[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 115 (Monday, June 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36259-36261]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0039]

Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Rail Yard
Infrastructure Project in New York County, New York

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: Through this NOI, FRA announces its intent to prepare an EIS
for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project (Project) under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). WRY Tenant LLC (an affiliate
of The Related Companies, LP) and the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) are partnering in a joint venture to seek Federal
financial assistance through the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program, which is administered by the
Build America Bureau (Bureau). FRA is conducting the environmental
analysis to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other applicable environmental laws. FRA invites
the public and all interested parties to provide comments on the scope
of the EIS, including the proposed purpose and need, the Proposed
Action and alternatives, methodologies to be used to assess potential
environmental impacts, and the approach for public and agency
involvement. Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
public health emergency, and consistent with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's guidance regarding large events and mass
gatherings, FRA will conduct a virtual public scoping for the Project.
FRA will also hold other Project meetings virtually, including Section
106 Consulting Party meetings, and encourages submission of scoping
comments for the project and other documents electronically.

DATES: Persons interested in providing written comments on the scope of
the EIS must do so by July 31, 2020. All comments will also be placed
on the file at Regulations.gov. The Docket No. for this project is FRA-
2020-0039. Please submit comments via email, mail, or by filling out a
comment form on the Project website, using the contact information
provided below in the ``ADDRESSES'' section. The public can review
information about the Proposed Action and formally submit comments to
the FRA. Project materials will also be available in Spanish. If you
need special accommodations, please contact Andrea Poole prior to the
close of the scoping period.

ADDRESSES: The public and other interested parties are encouraged to
comment by filling out a comment form accessible via the Project's
website at: www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com and using the comment
link provided, or at Regulations.gov, Docket Number: FRA-2020-0039. You
can also send written comments by mail to the following address:
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, c/o Fitzgerald & Halliday,
Inc., 416 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103. All comments will also be
placed on file at Regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Poole, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, U.S. DOT Federal
Railroad Administration, via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: WRY Tenant, LLC and Amtrak (Project
Sponsors) are seeking financial assistance to fund the construction of
a Platform and Tunnel Encasement (the Proposed Action) at the 13-acre
Western Rail Yard site (Block 676, Lot 3) between West 30th and 33rd
Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues in Manhattan, New York County,
New York. The 9.8-acre structural steel and concrete Platform will
serve as the roof above the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's
(MTA) Western Rail Yard, which is used and operated by the Long Island
Rail Road (LIRR) as a commuter railroad storage yard and maintenance
facility. The Platform would also house other infrastructure, including
critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support
services for the yard, including new lighting, sprinklers, and an
extensive platform ventilation system. The Tunnel Encasement would be
constructed of concrete below street level in Western Rail Yard. The
Tunnel Encasement would be between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 27
and 38 feet high beneath Western Rail Yard. The Tunnel Encasement in
Western Rail Yard would start at the western edge of Eleventh Avenue,
and extend below the project site to the northern edge of 30th Street.
Together, the Tunnel Encasement below both rail yards (Eastern and
Western Rail Yards) would preserve a total ROW approximately 1,400 feet
long. No permanent operational components, such as tracks, lighting,
ventilation, or electrical system, would be constructed within the
Tunnel Encasement as part of the Proposed Action. The Platform would
also support the privately-funded Mixed-Use Development (Overbuild)
approved by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC), and adopted by
the New York City Council as zoning text and map amendments to the New
York City Zoning Resolution, for redevelopment of the Western Rail Yard
site. This construction also supports MTA's overall business plan to
generate revenue to support their operations.
    FRA will prepare the EIS in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. 139,
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing
NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500[hyphen]1508), and 23 CFR part 771. After
release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends
to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of
Decision, unless it determines statutory criteria or practicability
considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
    The EIS will also document FRA's compliance with other applicable
environmental laws and regulations, including Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108);
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966 (Section 4(f) 49 U.S.C. 303) and FRA's implementing regulations
at 23 CFR part 774; U.S. DOT Order 5650.2 on Floodplain Management; the
Coastal Zone Management Act; and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
Justice. The EIS will provide FRA, participating agencies, and the
public with information about alternatives that meet the Proposed
Action's purpose and need, including their environmental impacts and
appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts.
    The Proposed Action may affect historic properties and will be
subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA. Consistent with
regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36
CFR part 800), FRA intends to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of
the NHPA with the preparation of the EIS. In response to this NOI, the
public and interested parties may also provide input relevant to FRA's
Section 106 review process, including providing information that

FRA may use in identifying and assessing effects of the Proposed Action
on historic properties, including archaeological resources. In
addition, interested parties may also request to participate in the
Section 106 process as a consulting party under 36 CFR part 800.2(c).

Project Background

    The MTA Hudson Yards (aka ``John D. Caemmerer Hudson Yards'') is an
electrified yard that stores 35 LIRR commuter trains daily, with a
capacity of 386 train cars on 30 tracks. The train yard is divided into
two sections, the Eastern Rail Yard located on Block 702 and the
Western Rail Yard located on Block 676.
    In 2007, MTA reached agreement with The Related Companies, LP \1\
(parent company to WRY Tenant LLC) for the development of plans for the
Western Rail Yard. MTA and the New York City Planning Commission (CPC)
served as co-lead agencies for an environmental review pursuant to the
requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The 2009 SEQRA/
CEQR FEIS was published in October 9, 2009. Based on the findings of
the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR Final EIS, zoning text and map amendments for the
Western Rail Yard development were adopted into the New York City
Zoning Resolution. The Platform and Overbuild are now as-of-right
development and would be built in accordance with the City Zoning
Resolution's existing zoning controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Related Companies, LP (Related) was the successful
bidder of a competitive bid issued by MTA for the long-term ground
leases with option to purchase severed fee parcels (for the
development air rights over the Hudson Yards from MTA). Related is a
privately-owned, American real estate firm headquartered in New York
City, with offices and major developments in Boston, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, San Francisco, Abu Dhabi, London,
S[atilde]o Paulo and Shanghai. Related has more than 3,000 employees
and is the largest landlord in New York City with over 8,000
residential rental units under ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FRA conducted an environmental assessment for the construction
of a concrete casing beneath Hudson Yards, and issued Findings of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2013 \2\ and 2014 \3\. The purpose of the
concrete casing project was to preserve underground right-of-way in
Hudson Yards to maintain opportunities to expand rail services, meet
future demand, and improve intercity and commuter rail system safety
and reliability. The preservation of the right-of-way is necessary to
ensure the Platform and Overbuild construction would not eliminate the
possibility of future rail development and expansion through Hudson
Yards and into New York Penn Station. For more information about FRA's
past environmental reviews of the concrete casing through Hudson Yards,
please see https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0666. Since FRA's issuance of
the 2013 and 2014 FONSIs, two of the three sections of encasement have
been built. The third section is the Tunnel Encasement that would be
constructed as part of this project, and extends on a diagonal
alignment from Eleventh Avenue to 30th Street in the Western Rail Yard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Amtrak and FRA. May 2013. Finding of No Significant Impact,
Environmental Assessment for Construction of a Concrete Casing in
the Hudson Yards, New York, New York.
    \3\ Amtrak and FRA. November 2014. Finding of No Significant
Impact, Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Construction of a
Concrete Casing Extension in the Hudson Yards, New York, New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose and Need

