[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5984-5986]
[DOCID:fr04fe09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0721]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR,
Schedule Change

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation
regulation for the Broadway and Burnside Bridges across the Willamette
River, mile 11.7, in Portland, Oregon so that one-hour notice is
required from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and two-hour
notice at all other times. Also, the Broadway Bridge is deleted as a
point of contact for upstream vessels, leaving the Hawthorne Bridge as
the point of contact for both upstream and downstream travel
directions. These changes are necessary to reduce the staffing
requirements for the bridges, which has been made possible by the
infrequent number of requests for openings received.

DATES: This rule is effective March 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0721 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0721 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and Commander (dpw),
Thirteenth Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, room 3510, Seattle,
WA 98174-1067, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management Branch,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On September 12, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River,
Portland, OR, Schedule Change in the Federal Register (73 FR 178). We
received no public submissions on the proposed rule. No public hearing
was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The rule enables Multnomah County, the owner of the Broadway
Bridge, to operate the draw if at least one hour of notice is provided
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and two hours

of notice at all other times. From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007,
the draw opened 165 times for vessels. This bridge opens on average
slightly less than 7 times a month for river traffic. Most vessels that
require the Broadway bascule span to open are grain ships, which are
piloted by Columbia River Pilots. These ships have typically been able
to give several hours notice of arrival as they must navigate over 100
miles of the Columbia River to reach Portland from the Pacific Ocean.
    The operating regulations currently in effect for the Broadway
Bridge are found at 33 CFR 117. The drawspan currently operates under
the general requirements of 33 CFR 117.897(a)(1) such that it must open
on signal for the passage of vessels except that Monday through Friday
it need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. These
closed periods are not effective for Federal holidays, except Columbus
Day. The Broadway Bridge is the point of contact for upstream or
inbound vessels for openings of drawbridges that require advance
notice. The rule gives this function to the Hawthorne Bridge, which is
the point of contact for vessels traveling downstream.
    The bridge provides a minimum of 90 feet of vertical clearance in
the closed position above low water (elevation 0.0 feet Portland City
Datum). It is considerably higher than other bascule bridges on the
Willamette in downtown Portland, which partly explains its low
frequency of opening. The horizontal clearance is 250 feet. In the
fully open position the bridge allows unlimited vertical clearance over
the channel.
    The bridge is located on a major arterial in Portland carrying both
local and commuter traffic.
    The rule restores normal double-leaf operations to the Burnside
Bridge, mile 12.4, following a lengthy rehabilitation project.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule amends 33 CFR 117.897 by revising the current paragraph
(c) to add the Broadway Bridge to the bridges for which there is the
notice requirement for openings. The point of contact for both upstream
and downstream traffic is the Hawthorne Bridge rather than the Broadway
and Hawthorne, respectively. The Burnside Bridge is required to operate
both leaves per the same schedule.
    We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public
hearing was requested, and none was held.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard made this determination
based on the fact that most vessel operators can plan their passage in
accordance with the closed periods to minimize any impact on their
activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will predominantly affect grain ships traveling to
and from the dock at C.L.D. Pacific Grain immediately upstream of the
bridge on the east bank. The pilots of these vessels should be able to
provide this notice with no undue burden. The single point of contact
for advance notice simplifies the regulation for users.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action
is one of a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2.
figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e) of the Instruction and neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required. This rule involves the promulgation of operating regulations
or procedures for drawbridges.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.897 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text,
(c)(3)(i), and (c)(3) (iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.897  Willamette River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draws of the bridges listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section shall open on signal if appropriate advance notice is given to
the drawtender of the Hawthorne Bridge subject to the following
requirements and exceptions:
* * * * *
    (3)(i) Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, one hour's notice shall be given for draw openings. At
all other times, notice of at least two hours in advance is required.
* * * * *
    (iii) Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, one hour's notice shall be given for draw openings. At
all other times, two hours notice is required.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 16, 2008.
J.P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-2311 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8111]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 606 of Regulation NMS, SEC File No. 270-489, OMB Control
No. 3235-0541.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 606 of
Regulation NMS (``Rule 606'') (17 CFR 242.606), under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 606 (formerly known as Rule 11Ac1-6) requires broker-dealers
to prepare and disseminate quarterly order routing reports. Much of the
information needed to generate these reports already should be
collected by broker-dealers in connection with their periodic
evaluations of their order routing practices. Broker-dealers must
conduct such evaluations to fulfill the duty of best execution that
they owe their customers.
    The collection of information obligations of Rule 606 apply to
broker-dealers that route non-directed customer orders in covered
securities. The Commission estimates that out of the currently 4,240
broker-dealers that are subject to the collection of information
obligations of Rule 606, clearing brokers bear a substantial portion of
the burden of complying with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of Rule 606 on behalf of small to mid-sized introducing
firms. There currently are approximately 185 clearing brokers. In
addition, there are approximately 81 introducing brokers that receive
funds or securities from their customers. Because at least some of
these firms also may have greater involvement in determining where
customer orders are routed for execution, they have been included,
along with clearing brokers, in estimating the total burden of Rule
606.
    The Commission staff estimates that each firm significantly
involved in order routing practices incurs an average burden of 40
hours to prepare and disseminate a quarterly report required by Rule
606, or a burden of 160 hours per year. With an estimated 266 \1\
broker-dealers significantly involved in order routing practices, the
total industry-wide burden per year to comply with the quarterly
reporting requirement in Rule 606 is estimated to be 42,560 hours (160
x 266).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 185 clearing brokers + 81 introducing brokers = 266.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 606 also requires broker-dealers to respond to individual
customer requests for information on orders handled by the broker-
dealer for that customer. Clearing brokers generally bear the burden of
responding to these requests. The Commission staff estimates that an
average clearing broker incurs an annual burden of 400 hours (2000
responses x 0.2 hours/response) to prepare, disseminate, and retain
responses to customers required by Rule 606. With an estimated 185
clearing brokers subject to Rule 606, the total industry-wide burden
per year to comply with the customer response requirement in Rule 606
is estimated to be 74,000 hours (185 x 400).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Comments should be directed to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03113 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50201-50203]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23483]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81934; File No. SR-MRX-2017-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 723
To Remove Obsolete Rule Text

