETH Electronic Access
Permit will entitle the holder to electronic access to the Exchange
during the ETH session. The Exchange notes that as during the RTH
session, holders of an ETH Electronic Access Permit must be broker-
dealers registered with the Exchange in one or more of the following
capacities: (a) Clearing Trading Permit Holder; (b) TPH organization
approved to transact business with the public; and (c) Proprietary
Trading Permit Holder. Additionally, the Exchange notes that a
Proprietary Trading Permit Holder is a Trading Permit Holder with
electronic access to the Exchange to submit proprietary orders that are
not Market-Maker orders (i.e., that are not M orders for the
Proprietary Trading Permit Holder's own account or an affiliated
Market-Maker account). Finally, the ETH Electronic Access Permit
provides an order entry bandwidth allowance and up to three logins. The
Exchange notes, that similar to RTH, Trading Permits purchased for the
ETH session will be renewed automatically for the next month unless the
Trading Permit Holder submits written notification to the Registration
Services Department by 4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on the second-
to-last business day of the prior month to cancel the Trading Permit
effective at or prior to the end of the applicable month. Additionally,
if a Trading Permit is issued during a calendar month after the first
trading day of the month, the access fee for the ETH Trading Permit for
that calendar month is prorated based on the remaining trading days in
the calendar month. Finally, the Exchange notes that as in RTH, Market-
Maker Trading Permits in ETH will not be eligible for the the Market-
Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale, as the scale does not apply to
Trading Permits used for appointments in SPX/SPXW and VIX.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Trading Permit
Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Packets
    The Exchange also proposes to establish fees for Bandwidth Packets
that may be used during ETH. By way of background, each RTH and ETH
Trading Permit entitles the holder to a maximum number of orders and
quotes per second(s) as determined by the Exchange. Bandwidth Packets
provide TPHs with additional bandwidth. As during RTH, Market-Makers in
ETH will be provided the opportunity to purchase one or more Quoting
and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets. Each Quoting and Order Entry
Bandwidth Packet will entitle the TPH up to three additional logins and
contain the standard Market-Maker quoting and order entry bandwidth
allowance, which may then be added onto the total bandwidth pool for a
Market-Maker's acronym(s) and ETH Trading Permit(s) without the Market-
Maker having to obtain additional ETH Trading Permits. Additionally,
all TPHs will have the opportunity to purchase one or more Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets. Each Order Entry Bandwidth Packet will entitle the
TPH up to three additional logins and an order entry bandwidth
allowance to use during the ETH session. The Exchange notes that
Bandwidth Packets purchased for RTH may not be applied during ETH and
Bandwidth Packets purchased for ETH may not be applied during RTH.
Similar to RTH, Bandwidth Packets purchased for the ETH session will be
renewed automatically for the next month unless the Trading Permit
Holder submits written notification to the Registration Services
Department by the last business day of the prior month to cancel the
bandwidth packet effective at or prior to the end of the applicable