    The purpose of the Proposed Action is to (1) cover and protect the
active railroad tracks and LIRR support facilities in the Western Rail
Yard so that the joint venture can provide additional new capacity for
real estate development and house critical life safety and mechanical,
electrical and plumbing support services for the Yard, including new
lighting, sprinklers, and an extensive Platform ventilation system; and
(2) preserve a right-of-way through the Western Rail Yard to support
the future construction of a trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into
New York Penn Station. The Platform is needed to support the provision
of developable land area that would generate revenue for the MTA and
its subsidiary agencies and modernize state-of-the-art life safety
systems for the entire Western Rail Yard.\4\ MTA has sought to maximize
the revenue generation potential of its real estate assets; and, when
Hudson Yards was redeveloped in 1986, the tracks and other facilities
were specifically laid out to accommodate support columns that would be
required for future development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MTA's subsidiary agencies include LIRR, Metro-North
Railroad, New York City Transit (NYCT), Capital Construction
Company, Staten Island Railway, Regional Bus Operations, and Bridges
and Tunnels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there is no capacity for development over the Western
Rail Yard without construction of the Platform. The 2005 Hudson Yards
rezoning included the extension of the No. 7 IRT Flushing Line subway
to 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue, providing new and closer access to
the subway system in this area which made private development
considerably more attractive and viable in this part of Manhattan. The
2005 Hudson Yards rezoning also provided for the development of a mix
of uses and densities, including a provision for open space. The Tunnel
Encasement is needed to preserve right of way for new rail
infrastructure to support passenger rail service in and out of New York
Penn Station.\5\ New rail infrastructure is part of the effort to
maintain a functional, resilient, and improved trans-Hudson passenger
rail crossing into New York Penn Station, maintain existing Amtrak
intercity and NJ TRANSIT commuter rail service on the Northeast
Corridor, and to support future increases in the capacity of the
regional rail system should they be pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Hudson Tunnel Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, June 2017, includes a Preferred
Alternative consisting of the construction of a new rail tunnel
under the Hudson River, including railroad infrastructure in New
Jersey and New York connecting the new rail tunnel to the Northeast
Corridor and into New York Penn Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, the
objectives of the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project include:
     Maintain safe, continuous, and uninterrupted LIRR
operations in the Western Rail Yard through the addition of critical
life safety and ventilation systems and the modernization of
operational facilities within Western Rail Yard;
     Support the ability to meet the revenue-generation goals
of the MTA, the owner of the Western Rail Yard;
     Provide the support for the economic, social, and
recreational life of the Hudson Yards area and the City; and,
     Preserve opportunities to enable future growth of
passenger rail service and to maintain a functional, resilient, and
improved trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New York Penn
Station.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The Proposed Action consists of:
     A new approximately 9.8-acre Platform spanning the Western
Rail Yard, including deep footings and a concrete slab to cover the
active rail yard below, and reinforced building foundations for
Overbuild development. Platform construction would also include the
modernization of LIRR support services including: emergency electrical
equipment and new critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and
plumbing support services, and an extensive ventilation system for the
yard. In addition to the modernization

efforts, construction of the Platform would necessitate the
construction of approximately 20,000 square feet of new railroad staff
facilities and rail car cleaning services.
     A Tunnel Encasement in the southern portion of the site
running from Eleventh Avenue to West 30th Street to preserve right-of-
way for a new trans-Hudson connection into New York Penn Station.
    In addition to the Proposed Action, FRA will describe and evaluate
the following types of construction activities in the Draft EIS:
     Construction staging areas at the Western Rail Yard site
for the construction of all of the aforementioned project components
and construction activities,
     Traffic and transportation interruptions including
potential localized sidewalk and traffic lane closures.
    FRA will refine the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and
identify alternatives that meet the purpose and need considering
information obtained through the scoping process. The EIS will evaluate
a No Action Alternative and reasonable and feasible Build Alternatives
for the Proposed Action. FRA anticipates presenting the Preferred
Alternative in the Draft EIS.

Possible Effects

    The EIS will consider the potential effects of the project
alternatives on the social, economic, and environmental resources in
the study area. The analysis will include identification of study
areas; documentation of the affected environment; evaluation of direct
and indirect effects of the alternatives (including permanent
[operational] and temporary [construction period] effects); and
identification of measures to avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts.
FRA will evaluate the following resource areas:
     Land use, Land planning, and Property (acquisitions and
displacements);
     Transportation (traffic, parking, transit, and pedestrian
conditions);
     Air quality, Greenhouse gas emissions and Resilience
     Noise and vibration;
     Cultural Resources (including historic and archaeological
resources);
     Parks and recreation areas;
     Aesthetic and visual quality;
     Contaminated materials;
     Utilities and Energy;
     Natural ecological systems (including threatened and
endangered species)
     Soils and geology;
     Water resources and water quality (including floodplains);
     Coastal zone consistency;
     Socioeconomics;
     Public health;
     Environmental justice;
     Public safety and security; and
     Indirect and Cumulative effects.
    Agencies within the U.S. DOT, including FRA, are subject to Section
4(f), which prohibits approval of any program or project that ``uses''
publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
and historic sites, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the use of such land and such program or project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the property. FRA will include in
the Draft EIS a draft Section 4(f) evaluation in accordance with 23 CFR
774, if it is determined that the Proposed Action has the potential to
result in the use of a Section 4(f) resource.