October 24, 2017.
    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 October 17, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) to remove obsolete rule text.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) to remove obsolete rule text.
    Rule 723 sets forth the requirements for the PIM, which was adopted
as part of the Exchange's application to be registered as a national
securities exchange.\3\ Certain aspects of PIM were adopted on a pilot
basis (``Pilot''); specifically, the termination of the exposure period
by unrelated orders, and no minimum size requirement of orders eligible
for PIM. The Pilot expired on January 18, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76998 (January 29,
2016), 81 FR 6066 (February 4, 2016) (File No. 10-221).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2016, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change to make the Pilot permanent, and also to change
the requirements for providing price improvement for Agency Orders of
less than 50 option contracts (other than auctions involving Complex
Orders) where the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') is only $0.01
wide.\4\ The Commission approved this proposal on January 18, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79539 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 91982 (December 19, 2016) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-25). The
Exchange notes that, on April 3, 2017, ISE Mercury, LLC was renamed
Nasdaq MRX, LLC to reflect its new placement within the Nasdaq, Inc.
corporate structure in connection with the March 9, 2016 acquisition
by Nasdaq of the capital stock of U.S. Exchange Holdings, and the
indirect acquisition all of the interests of the International
Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC and ISE Mercury, LLC. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80326 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR
16460 (April 4, 2017) (SR-ISEMercury-2017-05).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79841 (January 18,
2017), 82 FR 8452 (January 25, 2017) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In modifying the requirements for price improvement for Agency
Orders of less than 50 contracts, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule
723(b) to require Electronic Access Members to provide at least $0.01
price improvement for an Agency Order if that order is for less than 50
contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01.
    The Exchange adopted a member conduct standard to implement this
requirement during the time pursuant to which ISE Mercury symbols were
migrating from the ISE Mercury platform to the Nasdaq INET platform. At
the time it proposed the member conduct standard, the Exchange
anticipated that the migration to the Nasdaq platform would be complete
on or before September 15, 2017. Accordingly, Rule 723(b) stated that,
for the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the
Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no
later than September 15, 2017, if the Agency Order is for less than 50
option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, an
Electronic Access Member shall not enter a Crossing Transaction unless
such Crossing Transaction is entered at one minimum price improvement
increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from
the Agency Order, and better than the limit order or quote on the
Nasdaq MRX order book on the same side of the Agency Order. This
requirement applied regardless of whether the Agency Order is for the
account of a public customer, or where the Agency Order is for the
account of