month. Additionally, as in RTH, if a bandwidth packet is issued during
a calendar month after the first trading day of the month, the
bandwidth packet fee for that calendar month is prorated based on the
remaining trading days in the calendar month. The Exchange notes that a
TPH will only be able to request Bandwidth Packets during RTH. To
request an additional Bandwidth Packet, a TPH must submit the ETH
Trading Permit & Bandwidth Packet Additions/Removals form indicating
the date on which it intends to begin trading during ETH.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that the Fees Schedule states that
the quoting bandwidth allowance for a Market-Maker Trading Permit is
equivalent to a maximum of 35,640,000 quotes over the course of a
trading day. The Exchange intends to amend the Fees Schedule to clarify
that quoting bandwidth allowance for a Market-Maker Trading Permit is
equivalent to a maximum of 35,640,000 quotes over the course of a
trading session (i.e., a RTH and ETH Market-Maker Trading Permit each
have a quoting bandwidth allowance of 35,640,000 quotes over the course
of the RTH and ETH session, respectively).
Waiver of Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet Fees
    In order to promote and encourage trading during the ETH session,
the Exchange proposes to waive ETH Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet
fees for one (1) of each initial Trading Permits and one (1) of each
initial Bandwidth Packet, per affiliated TPH, through the first six (6)
calendar months immediately following the implementation of ETH,
including the month ETH is launched (i.e., August 31, 2015). Any
Trading Permits and Bandwidth Packets purchased in excess of one each,
will be assessed the fees described above.
Extra CAS Server Fees
    In order to connect to CBOE Command, which will allow a TPH to
trade on the CBOE System during ETH, a TPH must connect via either a
CMI or FIX interface (depending on the configuration of the TPH's own
systems). TPHs that connect via a CMI interface must use CMI CAS
Servers. The Exchange proposes to provide that each TPH in ETH will
receive one CAS Server (plus access to a pool of shared backup CAS
Servers). If a TPH elects to connect via an extra CMI CAS Server (in
order to segregate TPH users for business or availability purposes)
beyond the one CAS server, the Exchange proposes to provide that the
TPH will be assessed a fee of $10,000 per month for each additional CMI
CAS Server. The purpose of the fee for extra CMI CAS Servers is to
cover the costs related to the provision, management and upkeep of such
CMI CAS Servers for the ETH session. Additionally, the proposed change
prevents the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of
resources (the provision and management of the CMI CAS Servers can be
costly) in order to provide TPHs with an unlimited amount of CMI CAS
Servers.
CBOE Command Connectivity Charges
    By way of background, CBOE market participants can access the
Exchange's trading systems via Network Access Ports, and can elect for
a Network Access Port (or Ports) of either 1 gigabit per second
(``Gbps'') or 10 Gbps. Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $750
per month for a 1 Gbps Network Access Port and a fee of $3,500 per
month for a 10 Gbps Network Access Port. The Exchange notes that these
fees would also be applicable to a TPH that holds an ETH Trading
Permit. More specifically, if a TPH that holds an ETH Trading Permit,
also holds an RTH Trading Permit(s) and already is assessed this fee,
it would not be charged twice. A TPH that holds only an ETH Trading
Permit (or only an RTH Trading Permit) would be subject to these fees
(i.e., any Trading Permit Holder that accesses the exchange via Network
Access Ports would be subject to the fee).
    Additionally, the CMI Login ID and FIX Login ID fees, which are
currently $500 per Login ID, per month, will also be applicable to ETH.
However, the Exchange notes that the fees related to waived ETH trading
permits and/or waived ETH bandwidth packets will also be waived through
August 31, 2015.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, if a TPH has 2 ETH Market-Maker Trading
Permits and enables 5 logins, the CMI and/or FIX Login IDs for the
first 3 logins will be waived and the TPH will be assessed $1,000
per month for the logins associated with the second Trading Permit
($500 per login).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PULSe Fees
    The Exchange currently charges a fee of $400 per month per PULSe
TPH login ID for the first 15 login IDs and $100 per month for all
subsequent login IDs. The Exchange anticipates making PULSe available
during ETH. The Exchange notes that these fees would also be applicable
to a TPH during ETH. Particularly, if a TPH is already being assessed
the PULSe login ID fees during RTH, the TPH would not be charged again
for using the same login ID during ETH.
Miscellaneous Fees
    The Exchange notes that a number of fees apply the same in ETH as
in RTH. For example, the fees set forth in the Trading Permit Holder
Application Fees table are applicable for the ETH session (i.e., if a
non-CBOE TPH seeks to become a CBOE TPH and hold an ETH Trading Permit
only, the applicable application fees would apply). Similarly, Web CRD
Fees would also apply to TPHs that hold ETH Trading Permits only to the
extent applicable. The Trading Permit Holder Transaction Fee Policies
and Rebate Programs table in the Fees Schedule will also apply during
ETH.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit Holder
Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate Programs table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trade Processing Services fee will also be assessed during the
ETH session. Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.0025 fee per
contract side for each matched trade. The Exchange notes that the
Regulatory Fees also are applicable to TPHs who hold ETH Trading
Permits. Specifically, the Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') will
include options transactions executed or cleared by the TPH that are
cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) in the customer range
during both RTH and ETH. The ``DPM's and Firm Designated Examining
Authority Fee'' will also continue to apply to applicable TPHs.
    The Exchange lastly notes that fees, rebates and programs that
excluded SPX, SPXW and VIX during RTH will also not apply in ETH.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale, Marketing Fee, Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee
Cap, and Volume Incentive Program (``VIP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are to take effect on March 2, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\19\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \20\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged

in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitation transactions in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\21\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed transaction fee amounts for SPX, SPXW and VIX orders
during the ETH session are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are the same as the amounts of
corresponding fees for SPX, SPXW and VIX orders during the RTH session,
with the exception of the current Professional and Voluntary
Professional fees and AIM Agency/Primary and Contra fees. The Exchange
notes that the fee amounts for each separate type of market participant
will be assessed equally for each product to all such market
participants (i.e., all Broker-Dealer orders will be assessed the same
amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed the same amount,
etc.). The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess Professional/Voluntary Professionals
the same fee amounts, including the Index License Surcharge Fee, for
SPX transactions during ETH as apply to the majority of other
proprietary index options trading on Hybrid (including SPXW), because
unlike RTH, SPX will trade on Hybrid and the Professional and Voluntary
Professional designation exists on Hybrid. The Exchange also believes
it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
the same fee amounts, including the Index License Surcharge Fee, for
SPX transactions with a Professional/Voluntary Professional designation
during RTH as apply to the majority of other proprietary index options,
because it provides for consistent fees for similar products, as well
as avoids a cost differential between the two trading sessions (i.e.,
orders with a ``W'' origin code will be treated the same during RTH and
ETH). Applying the AIM Agency/Primary and Contra Fees to SPX and SPXW
orders in RTH is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the amount of the AIM Agency/Primary and Contra fees will be
the same for SPX and SPXW orders as it is for non-AIM Agency/Primary
and Contra orders and because unlike, RTH, AIM will be active in SPX
and SPXW during ETH. Not applying any RTH fees related to FLEX options
in ETH is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
ETH will not support trading in FLEX options.
    Assessing the Index License Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract to
SPX and SPXW and $0.10 per contract to VIX transactions during ETH is
reasonable because the amounts are the same as the amounts of the
corresponding surcharge for SPX, SPXW and VIX orders during RTH. The
Surcharge fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will be assessed to all market participants to whom the SPX, SPXW
and VIX Surcharges apply and will apply in both RTH and ETH. Similarly,
assessing the Customer Priority Surcharge of $0.05 per contract for
SPXW and $0.10 per contract for VIX options that are Maker, non-Turner
during ETH is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the surcharges are the same as the amounts of
the Customer Priority Surcharges during RTH and will be assessed to all
market participants to whom these surcharges apply. Additionally the
Customer Priority Surcharges for SPXW and VIX will apply in both RTH
and ETH.
    Not applying the SPX/SPXW and VIX Tier Appointment Fees as well as
the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee is reasonable because market participants
involved in the trading of SPX, SPXW and VIX will not have to pay such
fees. Particularly, not applying Tier Appointment Fees during ETH, as
compared to RTH is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
ETH is a new trading session and the Exchange desires to encourage
Market-Makers to register for SPX/SPXW and VIX tier appointments, and
the more Market-Makers that do so, the more SPX/SPXW and VIX quoting
there will be, which benefits all market participants. Not applying the
Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee during ETH is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because SPX will be not traded on Hybrid 3.0
during ETH.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer LMM's that meet a certain heightened quoting
standard (described above) a pro-rata share of a compensation pool
equal to $25,000 times the number of LMMs in that class given the
potential added costs that an LMM may undertake in order to satisfy
that heightened quoting standard. Additionally, if an LMM does not
satisfy the heightened quoting standard, then it will not receive the
proposed rebate. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only offer the rebate to LMMs because it benefits all
market participants in ETH to encourage LMMs to satisfy the heightened
quoting standards, which may increase liquidity during those hours and
provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange
also believes it is more fitting, as well as equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to implement an incentive program with a rebate during
ETH, rather than the obligation/benefit structure that exists during
RTH. Particularly, the Exchange notes that creating an incentive
program in which LMMs must satisfy a heightened standard to receive the
rebate, encourages LMMs to provide significant liquidity during ETH,
which is important as the Exchange expects lower trading liquidity and
trading levels during ETH and thus fewer opportunities for an LMM to
receive a participation entitlement (as they currently do during RTH).
Without the possibility of receiving a participation entitlement on a
sufficient volume of trades, there would not be sufficient incentive
for Trading Permit Holders to undertake an obligation to quote at
heightened levels, which could result in even lower levels of
liquidity. Therefore, a rebate is more appropriate than imposing an
obligation to receive a participation entitlement. The Exchange notes
that offering a rebate during ETH is merely a different type of
financial benefit that may be given to LMMs during ETH if it achieves a
heightened quoting level.
    Applying to SPX, SPXW and VIX the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale and the Customer Large Trade Discount during ETH is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these items apply to
SPX, SPXW and VIX during RTH. Applying the CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale during ETH avoids a cost differential between RTH and
ETH. Moreover, the Exchange notes that all thresholds in the CBOE
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale will be the same in ETH as it is in
RTH. The Exchange believes requiring an order be executed in its
entirety in either RTH or ETH, but not partly in both to qualify for
the Customer Large Trade Discount is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the RTH and ETH trading sessions will
have separate order books and require separate logins