Scoping, Public Involvement, and Agency Coordination

    This NOI initiates the scoping process under NEPA, which helps
guide the development of the Draft EIS. FRA invites all interested
individuals, organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies to
comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments are encouraged on the
Proposed Action's purpose and need and alternatives to be considered in
the EIS; the analyses to include in the EIS, including identification
of appropriate study areas and the effects-assessment methodologies to
be used; the approach for public and agency involvement; and any
concerns about the anticipated impacts of the Proposed Action.
    Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA of
the applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each
agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information
germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with
the Proposed Action. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if
they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the Proposed
Action and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the EIS
under 40 CFR 1501.16.
    FRA will coordinate with participating agencies during development
of the Draft EIS consistent with 23 U.S.C. 139. FRA will also consult
with Federally recognized Native American tribes and Consulting Parties
identified under Section 106 of the NHPA.
    The FRA will invite all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native
American tribes that may have an interest in the Proposed Action to
become participating agencies for the EIS and Consulting Parties in the
Section 106 process. If an agency or tribe is not invited and would
like to participate, it should contact Ms. Andrea Poole at the contact
information listed above (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). The FRA will
develop an Agency and Public Coordination Plan summarizing how it will
engage the public, agencies, and tribes in the process. The
Coordination Plan will be posted to the project website at
www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com and Regulations.gov, Docket No.
FRA-2020-0039. FRA will lead the outreach activities during the public
scoping process, beginning with a scoping presentation made available
on the project website and a scoping comment period identified under
DATES above. FRA encourages submission of scoping comments for the
project and other documents electronically. Other public involvement
initiatives will be held throughout the course of the EIS. Public
outreach activities will be announced on the project website at
www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com and through mailings, public
notices, and advertisements.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Jamie P. Rennert,
Director, Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2020-12851 Filed 6-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20675-20680]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66702; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-123]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish an
Automated Improvement Mechanism and a Solicitation Auction Mechanism
for FLEX Options

March 30, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 20, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish an Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction Mechanism
(``SAM'') for FLEX Options. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 4, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received two comment letters regarding the proposal.\4\ The Exchange
submitted a response on March 20, 2012.\5\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66052 (January 4,
2012), 77 FR 306.
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission
from Todd Weingart, Spot On Brokerage Services, Division of Trading
Block, William O'Keefe, Spot On Brokerage Services, Division of
Trading Block, and Steve Stepanek, The SJS Group, Inc., dated
January 20, 2012 (``Spot Letter'') and from Jonathan Grodnick,
Chicago Trading Company, dated February 7, 2012 (``CTC Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission
from Jennifer M. Lamie, CBOE dated March 20, 2012 (``CBOE
Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange is proposing new Rules 24B.5A and 24B.5B to establish
an AIM and SAM for FLEX Options. Currently, the AIM and SAM are
available for non-FLEX Options under Rules 6.74A and 6.74B. The FLEX
versions of the AIM and SAM mechanisms are described below.

A. Automated Improvement Mechanism

    The Exchange is proposing to establish an AIM mechanism for FLEX
Options. Under the AIM process, a FLEX Trader \6\ (``Initiating TPH'')
that represents agency orders may submit an order it represents as
agent (an ``Agency Order'') along with a second order (a principal
order and/or solicited order(s) for the same amount as the Agency
Order) \7\ into the AIM mechanism where other FLEX Trader participants
could compete with the Initiating TPH's second order to execute against
the Agency Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``FLEX Trader'' means a FLEX-participating Trading Permit
Holder (``TPH'') who has been approved by the Exchange to trade on
the System. See Rule 24B.1(l).
    \7\ Any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating TPH to
trade against the Agency Order may not be for the account of a FLEX
Market-Maker assigned to the option class. See proposed Rule
24B.5A.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible, the Agency Order must be in a FLEX class designated
as eligible for AIM Auctions and within the designated AIM Auction
order eligibility size parameters. The Exchange will announce such
classes and size parameters via circular to FLEX Traders. In addition,
an Initiating TPH must stop the entire Agency Order as principal and/or
with a solicited order(s) at the better of the best bid or offer
(``BBO'') or the Agency Order's limit price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only one AIM may be ongoing at any given time in a series and AIM
auctions in the same series may not queue or overlap. In addition,
unrelated FLEX Orders may not be submitted to the electronic book for
the duration of an AIM auction.\9\ To initiate an AIM auction, the
Initiating TPH must mark the Agency Order for AIM processing and enter
the second order in one of two formats: (i) a specified single price at
which it seeks to cross the Agency Order with the second order (a
``single-priced submission''), or (ii) a non-price specific commitment
for the second order to automatically match the price and size of all
auction responses that are received during the auction (an ``auto-
match''), in which case the Agency Order will be stopped at the better
of the BBO or the Agency Order's limit price. When using the auto-match
feature, the Initiating TPH would have no control over the ultimate
match price. Once the Initiating TPH has submitted an Agency Order for
AIM processing, such submission cannot be cancelled by the Initiating
TPH.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(b).
    \10\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(b)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon receipt of an Agency Order (and second order), the Exchange
will issue a request for responses (``RFR''), detailing the side and
size of the Agency Order.\11\ The duration of the RFR response period
(i.e., the auction period) would be established by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and shall not be less than three (3) seconds.
During that period, RFR responses may be submitted by FLEX Traders.
These responses must specify price and size and may not cross the
Exchange's BBO on the opposite side of the market. RFR responses are
not visible to any other participants and shall not be disseminated to
the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''). RFR responses may be
modified or cancelled so long as they are modified or cancelled before
the conclusion of the RFR response period. Lastly, the minimum price
increment for RFR responses and for an Initiating TPH's single price
submission shall be set by the Exchange at no less than one cent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Each RFR will be sent to those FLEX Traders electing to
receive RFRs (i.e., those FLEX Traders who have established the
necessary systems connectivity to receive RFRs). Thus, such election
to receive RFRs would not be on a case-by-case basis.
    \12\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(b)(1)(ii)-(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, an AIM Auction ends at the conclusion of the RFR response
period (which will be no less than three seconds). However, the
proposal provides that the AIM Auction would end prior to the
conclusion of the RFR response period any time an RFR response matches
the BBO on the opposite side of the market from the RFR responses.\13\
At the conclusion of the AIM Auction, the Agency Order would be
allocated at the best price(s) and contra-side interest will be ranked
and matched based on price-time priority, subject to the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Such best prices may include non-AIM Auction FLEX Orders
(to the extent the Exchange has determined to make available an
electronic book).
     Public customers and non-TPH broker-dealers RFR responses
and FLEX Orders would have priority.
     No FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement
would apply with respect to the AIM Auction.
     If the best price equals the Initiating TPH's single-price
submission, the Initiating TPH's single-price submission shall be
allocated the greater of one contract or a certain percentage of the
order, which percentage would be determined by the Exchange and may not
be larger than 40%. However, if only one other FLEX Trader matches the
Initiating TPH's single price submission, then the Initiating TPH may
be allocated up to 50% of the order.
     If the Initiating TPH selected the auto-match option of
the AIM Auction, the Initiating TPH shall be allocated its full size at
each price point until a price point is reached where the balance of
the order can be fully executed. At such price point, the Initiating
TPH shall be allocated the greater of one contract or a certain
percentage of the remainder of the Agency Order, which percentage would
be determined by the Exchange and may not be larger than 40%.
     Any remaining RFR responses and FLEX Orders will be
allocated based on time priority. The Initiating TPH would not
participate on any such balance unless the Agency Order would otherwise
go unfilled.
     If the final AIM Auction price locks a public customer or
non-TPH broker-dealer order in the electronic book on the same side of
the market as the Agency Order, then, unless there is sufficient size
in the AIM Auction responses to execute both the Agency Order and the
booked public customer or non-TPH broker-dealer order (in which case
they will both execute at the final AIM Auction price), the Agency
Order will execute against RFR responses at one minimum RFR response
increment worse than the final AIM Auction price against the AIM