a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public
Customer.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') filed a proposed rule change at
the same time as the Exchange to adopt the same price improvement
requirement. To enforce this requirement, ISE also amended its Rule
1614 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations). Specifically,
ISE added Rule 1614(d)(4), which provides that any Member who enters
an order into PIM for less than 50 contracts, while the National
Best Bid or Offer spread is $0.01, must provide price improvement of
at least one minimum price improvement increment better than the
NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, which
increment may not be smaller than $0.01. Failure to provide such
price improvement will result in members being subject to the
following fines: $500 for the second offense, $1,000 for the third
offense, and $2,500 for the fourth offense. Subsequent offenses will
subject the member to formal disciplinary action. The Exchange will
review violations on a monthly cycle to assess these violations.
This provision was to be in effect for the period beginning January
19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory
Information Circular, which date shall be no later than until
September 15, 2017. The Exchange incorporated this provision by
reference. See MRX Chapter 16 (Discipline). Contemporaneous with
this proposal, ISE is now submitting a filing to remove the member
conduct standard for its price improvement rule and the
corresponding provision in Rule 1614 for violations of that
standard. As such, MRX will no longer incorporate this provision of
Rule 1614 by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting the price improvement requirement for Agency Orders of
less than 50 contracts, the Exchange also proposed to amend Rule 723(b)
to adopt a systems-based mechanism to implement this requirement, which
shall be effective following the migration of a symbol to the Nasdaq
INET platform. Under this provision, if the Agency Order is for less
than 50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is
$0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered at one minimum price
improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the
market from the Agency Order and better than the limit order or quote
on the Nasdaq MRX order book on the same side of the Agency Order.
    By September 15, 2017, the Exchange had completed the migration of
symbols to the Nasdaq INET platform, and adopted the corresponding
systems-based mechanism for enforcing the price improvement requirement
where the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01. Accordingly, the Exchange is now
proposing to delete the rule text in Rule 723 that implements the
member conduct standard.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with the Act because
it removes language that implements the member conduct standard where
the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01. As noted above, this standard has
become obsolete with the migration of all symbols to the Nasdaq INET
system and the corresponding adoption of the systems-based mechanism
for enforcing that requirement, which was previously approved by the
Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the rule text to be removed
has become obsolete with the migration of all symbols to the Nasdaq
INET system and the corresponding adoption of the systems-based
mechanism for enforcing the price improvement requirement where the
Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
differences between the NBBO is $0.01.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to
remove the obsolete rule text immediately, minimizing potential
investor confusion. The Commission believes the waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2017-22 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 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2017-22. 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2017-22, and should be
submitted on or before November 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23483 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                SUMMARY MINUTES

             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

    NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (NACOSH)
                          THURSDAY, December 12, 2019
                           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                          200 CONSTITUTION AVE. N.W.
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

NACOSH Members Present:
Anne Soiza, Chair
Kelli Smith
Cynthia Lewis
Steve Sallman
Amy Harper
Andrew Perkins
Bill Walkowiak
Michael Belcher
Dr. Pat Bertsche
Dr. Mark Friend
Dr. John Lambeth

OSHA Staff Present:
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational    Safety and Health

Amanda Edens, Designated Federal Official and Director, OSHA Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

Andy Levinson, Deputy Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and
Guidance

Michelle Walker, Alternate Designated Federal Official, Director
OSHA Technical Data Center

Carla Marcellus, Program Analyst, OSHA Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