for access, and as there will be no ``rolling'' of orders by the
Exchange between the two sessions.
    The Exchange believes the Trading Permit fees for Market-Maker and
Electronic Access Trading Permits are reasonable as they are lower than
the Trading Permit fees assessed during RTH. The Exchange believes it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge lower Trading
Permit fees for ETH than RTH because ETH is a new trading session and
the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to participate in
ETH. The Exchange notes that the more ETH Trading Permit Holders there
are during ETH, the more liquidity there will be, which benefits all
market participants. The Exchange also believes it is equitable to
assess different access fees for trading permits that provide
differential access as long as the same access fee is assessed to all
Holders of the same type of Trading Permit. The Exchange notes that
different types of Trading Permits during RTH are also assessed
different amounts.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit Fees.
Market-Maker Trading Permits during RTH are assessed $5,500 per
month per permit while Electronic Access Permits during RTH are
assessed $1,600 per month per permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Bandwidth Packet fees are
reasonable because they are within the range of the cost of Bandwidth
Packet fees during RTH. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge lower fees for Bandwidth Packets
during ETH than RTH because ETH is a new trading session and the
Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to participate in ETH.
The Exchange also believes it is equitable to assess different fees for
different types of Bandwidth Packets as long as the same access fee is
assessed to all Holders of the same type of Bandwidth Packet.
Additionally, the Exchange believes it is equitable to assess higher
Quoting and Order Bandwidth Packet fees than Order Bandwidth Packet
fees, because Quoting and Order Bandwidth Packets provide quoting
bandwidth in addition to order bandwidth. The Exchange notes that
different types of Bandwidth Packets during RTH are also assessed
different amounts.\23\ Finally, the Exchange believes amending the Fees
Schedule to clarify that the maximum quoting bandwidth allowance of
each Market-Maker Trading Permit is over the course of a trading
session, instead of a trading day alleviates confusion, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See e.g., Exchange Fees Schedule, Bandwidth Packet Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes waiving ETH Trading Permit and Bandwidth
Packet fees for one of each type of Trading Permit and Bandwidth
Packet, per affiliated TPH through August 31, 2015 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it promotes and
encourages trading during the ETH session and applies to all ETH TPHs.
    The Exchange believes the proposed monthly fee of $10,000 for each
extra CMI CAS Server that a TPH requests is reasonable because it is
necessary to recoup the costs related to the provision, maintenance and
upkeep of such Servers, and is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fee will be applied to all TPHs that request
an extra CMI CAS Server to be used during ETH. Additionally, TPHs
during RTH that request an additional CMI CAS Server are assessed the
same monthly amount.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply the Network Access
Port fees to the ETH session because the Exchange has expended
significant resources setting up, providing and maintaining this
connectivity and the Exchange seeks to recoup those costs. The Exchange
believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
assess these costs per port regardless of session (i.e., not assess a
TPH twice if using the same port for RTH and ETH), as the costs
associated with using the port do not increase if a TPH uses that port
for both sessions.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess the same PULSe fees to the ETH
session, but not charge a TPH twice if using the same PULSe login ID
for both sessions, because the Exchange expended significant resources
developing PULSe and desires to recoup some of those costs, but does
not wish to charge TPHs twice if using the same login ID.
    The Exchange believes assessing the CMI Login ID and FIX Login ID
fees to Login IDs for ETH is reasonable because the fee amounts are the
same as in RTH. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all TPHs will be assessed the Login ID fees for
each Login ID they have for both RTH and ETH. The Exchange believes
it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to waive
fees for Login IDs related to waived Trading Permits and/or Bandwidth
Packets in order to promote and encourage initial participation in ETH.
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to assess a $0.0025 fee per
contract side for each matched trade because the same fee amount is
assessed during RTH. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess such fee because it applies to all
TPHs and applies in both RTH and ETH.
    The proposed ORF during the ETH session is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is the same amount assessed
during the RTH session. The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all TPHs during
both sessions on all their transactions that clear in the customer
range at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures
fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct in each trading session. Regulating customer
trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater
expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-
customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering
the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are
materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-
customer component (e.g., Trading Permit Holder proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on
Trading Permit Holder proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems
it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having Trading Permit Holder Application fees, Web CRD fees Trading
Permit Holder Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate Programs apply the
same in ETH as RTH is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fees, rebates and programs are the same in
both sessions and are based on a market participant's status as a TPH
and not based upon which trading session a TPH participates.
    Not applying in ETH fees, rebates and programs that exclude SPX,
SPXW and VIX during RTH is reasonable because these fees rebates and
programs will not apply to all TPHs and will be consistent across
sessions.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees
and rebates are assessed to different market participants in some
circumstances, these different market participants have different
obligations and different circumstances. For example, Clearing TPHs
have clearing obligations that other market participants do not have.
Market-Makers have quoting obligations that other market participants
do not have. There is a history in the options markets of providing
preferential treatment to Customers, as they often do not have as
sophisticated trading operations and systems as other market
participants, which often makes other market participants prefer to
trade with Customers. Further, the proposed fees, rebates and programs
for ETH are intended to encourage market participants to bring
liquidity to the Exchange during ETH (which benefits all market
participants), while still covering Exchange costs (including those
associated with the upgrading and maintenance of Exchange systems). The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
products offered during ETH (SPX, SPXW and VIX), are proprietary
products that will only be traded on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-020 and should be
submitted on or before March 31, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05476 Filed 3-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