Auction participants that submitted the final AIM Auction price and any
balance shall trade against the public customer or non-TPH broker-
dealer order in the book at such order's limit price.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the AIM may only be used where there is
a genuine intention to execute a bona fide transaction.\15\ In
addition, it would be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of CBOE Rule 4.1 to
engage in a pattern of conduct where the Initiating TPH breaks-up an
Agency Order into separate orders for two (2) or few contracts for the
purpose of gaining a higher allocation percentage than the Initiating
TPH would have otherwise received in accordance with the allocation
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also may determine on a class-by-class basis to make
the AIM Auction available for complex orders. In such classes, complex
orders may be executed through the AIM Auction at a net debit or net
credit price provided the AIM Auction eligibility requirements are
satisfied and the Agency Order is eligible for the AIM Auction
considering its complex order type, order origin code, class, and
marketability as determined by the Exchange. Complex orders will only
be eligible to trade with other complex orders through the AIM
Auction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A.05. To the extent the Exchange
determines to make an electronic book available for resting FLEX
Orders, there will be no ``legging'' of complex orders with FLEX
Orders that may be represented in the individual series legs
represented in the electronic book. Order allocation shall be the
same as would be applicable for simple orders. In addition, the
individual series legs of a complex order would not trade through
equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs represented
in the electronic book and at least one leg must better the
corresponding bid (offer) of public customers and non-TPH broker-
dealers in the electronic book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially, and for at least a pilot period expiring on July 18,
2012, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be
eligible for the AIM Auction. During this Pilot Period, the Exchange
will submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission,
to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is a
meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active
and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the AIM
Auction. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be provided
on a confidential basis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any determinations made by the Exchange pursuant to the proposed
rule, such as eligible classes, order size parameters and the minimum
price increment, would be communicated in a circular.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 24B.5A.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Solicitation Auction Mechanism

    The Exchange also proposes to establish a SAM mechanism for FLEX
Options. The SAM permits a FLEX Trader to electronically execute
larger-sized Agency Orders against solicited orders.\19\ To be
eligible, the Agency Order must be in a FLEX class designated as
eligible for SAM Auctions and within the designated SAM Auction order
eligibility size parameters determined by the Exchange (however, the
eligible order size would not be less than 500 contracts). Such classes
and size parameters will be determined by the Exchange and announced
via circular to FLEX Traders. Each order entered into the SAM would be
designated all-or-none (i.e., an order will be executed in its entirety
or not at all).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating TPH to
trade against the Agency Order may not be for the account of a FLEX
Market-Maker assigned to the option class. See proposed Rule
24B.5B.03.
    \20\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Initiating TPH has submitted an Agency Order for SAM
processing, such submission cannot be cancelled by the Initiating TPH.
To initiate the SAM, the Initiating TPH must mark the Agency Order for
SAM processing, and specify a single price at which it seeks to cross
the Agency Order with a solicited order. Upon receipt of an Agency
Order (and second order), an RFR message will be sent to all FLEX
Traders that have elected to receive such messages, detailing the price
and size of the Agency Order. The duration of the RFR response period
(i.e., the auction period) would be established by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and shall not be less than three (3) seconds.
During that period, RFR responses may be submitted by FLEX Traders
(specifying prices and sizes), except that responses may not be entered
for the account of an options Market-Maker from another options
exchange. Responses shall not be visible for other SAM participants and
shall not be disseminated to OPRA. RFR responses may be modified or
cancelled so long as they are modified or cancelled before the
conclusion of the RFR response period.\21\ Lastly, the minimum price
increment for RFR responses and for an Initiating TPH's single price
submission shall be set by the Exchange at no less than one cent.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(b)(1).
    \22\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(a)(3) and (b)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, a SAM ends at the conclusion of the RFR response period.
However, as with AIM, the proposal provides that the SAM would end
prior to the conclusion of the RFR response period any time an RFR
response matches the BBO on the opposite side of the market from the
RFR responses.\23\ At the conclusion of the SAM auction, the Agency
Order would be executed against the second/solicited order unless there
is sufficient size to execute the entire Agency Order at a price (or
prices) that improves the proposed crossing price. In the case where
there are one or more public customers or non-TPH broker-dealers at the
proposed execution price on the opposite side of the Agency Order, the
second/solicited order would be cancelled and the Agency Order would be
executed against other bids (offers) if there is sufficient size at the
bid (offer) to execute the entire size of the Agency Order (size would
be measured considering RFR responses and resting FLEX Orders, to the
extent the Exchange has determined to make available an electronic
book). If there is not sufficient size to execute the entire Agency
Order, the proposed cross would not be executed and both the Agency
Order and second/solicited order would be cancelled. Additionally, the
proposed cross would not be executed and both the Agency Order and
second/solicited order would be cancelled if the execution price would
be inferior to the BBO.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(b)(2).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the Agency Order is executed at an improved price(s)
or at the proposed execution price against RFR responses and FLEX
Orders, the allocation priority at a given price would be as follows:
(i) RFR responses and FLEX Orders for the account of public customers
and non-TPH broker-dealers, based on time priority; (ii) any RFR
responses and FLEX Orders that are subject to a FLEX Appointed Market-
Maker participation entitlement, based on a participation entitlement
formula specified in Rule 24B.5(d)(2)(ii); then (iii) all other RFR
responses and FLEX Orders, based on time priority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B(b)(3)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to apply the SAM mechanism to complex orders,
on a class-by-class basis. In such classes, complex orders may be
executed through the SAM at a net debit or net credit price provided
the SAM eligibility requirements are satisfied and the Agency Order is
eligible for the SAM considering its complex order type, order origin
code, class, and