Jennifer Levin, Committee Counsel, Office of the Solicitor

NIOSH Staff Present:
Dr. John Howard, Director, NIOSH

Dr. Thomas Cunningham, Division of Science Integration, NIOSH

Dr. John Piacientino, Associate Director for Science, NIOSH

                                OPENING REMARKS
		Ms. Edens called the meeting to order and noted the full agenda for the day and discussed the safety procedures.
                           WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
		Ms. Soiza welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked everyone to introduce themselves and to give a brief bio.
                         SOL INSTRUCTIONS AND AGENDA
		Ms. Levin then gave a few points on the background and procedure, noting that the meeting was open to the public and that OSHA advisory committees follow a transparent process in accordance with OSHA regulations and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, and the FACA regulations.
		She also noted that the proceedings would be transcribed and the transcript and meeting materials would be formally entered into the meeting record and added to the public docket, Docket ID OSHA-2018-0007, accessible at www.regulations.gov.
		Ms. Edens then reviewed the agenda for the day and then Ms. Soiza discussed the charge to the committee, citing one example of just having a discussion and making decisions during the meeting, another having a workgroup which can sometimes be the entire committee.
		Ms. Soiza said she was interested in ensuring that the committee actually does things and provides good advice to HHS and DOL in order for them to make sure that work fatalities, injury and illnesses are prevented. She wanted to ensure that the day did not end without a plan of action.
                                  OSHA UPDATE
		Ms. Sweatt highlighted some of the amazing and fantastic work that was done at the agency during Fiscal Year 2019.  She noted that OSHA conducted 33,401 inspections, more than the three previous years, and a little more than half of those inspections were in the construction industry.
		She noted that the agency had full year funding, they were not affected by the government shutdown, and that the hurricanes were not as devastating across the country as in the previous two years.
		In 2019, OSHA's Onsite Consultation Program identified 137,885 workplace hazards and protected 3.2 million workers from potential harm.  A record 1,392,611 workers were provided with training on safety and health requirements and the safety training was provided through various education programs, including OSHA Training Institute Education Centers, Outreach Training Program, and the Susan Harwood Grant Training Program.
		She noted that falls continue to be the leading cause of worker fatalities in the construction industry and accounts for five of the top 10 most cited standards by OSHA inspectors and despite the enforcement in this area, falls continue to be a large problem.  There will be a falls stand-down May 4th through 8th.
		The National Emphasis Program on Trenching was upgraded and the agency is focusing on trenching hazards.
		Ms. Sweatt discussed the Safe+Sound Campaign, noting that 2,500 organizations participated in Safe+Sound Week and there were about 17.5 million messages on social media.
		She mentioned the beryllium hearing in December related to construction and maritime industries and the agency will be looking at the post-hearing comments and finalizing the general industry standard based on the comments received.
		The Respirator Fit Testing Rule was recently finalized and this adds two methods to the four existing in Appendix A for OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard.
		The Silica Table 1 for Construction is being reviewed among other things on the regulatory agenda.  The Leading Indicators meeting was held earlier in the month and the agency received positive feedback on looking at the leading indicators.
		Ms. Sweatt then discussed Quick Takes as a vehicle for people to use to learn what's going on in the agency.  She also mentioned Do You know and Tip of the Week as resources that are available.
		After Ms. Sweatt's presentation, there was a brief Q&A period that included discussion of hiring and retaining inspectors, workplace violence, a safe environment for workers to speak out about issues on job sites, what state plans are doing.
		Dr. Friend stated that he had observed that a lot of small businesses do not trust OSHA and they don't believe in the firewall.  So the relationship needs to be worked on.
                                 NIOSH UPDATE
		Dr. Howard gave the NIOSH Update, explaining that NIOSH is a research agency within the Federal Government, located in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  He explained that the mission of the agency is to generate new knowledge in the field of occupational safety and health and to transfer it into the committee's hands.
		He noted that the agency has 11 divisions in eight states and the District of Columbia and the agency has programs centered in each of these geographies, along with virtual centers in nanotechnology and maritime safety and health and occupational robotics and sensor technology, productive aging and work, motor vehicle safety, and workers compensation studies.
		The agency partners with labor, industry practitioners, academics, anybody who wants to partner with them in workplace safety and health, and he noted that they are organized in a partnership with what's called the National Occupational Research Agenda or NORA started in 1996, a large public-private partnership.  NORA is spread across 10 industry sectors and seven cross-sectors.
		Dr. Howard noted from a budgetary standpoint, along with other federal research agencies, the agency has been trying to decide how to allocate research dollars and have developed a method called B&I Method, based on the burden of disease and injury.
		There is an evaluation culture at NIOSH in which all of the science is subjected to the B&I Method and there is a lot of interest on the part of EPA and other federal research agencies in this activity.