	     Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 23, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13979

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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).

Applicant:  Laker Airways (Bahamas) Limited					Date Filed:  December 2,
2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to conduct scheduled
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between
Freeport, Bahamas, and Boston, MA, on a coterminal basis with currently
authorized U.S.-Bahamas services.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Barbara Schools<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  December 23, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 23, 2002  -  December
23, 2003

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity

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

 X  Standard exemption conditions (attached)          X  Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 96-6-45)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

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/deferred/dismissed, 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:

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

												        Appendix A

FOREIGN AIR CARRIER CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the holder shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security;1

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are:

   (a)  based on its operations in international air transportation
that, according to the contract of carriage, include a point in the
United States as a point of origin, point of destination, or agreed
stopping place, or for which the contract of carriage was purchased in
the United States; or

   (b)  based on a claim under any international agreement or treaty
cognizable in any court or other tribunal of the United States.

In this condition, the term "international air transportation" means
"international transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention,
except that all States shall be considered to be High Contracting
Parties for the purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended).__________________

1  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that would be
the holder’s last point of departure for the United States, inform its
Principal Security Inspector of its plans.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary of Transportation									        (41301/40109)
10/2002


1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A. JUSTIFICATION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION COLLECTION a) Title: NESHAP for Radionuclides ( 40 CFR part 61, subparts B, K, R and W) ( Renewal)

EPA Number 1100.12, OMB Number 2060 0191 b) Short Characterization This renewal request is for continued collection of information from various source categories. The information to be collected is non statistical in nature and, therefore, only Part A of the supporting statement requesting for OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320 is addressed below.

On February 15, 2005 ( 70 FR 7732), EPA requested comments on specific aspects of this ICR, with the comment period closing on April 18, 2005. By this deadline, there were no comments received from affected entities or the general public.

On December 15, 1989, pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 ( 42 USC 1857), the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated NESHAPs to control radionuclide emissions from several source categories. The regulations were published in 54 FR 51653, and are codified at 40 CFR subparts B, K, R, and W, and impose the following radionuclide dose and emission standards:

Subpart B Underground Uranium Mines  10 mrem/ yr Subpart K Elemental Phosphorous Plants  2 curies/ yr Subpart R Phosphogypsum Stacks  20 pci/ m2 s 2 Subpart W Uranium Mill Tailings Piles  20 pci/ m2 s Originally there were seven subparts   B, H, I, K, R, T and W that were published in the December 15, 1989 Federal Register ( 54 FR 51653). Since the 1989 notice, subparts I and T are no longer regulated by EPA. Due to petitions for reconsideration, EPA rescinded subpart T as it applies to owners and operators or uranium mill tailings disposal sites licensed by NRC or an affected Agreement State on July 15, 1994, 59 FR 36280. Subpart I as it applies to NRC licensed facilities was rescinded on December 30, 1996, 61 FR 68971 because in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress directed EPA to stop regulating radionuclide emissions from NRC licensed facilities if EPA determines that the NRC regulatory program protects the public health with an ample margin of safety. After careful review, EPA determined that public health would be protected with an ample margin of safety by NRC's program. Subpart H does not require an ICR because it covers Federal facilities that are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The existing subpart I of the radionuclide NESHAP now only applies to non DOE federal facilities not licensed by NRC. The non DOE federal facilities not licensed by NRC, namely, DoD facilities,

are expected to have emissions below 1% of the standards and are therefore not subject to the reporting requirements.

Information collected is used by EPA to ensure that public health continues to be protected from the hazards of airborne radionuclides by compliance with these standards. If the information were not collected, it is unlikely that a violation of these standards would be identified and, thus, there would be no corrective action initiated to bring the facilities back into compliance.