marketability as determined by the Exchange. Complex orders will only
be eligible to trade with other complex orders through the SAM.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B.01. To the extent the Exchange
determines to make an electronic book available for resting FLEX
Orders, there will be no ``legging'' of complex orders with FLEX
Orders that may be represented in the individual series legs
represented in the electronic book. Order allocation shall be the
same as would be applicable for simple orders. In addition, the
individual series legs of a complex order would not trade through
equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs represented
in the electronic book, and at least one leg must better the
corresponding bid (offer) of public customers and non-TPH broker-
dealers in the electronic book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also requires TPHs to deliver to customers a
written document, in a form approved by the Exchange, describing the
terms and conditions of the SAM mechanism prior to executing Agency
Orders using the SAM mechanism.\27\ The proposed rule further specifies
that TPHs may not use the SAM mechanism to circumvent the Exchange's
rules limiting principal order transactions.\28\ The Exchange also
proposes that any determinations made by the Exchange pursuant to the
proposed SAM Auction rule, such as eligible classes, order size
parameters and the minimum price increment, would be communicated in a
circular.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B.02.
    \28\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B.03
    \29\ See proposed Rule 24B.5B.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange \30\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\31\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\32\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
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 Commission believes that
approving the Exchange's proposal to establish the AIM and SAM for FLEX
Options should confer benefits to the public by increasing competition
between and among the options exchanges, resulting in better prices and
executions for investors.\33\ The Commission therefore finds that for
the reasons discussed below, the Exchange's proposal is consistent with
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \33\ The Commission notes, that it previously found the non-FLEX
AIM and SAM mechanisms consistent with the Act. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53222 (February 3, 2006), 71 FR
7089 (February 10, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2005-60) (Order Approving AIM) and
57610 (April 3, 2008), 73 FR 19535 (April 10, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-
14) (Order Approving SAM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Automated Improvement Mechanism

    The Exchange proposes that the Initiating TPH must stop the Agency
Order at the better of the BBO or the Agency Order's limit price. The
Commission believes that the proposed stop price should provide
customers with an opportunity for price improvement over the Exchange's
BBO. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to stop the Agency
Order at the better of the BBO or the Agency Order's limit price,
versus the National Best Bid or Offer, because FLEX options are
generally not multiply-listed and are not subject to a consolidated
quotation reporting program. In addition, the FLEX AIM will only
process Agency Orders with limit prices, not market orders. The
Commission also believes that the proposal should provide FLEX Traders
with incentives to compete in AIM auctions. The Commission notes that
once an Agency Order is submitted into the AIM, the submission may not
be modified or cancelled. Therefore, the Agency Order submitted to the
AIM will be guaranteed an execution price of at least the BBO and,
moreover, will be given an opportunity for execution at a price better
than the BBO.
    The Exchange also proposes to send an RFR to all FLEX Traders that
have elected to receive RFRs, and RFR responses may be submitted by
FLEX Traders. The Commission believes that permitting access to the AIM
auction for all FLEX Traders who may wish to compete for an Agency
Order should be sufficient to provide opportunities for a meaningful,
competitive auction.
    With respect to the RFR period, the Exchange proposes that the
duration of the RFR response period will be established by the Exchange
on a class-by-class basis and shall not be less than three seconds. One
commenter argued that the proposed three second RFR period for a new
FLEX strike and cross would present an exceptional technological
challenge to market making firms attempting to provide liquidity in
FLEX Options. The commenter suggested that the response time in the AIM
and SAM for newly added flex strikes be increased from three seconds to
one minute.\34\ CBOE disagreed, stating that in today's market, a one-
minute timer far exceeds the standards that have been set for any other
exchange timer. CBOE notes that while the FLEX market may be thinly
traded or a bit more complex given its customized nature; however, this
does not mean that the AIM or SAM should be subject to unnecessarily
lengthy timers. According to CBOE, FLEX AIM and SAM are intended to be
automated and FLEX Traders desiring to participate in the FLEX AIM and
SAM need to dedicate resources to program to the auctions. Assuming a
FLEX Trader develops the technology to electronically trade, CBOE
believes the three second interval is sufficient to electronically
process and respond to an auction in today's markets.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See CTC Letter, supra note 4, at 1. The Commission also
received another comment letter regarding the proposed rule change.
See Spot Letter, supra note 4. The Spot Letter suggested that there
be an additional phase, the Decision Phase, in the RFQ process.
During this Decision Phase, the initiator of an RFQ would have a
brief period of time, during which no changes of any type to market
quotes would be permitted, in order to decide to trade or cancel
their RFQ. The Commission notes that the subject of the comment
letter (the RFQ process for FLEX Options) is not related to the
CBOE's proposal to establish a separate AIM and SAM for FLEX
Options.
    \35\ See CBOE Response, supra note 5, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that the three-second electronic auction
proposed by the Exchange should provide sufficient time for an
electronic crowd to compete for an Agency Order. The Commission notes
that the RFR response period of three seconds is consistent with the
existing minimum exposure period for FLEX Option crossing pursuant to
the existing FLEX crossing procedures.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Rule 24B.5(b)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, allocation will be based on price-time
priority, subject to public customer and non-TPH broker-dealer
priority. No FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement
shall apply. If the best price equals the Initiating TPH's single-price
submission, the Initiating TPH's single-price submission shall be
allocated the greater of one contract or up to 40% of the order.\37\ If
the Initiating TPH selected the auto-match option of the AIM Auction,
the Initiating TPH shall be allocated its full size at each price point
until a price point is reached where the balance of the order can be
fully executed. At such price point, the Initiating TPH shall be
allocated the greater of one contract or up to 40% of

the remainder of the Agency Order. Any remaining RFR responses and FLEX
Orders will be allocated based on time priority. In addition, it will
be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
trade and a violation of Rule 4.1 to engage in a pattern of conduct
where the Initiating TPH breaks-up an Agency Order into separate orders
for 2 or fewer contracts for the purpose of gaining a higher allocation
percentage than the Initiating TPH would have otherwise received in the
AIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ However, if only one other FLEX Trader matches the
Initiating TPH's single price submission, then the Initiating TPH
may be allocated up to 50% of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the priority and allocation rules are
reasonable and consistent with the Act.\38\ The Commission believes
that the matching algorithm set forth in the FLEX AIM rule is
sufficiently clear regarding how orders are allocated in the AIM
auction. The Commission notes that the proposal to provide both public
customers and non-TPH broker-dealers with first priority in the FLEX
AIM auction is consistent with how other FLEX allocation algorithms
currently operate.\39\ In addition, the Commission notes that public
customer priority/non-TPH broker-dealer priority and price-time
priority have previously been found consistent with the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Commission also believes that the proposed priority and
allocation rules for electronic FLEX trading in the AIM are
consistent with Section 11(a) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 78k(a) Section
11(a)(1) prohibits a member of a national securities exchange from
effecting transactions on that exchange for its own account, the
account of an associated person, or an account over which it or its
associated person exercises discretion unless an exception applies.
FLEX Market-Makers qualify for the market-maker exception. With
respect to non-market-maker members, the auction appears reasonably
designed to cause RFR Quotes constituting the RFR Market and the RFR
Order that trades against the RFR Market to yield to non-member
interest, consistent with the ``G'' exception. See 15 U.S.C.
78k(a)(1)(G) (setting forth all requirements for the ``G''
exception).
    \39\ See, e.g., Rule 24B.5(a)(1)(iii)(C) and (D).
    \40\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51822 (June
10, 2005), 70 FR 35321 (June 17, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-87) (Adopting
rules pertaining to priority and allocation of trades for index
options) and 56792 (November 15, 2007), 72 FR 65776 (November 23,
2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-99) (Adopting rules providing for the trading of
FLEX Options on an electronic platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the Exchange's AIM for non-FLEX options, the FLEX AIM auction
would be available for orders of fewer than 50 contracts. Under the
Exchange's proposal, there would be no minimum size requirement for
orders entered into the AIM, for a pilot period expiring on July 18,
2012. The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal should
provide small customer orders with the opportunity for price
improvement, and is consistent with the Act. In particular, any Agency
Order for less than 50 contracts that is entered into the AIM is
guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least
the BBO. The Commission will evaluate the AIM auction during the Pilot
Period to determine whether it would be beneficial to customers and to
the options market as a whole to approve any proposal requesting
permanent approval to permit orders of fewer than 50 contracts to be
submitted to the AIM auction. In addition, the Commission will examine
the data submitted by the Exchange with respect to situations in which
the AIM auction is terminated prematurely by an RFR response. To aid
the Commission in its evaluation, the CBOE represents that it will
provide the following information each month:

    (1) The number of orders of fewer than 50 contracts entered into
the FLEX AIM auction;
    (2) The percentage of all orders of fewer than 50 contracts sent
to CBOE that are entered into CBOE's FLEX AIM auction;
    (3) The percentage of all CBOE FLEX trades represented by orders
of fewer than 50 contracts;
    (4) The percentage of all CBOE FLEX trades effected through the
FLEX AIM auction represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
    (5) The percentage of all FLEX contracts traded on CBOE
represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
    (6) The percentage of all FLEX contracts effected through the
FLEX AIM auction represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
    (7) The spread in the option, at the time an order of fewer than
50 contracts is submitted to the FLEX AIM auction;
    (8) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into
the FLEX AIM auction;
    (9) The percentage of all FLEX orders of 50 contracts or greater
sent to CBOE that are entered into CBOE's FLEX AIM auction;
    (10) The spread in the option, at the time an order of 50
contracts or greater is submitted to the FLEX AIM auction;
    (11) Of FLEX AIM trades for orders of fewer than 50 contracts,
the percentage done at the BBO, BBO plus $.01, BBO plus $.02, BBO
plus $.03, etc.;
    (12) Of FLEX AIM trades for orders of 50 contracts or greater,
the percentage done at the BBO, BBO plus $.01, BBO plus $.02, BBO
plus $.03, etc.;
    (13) The number of orders submitted by FLEX Traders when the
spread was $.05, $.10, $.15, etc. For each spread, specify the
percentage of contracts in orders of fewer than 50 contracts
submitted to CBOE's FLEX AIM that were traded by:
    (a) The Initiating TPH that submitted the order to the FLEX AIM;
    (b) CBOE Market Makers assigned to the class;
    (c) Other FLEX Traders;
    (d) Public Customer Orders;
    (e) Non-TPH broker-dealers; and
    (f) Other non-AIM FLEX Orders.

    For each spread, also specify the percentage of contracts in orders
of 50 contracts or greater submitted to CBOE's FLEX AIM that were
traded by:

    (a) The Initiating TPH that submitted the order to the FLEX AIM;
    (b) CBOE Market Makers assigned to the class;
    (c) Other FLEX Traders;
    (d) Public Customer Orders;
    (e) Non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers; and
    (f) Other non-AIM FLEX Orders.
    (14) The number of times that an RFR response matching the BBO
on the opposite side of the market from the RFR responses
prematurely ended the FLEX AIM auction, and the number of times such
orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated
the FLEX AIM auction that was terminated;
    (15) The percentage of FLEX AIM early terminations due to the
receipt of an RFR response matching the BBO on the opposite side of
the market from the RFR responses that occurred within a [frac12]
second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred
within one second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage
that occurred within one and [frac12] second of the start of the AIM
auction; the percentage that occurred within 2 seconds of the start
of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 2 and
[frac12] seconds of the AIM auction; and the average amount of price
improvement provided to the Agency Order where the AIM auction is
terminated early at each of these time periods;
    (16) The average amount of price improvement provided to the
Agency Order when the FLEX AIM auction is not terminated early
(i.e., runs the full three seconds);
    (17) The percentage of all CBOE FLEX trades effected through the
FLEX AIM auction in which the Initiating TPH has chosen the Auto-
Match feature, and the average amount of price improvement provided
to the Agency Order when the Initiating TPH has chosen the Auto-
Match feature vs. the average amount of price improvement provided
to the Agency Order when the Initiating TPH has chosen a single-
price submission;
    (18) For the first Wednesday of each month:
    (a) The total number of FLEX AIM auctions on that date;
    (b) The number of FLEX AIM auctions where the order submitted to
the AIM was fewer than 50 contracts;
    (c) The number of FLEX AIM auctions where the order submitted to
the AIM was 50 contracts or greater;
    (d) The number of FLEX AIM auctions (for orders of fewer than 50
contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant),
2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3
participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), etc., and
    (e) The number of FLEX AIM auctions (for orders of 50 contracts
or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant),
2 participants

(excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding
the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the
initiating participant), etc.; and
    (19) For the third Wednesday of each month:
    (a) The total number of FLEX AIM auctions on that date;
    (b) The number of FLEX AIM auctions where the order submitted to
the AIM was fewer than 50 contracts;
    (c) The number of FLEX AIM auctions where the order submitted to
the AIM was 50 contracts or greater;
    (d) The number of FLEX AIM auctions (for orders of fewer than 50
contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant),
2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3
participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), etc., and
    (e) The number of FLEX AIM auctions (for orders of 50 contracts
or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating
participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant),
2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3
participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants
(excluding the initiating participant), etc.