		Dr. Howard pointed out that it's the 100th Anniversary of the hard hat, invented by a Mr. Bullard, and that Mr. Bullard's descendants are partners with the agency in respiratory protection.
		There is a national personal protective technology laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that certifies respirators, and OSHA requires that employers use NIOSH-certified respirators.  NIOSH studies the performance of respirators, hard hats, safety helmets, etcetera, even studies the effects on football players.
		The Department of Defense is very interested in traumatic brain injury in soldiers and NIOSH is working on that issue in terms of improving the consensus standards around the performance of hard hats.
		Dr. Howard discussed e-cigarette or vaping product use associated with lung injury, now called EVALI.  He noted that 2,291 patients have been hospitalized with EVALI.  48 of those people have died.  80 percent of those hospitalized reported using a THC-type compound.  About 13 percent reported using exclusively a nicotine-containing e-cigarette.
		The big issue is what's causing this and no one knows the answer yet but FDA, CDC, and NIH are looking at this and the consensus around the issue of Vitamin E acetate which is used as an additive in these products.
		Dr. Howard then went on to discuss the opioid epidemic, which, if you read the newspapers, has killed 70,000 Americans.  He noted the agency is using a total worker health approach to this problem, which is basically an integration of traditional safety and health protection with other types of things called disease prevention, health promotion, wellness, a whole bunch of other names.
		There is a naloxone publication on the agency's website which encourages employers to think about having naloxone availability and use program within their worksite.  There is also workplace solutions on medication-assisted treatment involving a number of drugs that can be used to treat opioid use disorder and prevent its impairing someone's work ability.
		Dr. Howard then discussed first responders.  There have been a number of health hazard evaluations performed on first responders, police officers, etc., where they have experienced adverse health effects.  The agency has a number of infographics and information for first responders.  There has been tremendous cooperation by the first responder community.
		He also mentioned that the agency does support workers who have chronic diseases, such as diabetes, HIV, cardio-vascular disease, kidney disease, opioid use disorder and who want to continue in the workplace.  This issue is being explored with a number of partners, including the National Safety Council.
		Also in connection with the opioid issue is the collaboration with the Department of Labor.  The agency has received support from many DOL agencies including the Women's Bureau, OSHA, the Employment Training Administration, the Office of Worker's Compensation Program, the Office of Disabilities Employment Policy, and the Chief Evaluation Office.
		Dr. Howard drew the committee's attention to the publication Occupational Exposure Banding for Chemical Management with support from the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the American Safety Professionals.
		This is an e-tool that helps employers figure out what they need to do with chemicals that are without occupational exposure limits and which will probably never have an occupational exposure limit.
		He mentioned the Firefighter Cancer Registry and the need to have firefighters sign up.
		NIOSH has published a book, the American Psychological Association is the publisher, on total worker health.
		After Dr. Howard's presentation, a Q&A followed that included a discussion of respirators and beards, restructuring of jobs, increased workload, mandatory overtime, and fatigue factors.
		Dr. Howard addressed the impetus to look at the future of work issue which is also part of the impetus to integrate the protection issues with the promotion issues in terms of total worker health.
		A discussion regarding worker compensation programs then ensued, particularly around the opioid issue, coffee and coffee roasting, flavoring industries, flavored infusion oils in cooking.
		Ms. Soiza brought up the issue of wild land fire smoke on the West Coast and asked what NIOSH and CDC are doing in that regard.
		Dr. Howard noted they have started a multiyear study of wild land firefighters out of the Denver offer and they are hoping to generate some information that might be relevant to an employer in the downwind area from fires.
		Dr. Bertsche asked about the route of exposure in the opioid crisis, to which Dr. Howard responded that the agency has been looking at it retrospectively.  He noted dermal was an obvious candidate, i.e., cuts and bruises, inhalation, near the mouth.
		Ms. Soiza then introduced Andy Levinson, Deputy Director for the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, to give the Safe+Sound - Safety Culture presentation.
                          SAFE+SOUND - SAFETY CULTURE
		Mr. Levinson began his presentation discussing what's been working and not working at OSHA over the last few years and in looking at the rate of injuries and illnesses in America over the last couple of decades, a tremendous amount of progress has not been made.
		When OSHA was first created, injury rates came down pretty quickly.  Progress was made throughout the '80s and then we moved into the late '90s and 2000s, 2010s, not a lot of progress, and so the question is why is that happening and what can we do differently to continue to improve progress and worker safety and health?
		He noted that there are approximately 150 million workers and 10 million businesses in America and the agency is doing ballpark between federal and state 75,000 inspections and that it's hard to drive 10 million businesses to better performance solely through an enforcement model.
		For anyone involved in the standard-setting process, it takes a tremendous amount of time and resources to do a standard.  Standards are important for setting a floor of what is minimally acceptable for providing some basic civil rights to workers.