Compliance is demonstrated through emission testing and/ or dose calculation. All facilities are 3 required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for 5 years. The rationale for the 5 year record keeping requirement is from the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), 40 CFR part 61,

Section 61.95. In some cases, they also report their results to EPA.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection In the context of the Clean Air Act ( 42 USC 1857), Section 114 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to require any person who owns or operates any emission source or who is subject to any requirements of the Act to:

 Establish and maintain records  Make reports, install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment or method  Sample emissions in accordance with EPA prescribed locations, intervals and methods  Provide information as may be requested ( b) Practical Utility/ Users EPA's regional offices use the information collected to ensure that public health continues to be protected from the hazards of radionuclides by compliance with health based standards.

EPA's compliance monitoring activities vary widely. EPA could issue a letter requesting information about compliance or could conduct a full scale investigation, including on site inspections.

When EPA first learns of a compliance problem, EPA attempts to remedy the problem by holding informal discussions with the owner/ operator of the source. If it is not possible to remedy the problem informally, formal action is taken. EPA's Clean Air Act Compliance Enforcement Guidance Manual identifies the Agency's informal and formal enforcement operating procedures. 4 3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) Respondents NAICS Codes The NAICS Codes associated with the activity of the respondents are:

Elemental Phosphorous  325188 Phosphogypsum Stacks  212392 Underground Uranium Mines  212291 Uranium Mill Tailings Piles  212291 ( b) Information Requested Descriptions of the reporting requirements are listed separately for each subpart.

Reporting Subpart B  Underground Uranium Mines The mine owner or operator shall annually calculate and report the results of the compliance calculations and the input parameters used in making the calculation. The compliance calculations include using 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B, Method 115 to calculate the source terms used in the program COMPLY R which calculates the dose. The report shall cover the emissions of a calendar year and shall be sent to EPA by March 31 of the following year. Each report shall also include the following information:

( 1) The name and location of the mine,

( 2) The name of the person responsible for the operation of the facility and the name of the person preparing the report ( if different),

( 3) The results of the emissions testing conducted and the dose calculated using the procedures in Section 61.23, 5 ( 4) A list of the stacks or vents or other points where radioactive materials are released to the atmosphere, including their location, diameter, flow rate, effluent temperature and release height,

( 5) A description of the effluent controls that are used on each stack, vent, or other release point and the effluent controls used inside the mine, and an estimate of the efficiency of each control method or device,

( 6) Distances from the points of release to the nearest residence, school, business or office and the nearest farms producing vegetables, milk and meat,

( 7) The values used for all other user supplied input parameters for the computer model and the source of these data,

( 8) Each report shall be signed and dated by a corporate officer in charge of the facility and contain the following declaration immediately above the signature line: " I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. See 18 U. S. C. 1001."

In order to complete the Subpart B reporting requirements respondents will:

a. read and understand the regulatory provision,

b. perform radon 222 emission measurements as required in Appendix B, Method 115,

c. perform data analysis including Method 115 source term calculations and COMPLY R dose calculation, 6 d. prepare and submit report.

For recordkeeping requirements, all facilities are required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for five years and upon request be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or his/ her authorized representative. ( See Table B)

Subpart K  Elemental Phosphorus Plants Each owner or operator of an elemental phosphorus plant shall test emissions from the plant annually according to the procedures in Section 61.123 and using the test methods in Section 61.125.

Each owner or operator of an elemental phosphorus plant shall furnish the Administrator with a written report on the results of the emission test within 60 days of conducting the test. The report must provide the following information:

( 1) The name and location of the facility,

( 2) The name of the person responsible for the operation of the facility and the name of the person preparing the report ( if different),

( 3) A description of the effluent controls that are used on each stack, vent or other release point and an estimate of the efficiency of each device,

( 4) The results of the testing, including the results of each sampling run completed,

( 5) The values used in calculating the emissions and the source of these data,

( 6) Each report shall be signed and dated by a corporate officer in charge of the facility and contain the following declaration immediately above the signature line: " I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for 7 obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. See, 18 U. S. C. 1001."

In order to complete these reporting requirements respondents will:

a. read and understand the regulatory provision,

b. perform the emission monitoring and test procedures in Section 61.125,

c. perform data analysis including calculation of annual emission rate,

d. prepare and submit the report to EPA.

For recordkeeping requirements, all facilities are required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for five years and upon request be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or his/ her authorized representative. ( See Table K)

Subpart R   Phosphogypsum Stacks Sixty days following the date at which a stack becomes an inactive stack the owners or operators of the inactive phosphogypsum stack shall test the stack in accordance with the procedures described in 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B, Method 115. This is a one time report.

However, if an owner or operator removes phosphogypsum from an inactive stack, the owner shall test the stack once a year for every year in which phosphogypsum is removed from the stack.

EPA shall be notified at least 30 days prior to an emission test so that EPA may, at its option, observe the test. Ninety days after the testing is required, the owner or operator shall provide EPA with a report detailing the actions taken and the results of the radon 222 flux testing. Each report shall also include the following information:

( 1) The name and location of the facility, 8 ( 2) A list of the stacks at the facility including the size and dimensions of the stack,

( 3) The name of the person responsible for the operation of the facility and the name of the person preparing the report ( if different),

( 4) A description of the control measures taken to decrease the radon flux from the source and any actions taken to insure the long term effectiveness of the control measures, and ( 5) The results of the testing conducted, including the results of each measurement,

( 6) Each report shall be signed and dated by a corporate officer in charge of the facility and contain the following declaration immediately above the signature line: " I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. See 18 U. S. C. 1001."