B. Solicitation Auction Mechanism

    The Exchange is also proposing a SAM Auction for FLEX Options. The
Commission believes that the proposal should allow for greater
flexibility in pricing large-sized orders. The Commission further
believes that the proposal includes appropriate terms and conditions to
assure that the Agency Order is first exposed to FLEX Traders by RFR
for the possibility of price improvement and that public customer
orders on the Exchange are protected. The Commission also notes that
the proposal is similar to requirements set forth in the CBOE SAM for
non-FLEX Options.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Rule 6.74B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the duration of the RFR response period
would be established by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and
shall not be less than three seconds. As with the AIM, one commenter
suggested that the response time in the SAM for newly added flex
strikes be increased from three seconds to one minute.\42\ The
Commission believes that the three-second electronic auction proposed
by the Exchange should provide sufficient time for an electronic crowd
to compete for an Agency Order. The Commission notes that the RFR
response period of three seconds is consistent with the existing
minimum exposure period for FLEX Option crossing pursuant to the
existing FLEX crossing procedures.\43\ The Commission believes that
using the same period of time to respond to RFRs in SAM auctions should
be appropriate for FLEX Traders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See CTC Letter, supra note 4, at 1. See also discussion at
Section III.A regarding the three-second RFR period for the AIM.
    \43\ See Rule 24B.5(b)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, at the conclusion of the SAM, the Agency Order
would be executed against the second/solicited order unless there is
sufficient size to execute the entire Agency Order at a price(s) that
improves the proposed crossing price. In the case where there are one
or more public customers or non-TPH broker-dealers at the proposed
execution price on the opposite side of the Agency Order, the second/
solicited order would be cancelled and the Agency Order would be
executed against other bids (offers) if there is sufficient size at the
bid (offer) to execute the Agency Order entirely. If there is not
sufficient size to execute the entire Agency Order, or if the execution
price would be inferior to the BBO, then the proposed cross would not
be executed, and both the Agency Order and second/solicited order would
be cancelled. In the event the Agency Order is executed at an improved
price(s) or at the proposed execution price against RFR responses and
FLEX Orders, priority would first go to RFR responses and FLEX Orders
for the account of public customers and non-TPH broker-dealers based on
time priority, then any RFR responses and FLEX Orders that are subject
to a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement, and finally
all other RFR responses and FLEX Orders. The Commission believes that
the priority and allocation rules are reasonable and consistent with
the Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Commission also believes, for the same reasons
described above for the AIM, that the proposed priority and
allocation rules for electronic FLEX trading in the SAM are
consistent with Section 11(a) of the Act. See supra note 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that the Exchange has included a
provision stating that FLEX Traders may not use the SAM auction to
circumvent Rule 24B.5 limiting principal transactions. The Exchange
will also require written notification to customers prior to entering
Agency Orders into the SAM on behalf of the customer and will require
that determinations made by the Exchange regarding eligible classes,
order size parameters, and the minimum price increment shall be
communicated in a Regulatory Circular. The Exchange also proposes to
permit the processing of complex orders. The Commission believes that
the provisions help to clarify application of the SAM rule and may
encourage further use of FLEX Options.
    One commenter asserted that the current FLEX auction mechanism
should not be allowed to migrate to the CBOE Hybrid platform, arguing
that participants that submit RFQs can receive quote responses that
lock and/or cross markets.\45\ In response, CBOE stated that the
comments have no relevance to the instant proposed rule change, which
simply seeks to implement the two new FLEX AIM and SAM auctions and
which does not propose any changes to the existing electronic RFQ
auction mechanism.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See CTC Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \46\ See CBOE Response, supra note 5, at 4. CBOE, however, notes
that with respect to the FLEX SAM auction, the mechanism uses an
all-or-none type allocation methodology and, by design it is
possible for an agency order to receive an execution at a price that
is through a response price. This is consistent with how the
existing SAM auction for non-FLEX Options currently operates. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\47\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2011-123), be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8171 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Optimization of the Sliced Testis Steroidogenesis Assay Carol S. Sloan, Amanda B. Goodman, Susan W. Pearce RTI International August 2003 This study was performed under a subcontract to Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio for prime contract No. 68 W 01

023 for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Optimization of the Sliced Testis Assay This was Implemented in Two Phases Basic Sliced Testis Assay

At first timepoint   designated baseline   media is removed and discarded

Fresh media is added and an aliquot is collected

Half of the samples are challenged with a stimulant, such as hCG

Aliquots of media are collected at 1, 2, 3 and 4 hours postchallenge

Medium samples are analyzed for testosterone concentration in a RIA assay

Medium samples are analyzed for Lactate Dehydrogenase ( LDH)

as a measure of cell viability in a spectrophotometric assay Technical Flow Illustration of Sliced Testis Assay Phase I Design Results of Phase I Optimizations

Medium 199 without phenol red

Gaseous atmosphere of 5% CO2 / 95% O2

Rats that were 11 weeks of age showed results similar to those that were 15 weeks of age, therefore rats 11 15 weeks can be used in the assay; 22 week old rats exhibit reduced testosterone production Phase II: Primary Experimental Phase

Factors that may affect assay performance were tested

These factors were divided into four sections where each section was composed of factors that might produce interactions Phase II Design Phase II

To be tested:

Incubation Conditions   Incubation Temperature   Incubation Vessel Type   Incubation Shaker Speed   Incubation Media Volume   hCG Concentrations

Testes Preparation Conditions   Testicular Fragment Size   Time Delay before starting the assay preparation   Organ Preparation Technique   Sample Aliquot Volume Conclusions from Incubation Factors Experiments

Optimal temperature for incubation was approximately 36 º C

Optimal vessel for incubation was the scintillation vial

Optimal Shaker speed was between 135 and 200 rpm,

approximately 175 rpm

Optimal media volume was approximately 4 5 mL

Optimal hCG concentration for stimulation was 0.08 to 0.1 IU/ mL Conclusions from Testes Preparation Experiments

Optimal fragment size varied from 100 200 mg with stimulated versus non stimulated assays

Time delay before the start of the incubation should be no more than 1 hour from the time of testicular tissue removal from the male

The solution that the testes are collected in may be either cold DPBS or cold M 199

The sample aliquot size removed for testing should be around 0.5 mL Coefficient of Variation Values (%) for Testosterone Concentrations by Sampling Timepoints in the Optimized Assay hCG Baseline 0.5 hr 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 4 hr 8 hr 12 hr 24 hr No 18.9 11.0 6.2 22.1 12.2 14.89 10.52 15.5 19.4 Yes 18.6 15.6 16.4 22.0 38.1 16.1 36.6 28.8 24.5 Means of LDH Concentration ( mU/ mg)

'

hCG s tim ulat ion N o Ye s 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Timepoint Base line T 1 ( 0.5 h r) T 2 ( 1 hr ) T 3 ( 2 hr ) T 4 ( 3 hr ) T 5 ( 4 hr ) T 6 ( 8 hr) T 7 ( 12 h r) T 8 ( 24 h r) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

hCG s tim ulation No Ye s 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0 .1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 Timepoint Base line T 1 ( 0.5 hr ) T 2 ( 1 hr ) T 3 ( 2 hr ) T 4 ( 3 hr) T 5 ( 4 hr ) T 6 ( 8 hr ) T 7 ( 12 h r) T 8 ( 24 h r) Means of LDH Concentration ( mU/ mg)