		He noted the question is how do we break out into other communities, to other industries, to other workgroups, to other faith groups, to other places that are active in the U.S. labor force and find a way to make OSH part of the conversation.
		Mr. Levinson then discussed the Safety Curve.  It's a theoretical distribution.  The bottom of the curve is an axis, the commitment to safety, a safe workplace, General Duty Clause 5(a)(1) and the OSHA Standards.
		On the left side of the curve is criminal prosecutions, which EPA and the states do. Further up the curve to the Inspections and Civil Penalties region is inspections.  Those inspections are driven by either fatalities, catastrophes, three or more people injured in the same incident, worker complaints, and targeted inspections where there's sampling of high hazard industries and sending people out to places where there's a high likelihood of hazards that employers should have corrected.
		Mr. Levinson then discussed SVEP, Severe Violator Enforcement Program and the Recognition Program, SHARP for small businesses and VPP for larger businesses, all centered around safety and health programs or safety and health management programs.
		He then discussed the Leadership Model which broadly breaks down into transactional and formational.  Transactional is the carrot and the stick with the stick being the enforcement piece and the carrot being SHARP and VPP and the Recognition Programs.  He noted that carrots and sticks only work to the extent that you like the carrot or you fear the stick and there are a lot of workplaces where OSHA penalties are not necessarily a significant factor in whether they're in compliance or not.  The cost of business is much greater than an OSHA penalty.
		Transactional work maintains the curve but it doesn't shift the curve and that's where you get into transformational leadership: to inspire people, to motivate people, appeal to their ideals.
		Mr. Levinson then discussed safety and health programs and the core part of that is to keep people from getting hurt.  The OSHA 1989 Guidelines were updated a few years ago and the agency took a radically different approach on safety and health programs.  The new guidelines are like a normal guidance document and are available to the public and they're all voluntary. They are action-oriented.
		Element Number 7 has been added and it is a multi-employer temp worker concept because the nature of work is changing.  So how do you do safety management in your workplace and then how do you do safety management so that everybody else who is in your workplace can function safely?  So there is a whole communication piece tied into it.
		In regards to safety management, there are three key concepts.  The first one is management leadership.  Worker participation is another core piece.  Finding and fixing hazards is the third piece.
		A stakeholder meeting was held with about 140 people to discuss lagging indicators, the construction of safety and health programs and preventing injuries.
		Mr. Levinson discussed the Safe+Sound Campaign.  The vision of this campaign is that every workplace should have a safety and health program and that safety and health is a core value for a business.
		There are three elements to safety and health programs:  management leadership, worker participation, and a systematic approach to find and fix hazards.  OSHA is trying to simplify the messaging.
		The Safe+Sound Campaign is co-organized by the National Safety Council, ASSP, AIHA CPWB, VPPA.  220 organizations have signed on to support the campaign.  Some of the 220 are state plans, some are OSHA ed centers, some are consultation projects, and some are people who have never engaged with OSHA before.  OSHA has 35 formal alliances
		A challenge coin is being produced as part of the campaign and there is a management leadership challenge.  A document has been produced on better safety conversations, and a guidance document has been produced on safety motivations.
		During Safe+Sound Week in 2019, over 3,300 businesses participated with participants from all 50 states, D.C., four territories, 25 countries, and military installations overseas or military contractors.
		Safety and health programs have been moved into the OSHA 7500 Class, which is the intro to safety management class that's taught at all the OSHA ed centers.
		Another project is the Safety Pays tool, which focuses on a particular hazard and looks at it by industry or hazard type and pulls in the work comp data and gives an estimate of what the injury will cost.
		Ms. Levin then entered the Exhibits into the record.
		Ms. Soiza then asked the public commenters to give their remarks.
		Mr. Cotchen introduced himself and stated he worked for Industrial Info Resources and detailed the business.  He offered to share what the company knows with the agency.
		Ms. Soiza thanked him for the offer.
		Mr. Ames was then recognized.  He is the Head of Government Relations for American Industrial Hygiene Association.  He discussed the various outreach programs and how they interact with each other.
		Ms. Soiza then recessed the meeting for lunch.  Upon returning from the luncheon recess, she introduced Dr. Thomas Cunningham to give the Safety Culture presentation.
		Dr. Cunningham is Chief of Social Science and Translation Research Branch in the Division of Science Integration at NIOSH.  The agency coordinates a number of programs, including the Small Business Assistance Program and the National Center for Productive Aging and Work.  The agency also has programs focused on health equity and young workers.
		Dr. Cunningham noted that there are roughly 10 million or so small businesses in the country.  Small employers tend to need more external assistance to deliver occupational safety and health activities, programs, systems, along with health promotion activities discussing total worker health.