Also, the owner or operator of the stack from which the phosphogypsum is removed shall determine annually the average radium 226 concentration at the location in the stack from which the phosphogypsum will be removed as provided by Section 61.207. Each distributor, retailer, or reseller who distributes phosphogypsum for use in agriculture shall prepare certification documents which conform to the requirements of Section 61.208.

The owner or operator of a stack from which phosphogypsum will be removed and distributed in commerce pursuant to Section 61.204, Section 61.205, or Section 61.206 shall prepare a certification document for each quantity of phosphogypsum which is distributed in commerce which includes: 9 ( 1) The name an address of the owner or operator,

( 2) The name and address of the purchaser or recipient of the phosphogypsum,

( 3) The quantity ( in pounds) of phosphogypsum sold or transferred,

( 4) The date of sale or transfer,

( 5) The average radium 226 concentration, in pCi/ g, of the phosphogypsum to Section 61.207, and ( 6) The signature of the person who prepared the certification.

Each distributor, retailer, or reseller who purchases or receives phosphogypsum for subsequent resale or transfer shall prepare a certification document for each quantity of phosphogypsum which is resold or transferred which includes:

( 1) The name and address of the owner or operator,

( 2) The name and address of the purchaser or recipient of the phosphogypsum,

( 3) The quantity ( in pounds) of phosphogypsum sold or transferred,

( 4) The date of resale or transfer,

( 5) A description of the intended end use for the phosphogypsum,

( 6) A copy of each certification document which accompanied the phosphogypsum at the time it was purchased or received by the distributor, retailer, or reseller, and ( 7) The signature of the person who prepared the certification. Submission of certification documents to EPA is not a requirement.

In order to complete these reporting requirements respondents will:

a. read and understand the regulatory provision,

b. perform the radon flux testing in Section 61.203, 10 c. perform radium 226 sampling and measurement procedures in Section 61.207 ( if required),

d. perform data analysis including Method 115 radon flux or radium 226 concentration calculations,

e. prepare and submit the report and prepare a certification document if required.

For record keeping requirements, all facilities are required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for five years and upon request be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or his/ her authorized representative. ( See Table R)

Subpart W  Uranium Mill Tailings The owners or operators of operating existing mill impoundments shall report the results of the compliance calculations required in Section 61.253 and the input parameters used in making the calculation for each calendar year shall be sent to EPA by March 31 of the following year. Each report shall also include the following information:

( 1) The name and location of the mill,

( 2) The name of the person responsible for the operation of the facility and the name of the person preparing the report ( if different),

( 3) The results of the testing conducted, including the results of each measurement,

( 4) Each report shall be signed and dated by a corporate officer in charge of the facility and contain the following declaration immediately above the signature line: " I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for 11 obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. See 18 U. S. C. 1001."

In order to complete these reporting requirements respondents will:

a. read and understand the regulatory provision,

b. perform testing required in 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B, Method 115,

c. perform data analysis including Method 115 radon flux calculations,

d. prepare and submit the report to EPA.

For record keeping requirements, all facilities are required to calculate, monitor, and maintain their records for five years and upon request be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or his/ her authorized representative. ( See Table W)

Record Keeping The record keeping requirements of each subpart are similar and have been summarized in the paragraph below.

The owner or operator of the facility must maintain records documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all measurements upon which they are based, the calculations and/ or analytical methods used to derive values for input parameters, and the procedure used to determine compliance. This documentation should be sufficient to allow an independent auditor to verify the accuracy of the determination made concerning the facility's compliance with the standard. These records must be kept at the mill or facility for at least five years and, upon request, be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or his/ her 12 authorized representative.

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) Agency Activities Information being collected is pursuant to Federal regulation. Agency activities consist of reviewing owner or operator test reports and maintaining files.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air and the EPA regional offices have planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of this information.

Records must be maintained documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all measurements upon which they are based, the calculations and/ or analytical methods used to derive values for input parameters, and the procedure used to determine effective dose equivalent. This documentation should be sufficient to allow an independent auditor to verify the accuracy of the determination made concerning the facility's compliance with the standard. These records must be kept at the site of the facility for at least five years and, upon request, be made available for inspection by the Administrator, or the Administrator's authorized representative.

The Agency has determined that the annual report review and periodic on site inspection is the most effective method to insure compliance. EPA regional office staff review facility annual reports to determine if compliance with the regulatory standards are being maintained.

Verification of data is accomplished by recalculation of dose using computer models and conducting site inspections or witnessing an emission test.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility 13 None of the regulations covered by this ICR are applicable to small entities.

( d) Collection Schedule For some subparts, annual reports are required to provide yearly certification of compliance with a health based standard; therefore, less frequent reporting was not considered an option to reduce burden because of the yearly stipulation in the rule. However, for other subparts ( such as subpart R), it was determined during rulemaking that less frequent reports were adequate to protect public health.

5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) Nonduplication In accordance with 40 CFR part 61, the specific information requested by this notice is not currently collected by any other office within EPA or any other governmental agency.

( b) First Federal Notice and Consultations On February 15, 2005 ( 70 FR 7732), EPA requested comments on specific aspects of this ICR, with a 60 day comment period which closed on April 18, 2005. Specifically, there were no comments received from affected entities or the general public by this deadline. In developing the regulations, EPA gathered extensive background information on the affected facilities. In addition to background information collected from the regulated sources, public comments were received during the rulemaking process which are contained in the public docket. Since the rules were promulgated, there have been opportunities for dialogue between EPA and affected facilities which have resulted in changes to the rules, memorandums of understanding, and rescissions. In preparing this request, EPA also contacted contractors, EPA and facility emission monitoring and compliance professionals. As a result of these consultations and the provision in the Clean Air 14 Act Amendments, EPA was able to eliminate duplication of effort between EPA and NRC in instances where EPA determined that the NRC program could provide protection of the public health with an ample margin of safety.

( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection All reporting is annually or less frequent than annually.

( d) General Guidelines This ICR does meet OMB's collection guidelines; has public support ( there were no comments received during the comment period which ended April 18, 2005) and does not duplicate another collection.

( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions i. Confidentiality This section does not apply because this ICR does not request information of confidential nature.

ii. Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable because this ICR does not request sensitive information.

6. BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION Burden and costs estimates have been calculated separately for each subpart. Respondent labor rates are based on the December 2004 data in Table 2 from the US Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). These rates are doubled in the cost estimate to include overhead. The labor key is as follows: Management ( Mgmt) ($ 86/ hr) was based on the Total Compensation for the " Management" Occupational Group in the BLS data. Technical ( Tech) was based on salary for a GS 13, step 1 ($ 62/ hr) because a suitable occupational group was not shown 15 in the BLS data. Clerical ( Cler) ($ 42/ hr) was based on the Total Compensation for the " Office and Administrative Support" Occupational Group in the BLS data.

The tables representing each subpart are listed below with their reporting requirement information. ( Note: Subpart R has 2 tables; Table 1 represents the 20 stacks required to complete a one time report and Table 2 represents the 12 stacks that have to conduct radon flux testing every year when phosphogypsum is removed from the stacks.) 16 Information Collection Hours and Costs for Underground Uranium Mines Total Hours and Costs Activity Table B Subpart B Underground Uranium Mines Manager $ 86/ hour Technical $ 62/ hour Clerical $ 42/ hour Respond..

hours/

year Labor cost/ year/

Respond. Capital/

startup cost O & M Cost Number of Respon. Total hours/

year Tot Labor cost/

year Reporting Read and understand the regulatory provision ( Mgmt) 20 20 $ 1,720 2 40 $ 3,440 Perform emission monitoring ( Tech.) 160 160 $ 9,920 $ 0 $ 10,000 2 320 $ 19,840 Perform data analysis ( Technical) 40 40 $ 2,480 2 80 $ 4,960 Prepare report ( Mgmt) 10 10 $ 860 2 20 $ 1,720 Record Keeping File and maintain data ( Clerical) 10 10 $ 420 2 20 $ 840 TOTAL 30 200 10 240 $ 15,400 $ 0 $ 10,000 2 720 $ 30,800 Assumptions:

1. Capital/ start up cost:= $ 0 2. Annual cost ( O & M): 2 facilities x $ 5,000 = $ 10,000 B  Underground Uranium Mines 17 In order to comp a. read and understand b. perform radon 222 emiss c. perform data analysis including approved model d. prepare and submit report.

 The estimated capital/ start up cost includes the m testing for one mine.

 Capital/ start up burden includes understanding regulatory pro ( there was no capital cost in this cycle).

 Estimated annual costs related to testing include calibration, and repairs c  Estimated annual burden hours collecting emission data from monitoring equip data analysis and calculations, report preparation and data management.

 Based on reports received during the previous reporting period, two mines are operating. 18 Information Collection Hours and Costs for Elemental Phosphorus Total Hours and Costs Activity Table K Subpart K

Elemental Phosphorus Plants Manager $ 86/ hour Technical $ 62/ hour Clerical $ 42/ hour Respon.

hours/

year Labor cost/ year Capital/

startup cost O & M Cost Number of Respon. Total hours/

year Tot Labor cost/

year Reporting Read and understand the regulatory provision ( Mgmt) 0 0 Perform emission monitoring ( Tech.) 240 240 $ 14,880 $ 0 $ 10,200 2 480 $ 29,760 Perform data analysis ( Technical) 8 8 $ 496 2 16 992 Prepare report ( Mgmt) 8 8 $ 688 2 16 1,376 Record Keeping File and maintain data ( Clerical) 10 10 $ 420 2 20 840 TOTAL 8 248 10 266 $ 16,484 $ 0 $ 10,200 2 532 $ 32,968 Assumptions:

1. Capital/ start up cost: 2 facilities x $ 0 = $ 0 2. Annual cost ( O & M): 2 facilities x $ 5,100 = $ 10,200 19 K Elemental P In order to complete th a. read and understand the re b. perform the emission monitoring c. perform data analysis including calcul d. prepare and submit the report to EPA.

 It is estimated that 2 facilities will complete these  The estimated cost for a contractor to complete testing i 20 Information Collection Hours and Costs for Phosphogypsum Stack Total Hours and Costs Activity Table R1 Subpart R Phosphogypsum Stacks Manager $ 86/ hour Technical $ 62/ hour Clerical $ 42/ hour Respond.

Hours/

year Labor cost/ year/

Respond. Capital/

startup cost O & M Cost Number of Respond. Total hours/

year Tot Labor cost/

year Reporting Read and understand the regulatory provision ( Mgmt) 40 40 $ 3,440 20 800 $ 68,800 Perform emission monitoring ( Tech.) 64 64 $ 3,968 $ 0 $ 152,000 20 1280 79,360 Perform data analysis ( Technical) 8 8 $ 512 20 160 10,240 Prepare report ( Mgmt) 8 8 $ 688 20 160 13,760 Record Keeping File and maintain data ( Clerical) 10 10 $ 420 20 200 8,400 TOTAL 48 72 10 130 $ 9,088 $ 0 $ 152,000 20 2600 $ 180,560 Assumptions: Tables R1 & R2 1. Capital/ start up cost: 20 facilities x $ 0 = $ 0; ( Table 2) 10 facilities x $ 0 = $ 0 21 2. Annual cost ( O & M): 20 facilities x $ 7600 = $ 152,000 ( Table 2) 12 facilities x $ 835 = $ 10,020 Total O & M for Tables R1 & R2 = 162,020 Information Collection Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Activity Table R2 Subpart R Phosphogypsum Stacks Manager $ 86/ hour Technical $ 62/ hour Clerical $ 42/ hour Respond.