No hCG Stimulation Equilibration Time ( minutes) 15 30 45 60 90 120 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of LDH Concentration ( mU/ mg)

with hCG Stimulation Eq uilibra tion Time ( m inutes) 15 30 45 60 90 120 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Time point Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

No hCG Stimulation Equi libration Time ( minu tes) 15 3 0 45 60 9 0 120 0 .005 0.01 0 0 .015 0.02 0 0 .025 0.03 0 0 .035 0.04 0 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

with hCG Stimulation Equi libration Time ( minu tes) 15 30 45 60 90 120 0 0.05 0 .1 0.15 0 .2 0.25 0 .3 0.35 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of LDH Concentration ( mU/ mg)

No hCG Stimulation Type of Injury Induced Chemical Heat Trauma 500 1000 1500 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of LDH Concentration ( mU/ mg)

with hCG Stimulation Type of Injury Induced Chemical Heat Trauma 0 1000 2000 3000 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

No hCG Stimulation Type of Injury Induced Heat Trauma 0 0.05 0 .1 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

with hCG Stimulation Type of Injury Induced Heat Trauma 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

No hCG Stimulation Vehicle Type DMSO ETOH Tween 0 .005 0.010 0 .015 0.020 0 .025 0.030 0 .035 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Means of Testosterone Concentration ( ng/ mg)

with hCG Stimulation Vehicle Type DMSO ETOH Tween 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Timepoint Baseline T 1 ( 1 hr) T 2 ( 2 hr) T 3 ( 3 hr) T 4 ( 4 hr) Summary

11 15 week old rats should be used

Media 199 without phenol red is the preferred media

Gaseous atmosphere of 5% CO2 / 95% O2

Optimal temperature for incubation was approximately 36 º C

Optimal vessel for incubation was the scintillation vial

Optimal Shaker speed was approximately 175 rpm

Optimal media volume was approximately 4 5 mL

Optimal hCG concentration for stimulation was 0.08 to 0.1 IU/ mL

Optimal fragment size varied from 100 200 mg

Time delay before the start of the incubation should be no more than 1 hour from the time of testicular tissue removal

The solution that the testes are collected in may be either cold DPBS or cold M

199

The sample aliquot size removed for testing should be around 0.5 mL Points to Ponder

All of these assays were performed on control rat testes

No assays included any test chemicals except for possible vehicles that may be used in the pre validation and validation assays

It may be necessary to measure specific cell viability ( LDH is not cell specific)

 Use of beta HSD ( an enzyme specific to Leydig cells) staining ( RTI International)

Ms. V. I.. Wilson

Ms. L. B. Pelletier

Ms. N. M. Kuney

Ms. S. W. Pearce

Ms. K. D. Vick

Ms. L. McDonald

Ms. A. J. Parham

Mr. M. D. Crews

Ms. A. B. Goodman

Ms. D. B. Bynum

Mr. C. Andrew Clayton

Ms. Margaret Zeller Byron

Ms. Bonnie Hamby

Mr. F. N. Ali

Dr. D. B. Feldman, DVM, ACLAM,

Veterinarian Quality Assurance

Ms. M. D. Phillips ( RTI)

Mr. R. Patterson, QA Consultant

Ms. K. Cummings ( ILS)

Battelle

Dr. Jerry D. Johnson

Dr. David P. Houchens

Dr. Paul Feder EPA

Mr. Gary Timm

Dr. Jerome Goldman ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2246-2247]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00503]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-638, OMB Control No. 3235-0690]

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:
    Form SF-3

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form SF-3 (17 CFR 239.45) is a short form registration statement
used for non-shelf issuers of asset-backed securities to register a
public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form SF-3 takes approximately 1,380 hours per
response and is filed by approximately 71 issuers annually. The
information collected is intended to ensure that the information
required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information in the asset-backed securities market.
We estimate that 25% of the 1,380 hours per response (345 hours) is
prepared by the issuer for a total annual reporting burden of 24,495
hours (345 hours per response x 71 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by 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 unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment 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 protected].

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00503 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64807-64808]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0041]

Draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability, extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending, for 30 days, the period for
submitting public comments on the notice of availability of the Draft
Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. The extension responds to requests
made by the public.

DATES: The comment period for the Notice of availability published on
November 13, 2018 (83 FR 56272) is extended. Comments must be submitted
to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the
Docket Management Facility, on or before February 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0041 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Adrienne Buggs, M.D., United States Coast Guard, Office
of Merchant Mariner Credentialing; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the
draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. We will consider all submissions
and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a
comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the
specific section of the document to which each comment applies, and

provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, will be posted in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or the
Coast Guard publishes any additional documents related to this notice
of availability.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Background and Discussion of Draft Manual

    We issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Merchant Mariner
Medical Manual on November 13, 2018 (83 FR 56272). We received requests
from commenters asking for additional time for the comment period. We
have decided to grant the extension to provide a greater opportunity
for the public to review and provide their comments. With this
extension, the total length of the public comment period will now be 90
days.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46
U.S.C. 7101, and 46 U.S.C. 7302.

    Dated: December 12, 2018.
J.G. Lantz,
Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-27330 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24441-24443]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0171]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; City of North Charleston Fireworks, North
Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for certain navigable waters of the Cooper River in North Charleston,
SC. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the general
public, spectators, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards during a fireworks display. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0171 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843)
740-3184, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On February 23, 2018, the City of North Charleston notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m.
to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a
barge along the bank of the Cooper River at River Front Park in North
Charleston, SC. Hazards from firework displays include accidental
discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers
or other debris. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be
used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-
yard radius of the barge.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks
barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to
11:15 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters within 500 yards of the fireworks barge located at River Front
Park on the Cooper River in North Charleston, SC. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable
waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.
fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
The Coast Guard would provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice
to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant

regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone
will only be enforced for an hour and a half, and although persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative, vessel traffic would be able
to safely operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period
and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the
safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
during the enforcement period. For the reasons stated in section IV.A.
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    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.
    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. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. 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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. 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 (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. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting an hour and a half that would prohibit entry within 500
yards of a barge from which fireworks will be launched. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L 60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted

without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0171 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0171  Safety Zone; City of North Charleston Fireworks,
North Charleston, SC.

    (a) Location. This rule establishes a safety zone on all waters
within a 500-yard radius of the barge, from which fireworks will be
launched on the bank of the Cooper River at River Front Park in North
Charleston, SC.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on July 4, 2018
from 9:45 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.

    Dated: May 16, 2018.
J.W. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2018-11474 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P