		So when it comes to reaching small businesses, some suggest a better approach is to work with local business councils in a more limited geographical area.  NIOSH believes it should be studying a large swath of intermediary organizations and trying to understand what is the value of offering something new or more in terms of workplace safety and health assistance that they in turn can offer to their clients or members.
		So in terms of working with intermediaries, when thinking about a two-stage model, the agency would work with intermediaries who have the potential to reach small employers with total worker health programming or activities.  This would mean working with local health departments, local safety consultants, Chambers of Commerce, wellness spenders, and insurance companies, and the intermediaries could help decide which small employers should be targeted.
		Dr. Cunningham noted that evaluation and feedback are critical.  He also discussed the ANSI-Z10 standard being applied in small- and medium-sized businesses.  ASSP has just put out a guidance document for how to apply the standard.
		He then discussed the safety climate and safety culture.  Safety culture, as defined by the U.K., is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behavior that determine the commitment to and the style and proficiency of an organization's health and safety management.
		Safety climate refers to shared perceptions of employees about the safety of their work environment.  When thinking about what drives the perceptions of safety in the work environment, you think of them across the horizontal and vertical axes.  On the horizontal, you have enactment, which would be what you see people doing in the work environment.  On the vertical is espousal and that's how the organization talks about workplace safety.
          Dr. Cunningham concluded his presentation with a discussion about what has been going on at CPWR, which is the NIOSH-funded Center for Construction Research, which has been great work around safety climate.
		One of the things they have been working on is SCAT, Safety Climate Assessment Tool, which is all for construction, and the other is Foundations for Safety Leadership Training Programs, FSLTP.
		Ms. Levin then introduced Exhibit 8 into the record.
		Ms. Soiza then started the Discussion period with NACOSH members.
		Dr. Lambeth asked if agriculture was being included in any of the programs for general industry construction. Dr. Cunningham replied that the work does not specifically address agriculture and that most of the work in that area at NIOSH is happening at ag centers around the country.
		Dr. Lambeth then asked about the value of having consultants provide training so that employees aren't missing time from work in order to meet their training requirements.  Dr. Cunningham explained that the agency hasn't gotten that far yet but it does make sense to apply this concept.
		A discussion was held concerning intermediaries, such as the Better Business Bureau, various COSH groups.
		The discussion then returned to the subject of training and online training and webinars.
		Ms. Robbins asked about the requirement for a safety and health program and an accident prevention program requirement?  Mr. Levinson referred her to the Safety and Health Programs Topics Page for a list of all state plans and state plan requirements, some of which are done through OSHA and some done through the work comp program.
		Ms. Soiza then moved the discussion to what the committee wants to do and suggested launching two workgroups. She asked if there were two bullet points in the charge document that were priorities.
	Mr. Levinson said he sees three buckets.  The first bucket is what is the most persuasive way to get more businesses to care about safety as a core value? The  second bucket is who else should OSHA be talking to, such as organizations who can act as intermediaries and spread the word about safety as a core value, and how to effectively engage those intermediaries. The third bucket would be safety culture.
		Ms. Harper noted that she heard four distinct needs from the presentations:  effective education dissemination methods, scalability, information that's impactful, and how to get people to want to hear it.
		Ms. Soiza stated that she saw a real focus on effective dissemination and who the group should be talking to.  Mr. Levinson suggested it might be good to break up into different subgroups, so that one group is looking at faith communities, etcetera.  Mr. Sallman volunteered to take on one of the groups.
		A vote was then taken regarding the workgroup and the names of the members are Pat Bertsche, Bill Walkowiak, Andrew Perkins, Mark Friend, Amy Harper, John Lambeth, Steve Sallman, and Kelli Smith.
		Ms. Soiza then asked if any public members had any comments and called on Ms. Guglielmo to speak.  Ms. Carolyn McCabe Guglielmo is a safety public health and workforce management advocate analyst and incident investigator.  She noted with the retirement of baby-boomers, a lot of OSHA and workplace safety institutional knowledge diminished.  She noted the private sector has lost industrial hygienists, hazmat people, safety directors, and that ASSP has quoted that roughly 4,000 jobs a year go unfilled in the safety profession.  She indicated there's a need to get people into loss control and safety management programs.
		Ms. Guglielmo then stated that the concept of safety culture is very outdated.  She noted that we're dealing with safety and health, traumatic injuries, health illnesses, and suicides.  She feels the nation needs to shift into a paradigm of a culture of prevention.
		She then discussed the Small Business Administration has special programs for women and disadvantaged business owners and that it might be worth inviting them to the next meeting and that there is an ethnic Chamber of Commerce.
		Ms. Walker noted that half of the current NACOSH members were appointed to one-year terms are scheduled to expire in July of next year.  OSHA will soon publish a Federal Register notice seeking nominations to fill those upcoming vacancies.  OSHA encourages anyone interested and eligible to apply for membership on the committee.
		Ms. Soiza then entertained a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:38 p.m.
      				  * * * * *