Hours/

year Labor cost/ year/

Respond. Capital/

startup cost O & M Cost Number of Respond. Total hours/

year Tot Labor cost/

year Reporting Read and understand the regulatory provision ( Mgmt)

Perform radon flux testing ( Tech.) 64 64 $ 3,968 $ 0 $ 10,020 12 768 $ 47,616 Perform radium 226 sampling and measurement proce

dures ( Tech.) 8 8 $ 496 12 96 5,952 Prepare data analysis ( Tech.) 8 8 $ 496 12 96 5,952 Prepare report and certification papers ( Mgmt) 10 10 $ 860 12 120 10,320 Record Keeping 22 File and maintain data ( Clerical) 10 10 10 $ 420 12 100 5,040 TOTAL 10 80 10 100 $ 6,240 $ 0 $ 10,020 12 1,180 $ 74,880 R   Phosphogypsum In order to complete these reporting requirements respondents will:

a. read and understand the regulatory provision,

b. perform the radon flux testing in Section 61.203,

c. perform radium 226 sampling and measurement procedures in Section 61.207 ( if required),

d. perform data analysis including Method 115 radon flux or radium 226 concentration calculations,

e. prepare and submit the report and certification document if required.

 It is estimated that the testing materials for 300 measurements and the analysis is obtained from a contract source at a cost of $ 56/ measurement.

 It is estimated that it will take four days for two people to place, collect and ship 300 samples to a testing lab.

 It is estimated that 20 stacks will be required to complete this one time report.

 It is estimated that 12 phosphogypsum stacks will have to conduct radon flux testing every year because phosphogypsum is removed from the stack. For these stacks, the radium 226 concentration must also be determined and included in certification papers. 23 24 Information Collection Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Activity Table W Subpart W

Uranium Mill Tailings Piles Manager $ 86/ hour Technical $ 62/ hour Clerical $ 42/ hour Respond.

Hours/

year Labor cost/ year/

Respond. Capital/

startup cost O & M Cost Number of Respond. Total hours/

year Tot Labor cost/

year Reporting Read and understand the regulatory provision ( Mgmt)

Perform radon flux testing ( Tech.) 32 32 $ 1,984 $ 0 $ 7,800 3 96 $ 5,952 Perform data analysis ( Technical) 8 8 $ 496 3 24 1,488 Prepare report ( Mgmt) 10 10 $ 860 3 30 2,580 Record Keeping File and maintain data ( Clerical) 10 10 $ 420 3 30 1,260 TOTAL 10 40 10 60 $ 3,760 $ 0 $ 7,800 3 180 $ 11,280 Assumptions:

1. Capital/ start up cost: 3 facilities x $ 0 = $ 0 2. Annual cost ( O & M): 3 facilities x $ 2600 = $ 7,800 25 W Uranium M In order to complete th a. read and understand the re b. perform radon flux testing requi c. perform data analysis including Metho d. prepare and submit the report to EPA.

 It is estimated that the testing materials for 100 me obtained from a contract source at a cost of $ 25/ measure  It is estimated that it will take one day for two people to place 8wo people to collect the canisters and ship them to a testing lab.

 It is estimated that 3 facilities will file a report annually.

 The estimated cost for a contractor to complete the testing is $ 2600 SUMMARY OF BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR RESPONDENTS No of Respondents Subpart Capital/ Start up Cost ( O & M)

Cost Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs 2 B $ 0.00 $ 10,000 720 $ 30,800 2 K $ 0.00 $ 10,200 532 $ 32,968 32 R ( R1&

R2) $ 0.00 $ 162,020 2600 $ 255,440 3 W $ 0.00 $ 7,800 180 $ 11,280 TOTALS $ 0.00 $ 190,020 4,032 $ 330,488 Average annual burden per response: 4032 hours/ 39 respondents = 103 hours. For capital with a 26 20 year life, and Total Annualized Ca Total Annualized Capital a ESTIMATED AGENCY BURD The burden to the EPA is only for revie ensure that emissions and dose are within the the regulated community as they have to monitor em necessary reports for compliance purposes. The estimated in the table below. Agency salaries were found in 2005 Gener data for review of reports for compliance was based on the salary sca with a multiplier of 1.6 to include overhead; this resulted in $ 56/ hr. For the salary scale for a GS 9, step 5 ( Cler) was used with a multiplier of 1.6 to account this resulted in $ 32/ hr. ,

SUMMARY OF BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR THE AGENCY AGENCY Capital/ Start Up Burden Hours Capital/ Start up Cost Annual Burden Hrs per Report Annual Costs per Report Review reports for compliance verification ( Tech) 6@$ 56/ hr $ 336 File reports ( Cler)

4@ $ 32/ hr $ 128 SUB TOTAL 0 0 10 $ 464 TOTAL for 39 respondents 390 $ 18,096 EXPLANATION OF BURDEN ESTIMATE CHANGE 27 Some burden est due to facility closure.

Burden Statement: The an collection of information is estima time, effort, or financial resources expen or provide information to or for a Federal age instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize tec collecting, validating, and verifying information, processi disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways t applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of info or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, an not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently vali control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID OAR 2005 0017, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102,

1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 28 telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Indoor Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.

Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.

Please include the EPA Docket ID OAR 2005 0017 and OMB Control Number 2060 0191 in any correspondence.