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4575-4577]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0992]
RIN 1625-AAOO

Safety Zone; Repair of High Voltage Transmission Lines to Logan
International Airport, Saugus River, Saugus, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone on the Saugus River, Lynn, Massachusetts, within the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Boston Zone to allow for repair of high voltage
transmission lines to Logan Airport. This safety zone is required to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the repair of
high voltage transmission lines. Entering into, transiting through,
mooring or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized
by the COTP.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 25, 2011.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before February 2, 2011.
    See the Supplementary Information for discussion of the anticipated
effective date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0992 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail PO Trevor Hughes of the Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard anticipates that this
proposed rule will be effective for six months following the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard
will be enforcing this rule for less than a 48 hour period during the
construction and associated activities related to the actual repair of
the transmission lines.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0992), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0992'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0992'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before February 2, 2011 using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Petty Officer Trevor Hughes at the telephone number or e-mail
address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice.

Basis and Purpose

    This proposed rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and
workers from the hazards associated with work related to repairs of
high voltage transmission lines over navigable waters.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the
safety of vessels, workers and the public during the repair of the high
voltage transmission lines that feed Logan Airport. The safety zone
will be enforced immediately before, during, and after the start of the
repairs. National Grid, the transmission line repair company, has not
specified the exact date repairs will commence, but they have advised
the Coast Guard that repairs are planned for a 48 hour period to begin
each day at 9 a.m. and end at 2 p.m. We expect to receive the repair
dates during this rulemaking period and will publish them in the final
rule.
    The COTP will inform the public about the details of the work
covered by this safety zone using a variety of means, including, but
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to
Mariners.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
COTP Boston or designated on-scene representative. Entering into,
transiting through, mooring or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Boston or his designated on
scene representative. The COTP or his designated on scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or by telephone at
(617) 223-5750.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be of
limited duration, is located in a waterway that has no deep draft
traffic and is designed to avoid, to the extent possible, fishing and
recreational boating traffic routes. In addition, vessels requiring
entry into the area of the safety zone may be authorized to do so by
the COTP.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Saugus River during
a 48 hour enforcement period directly related to repairs of high
voltage transmission lines to Logan Airport.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
National Grid intends to make repairs to the high voltage transmission
lines running to Logan Airport during a 48 hour period between the
hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. This time window will allow the local
lobster fishing fleet to transit to the fishing grounds and return home
at night without any inconvenience. The enforcement dates will be
published in the Final Rule. The local harbormasters have notified
their tenants in advance of the intended repairs, thus allowing Saugus
River users to plan accordingly. Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass
through the zone prior to 9 a.m. and after 2 p.m. and if necessary
through the zone with the permission of the COTP. Before the effective
period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of
the river.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact PO Trevor Hughes at the
telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this

proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVAGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0992 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0992  Safety Zone; Repair of High Voltage Transmission
Lines to Logan International Airport; Saugus River, Saugus, MA.

    (a) General. A temporary safety zone is established for the event
described in paragraph (a)(1):
    (1) Repair of high voltage transmission lines to Logan
International Airport; Saugus River, Saugus, MA. The temporary safety
zone includes all waters of the Saugus River, from surface to bottom,
within a 250-yard radius of position 42[deg]26'42'' N; 070[deg]58'14''
W.
    (2) Effective Period. This rule is effective with actual notice
from: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. (exact dates will be published in the Final
Rule).
    (3) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced during a
consecutive 48 hour period: (exact dates will be published in the Final
Rule).
    (b) Notification.
    Coast Guard Sector Boston will cause notice of the enforcement of
this proposed temporary safety zone to be made by all appropriate means
to affect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the
public, including publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and
Safety Marine Information Broadcast.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this regulated
area is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Boston, or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP Boston or his designated on-scene
representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Boston is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Boston to act on his
behalf. The on-scene representative of the COTP Boston will be aboard
either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The COTP or his
designated on scene representative may be contacted by telephone at
617-223-5750 or on VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall request permission to do so by contacting the COTP Sector
Boston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF radio channel 16.

    Dated: January 4, 2011.
John N. Healey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2011-1572 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30521]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1792-000]

Community Energy, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Energy, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 6, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12467 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62300-62301]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-25-000]

Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is October 29, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC

Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 8, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24459 Filed 10-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P