[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21752-21754]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-88-000; Docket No. CP14-100-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment
for the Proposed Niagara Expansion Project and Northern Access 2015
Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of two related projects proposed by
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) and National Fuel Gas
Supply Corporation (National Fuel). TGP's Niagara Expansion Project
would involve construction and operation of facilities in Chautaugua
and Erie Counties, New York and Mercer County, Pennsylvania. National
Fuel's Northern Access 2015 Project would involve construction and
operation of facilities

in Cattaraugus and Erie Counties, New York. The Commission will use
this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the
projects are in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the projects. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on May 12, 2014.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for these projects. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of these planned
projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    TGP and National Fuel provided landowners with a fact sheet
prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On
My Land? What Do I Need To Know?''. This fact sheet addresses a number
of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also
available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Projects

    TGP proposes to construct and operate 3.1 miles of natural gas
pipeline loop \1\ and modifications at two existing compressor stations
and one existing meter station, and other appurtenant facilities. The
Niagara Expansion Project would provide TGP with 140,000 dekatherms per
day of leased capacity from National Fuel. According to TGP and
National Fuel, their projects would increase natural gas delivery
capacity in the northeast region of the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is constructed parallel to an existing
pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TGP proposes to construct pipeline facilities and modify existing
compressor and meter station facilities to lease capacity from National
Fuel. The Niagara Expansion Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     3.1 Miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas looping pipeline
in Chautauqua County, New York;
     modifications to piping at Compressor Station 219 in
Mercer County, Pennsylvania;
     modifications to piping and installation of a new pig
launcher at existing Compressor Station 224 in Chautauqua County, New
York; and
     modifications to the existing Hamburg Meter Station in
Erie County, New York.
    National Fuel proposes to construct compression and metering
facilities to provide the proposed leased capacity to TGP. The Northern
Access 2015 Project would consist of the following facilities:
     a new 15,400 horsepower compressor station in Cattaraugus
County, New York;
     7,700 horsepower of additional compression ancillary
facilities at the existing Concord Compressor Station in Erie County,
New York; and
     modifications to allow for bi-directional flow at the
existing East Eden Station in Erie County, New York.
    The general locations of the projects' facilities are shown in
appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    TGP's project would disturb approximately 86 acres of land for the
aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, about
18 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to
revert to former uses. The entire proposed pipeline route parallels
TGP's existing pipeline right-of-way.
    National Fuel's project would disturb approximately 39 acres of
land for the aboveground facilities. Following construction, about 18
acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to
revert to former uses. National Fuel's proposed facilities would be
constructed adjacent to existing aboveground facilities and/or pipeline
facilities.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed projects under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how
to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues of these
projects to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.\4\
Agencies that

would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects
develop. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for these projects will document
our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the
status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the projects. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before May
12, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP14-88-000 and CP14-100-000) with
your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed projects.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
88 or CP14-100). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: April 11, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08750 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5544-5548]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01485]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68691; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Relating to Preferred Market-
Makers' Continuous Quoting Obligation

January 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 11, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to Preferred
Market-Makers' (``PMMs'') continuous quoting obligations. The text of
the proposed rule change is provided below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange recently proposed to, among other things, (a)
reduce to 90% the percentage of time for which a PMM is required to
provide electronic quotes in an appointed option class on a given
trading day and (b) to increase to the lesser of 99% or 100% minus
one call-put pair the percentage of series in each class in which a
PMM must provide continuous electronic quotes in classes in which it
receives PMM orders, which proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67410
(July 11, 2012), 77 FR 42040 (July 17, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-064); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67644 (August 13, 2012),
77 FR 49846 (August 17, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-077) (immediately
effective rule change to delay the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in rule filing SR-CBOE-2012-064 and to indicate
that the Exchange will announce the new implementation date by
Regulatory Circular); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
68218 (November 13, 2012), 77 FR 69667 (November 20, 2012) (SR-CBOE-
2012-106) (immediately effective rule change to further delay the
implementation date of the proposed rule change in rule filing SR-
CBOE-2012-064 and to indicate that the Exchange will announce the
new implement date by Regulatory Circular). The rule text in this
filing includes the effective (but not implemented) changes to the
rule text made by rule filing SR-CBOE-2012-064. The Exchange expects
to implement the effective rule changes to quoting obligations in
filing SR-CBOE-2012-064 in conjunction with the implementation of
the proposed rule change in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 8.13. Preferred Market-Maker Program

    (a) Generally. The Exchange may allow, on a class-by-class basis,
for the receipt of marketable orders, through the Exchange's Order
Routing System when the Exchange's disseminated quote is the NBBO, that
carry a designation from the Trading Permit Holder transmitting the
order that specifies a Market-Maker in that class as the ``Preferred
Market-Maker'' for that order. A qualifying recipient of a

Preferred Market-Maker order shall be afforded a participation
entitlement as set forth in subparagraph (c) below.
    (b) Eligibility. No change.
    (c) Entitlement Rate. No change.
    (d) Quoting Obligations: The Preferred Market-Maker must comply
with the quoting obligations applicable to its Market-Maker type under
Exchange rules and must provide continuous electronic quotes (as
defined in Rule 1.1(ccc)) in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-
adjusted option series that have a time to expiration of less than nine
months or 100% of the non-adjusted option series that have a time to
expiration of less than nine months minus one call-put pair of each
class for which it receives Preferred Market-Maker orders, with the
term ``call-put pair'' referring to one call and one put that cover the
same underlying instrument and have the same expiration date and
exercise price.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 No change.
    .02 Rule 8.13(d) does not require a Preferred Market-Maker to
provide continuous electronic quotes in series that have a time to
expiration of nine months or more in the classes for which it receives
Preferred Market-Maker orders. However, a Preferred Market-Maker may
still receive a participation entitlement in such series if it elects
to quote in such series and otherwise satisfies the requirements set
forth in Rule 8.13(b).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 8.13(d) currently requires that PMMs provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least 90%
of the non-adjusted option series of each class for which it receives
PMM orders.\4\ Rule 1.1(ccc) currently provides that a PMM will be
deemed to have provided ``continuous electronic quotes'' if the PMM
provides electronic two-sided quotes for 99% of the time.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See supra note 3 for a discussion regarding the
implementation of a change to increase PMMs' continuous quoting
obligations to require continuous electronic quotes in the lesser of
99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-adjusted
option series minus one put-class pair of each appointed class.
    \5\ See Rule 1.1(ccc), which provides that a Hybrid Market-Maker
will be deemed to have provided ``continuous electronic quotes'' if
the Hybrid Market-Maker provides electronic two-sided quotes for 99%
of the time that the Hybrid Market-Maker is required to provide
electronic quotes in an appointed option class on a given trading
day. As discussed above, rule filing SR-CBOE-2012-064 reduced this
percentage of time from 99% to 90% (which change is effective but
not yet operative, and the Exchange expects to implement in
conjunction with this proposed rule change). See supra note 3. The
Rule also provides that if a technical failure or limitation of a
system of the Exchange prevents the Hybrid Market-Maker from
maintaining, or prevents the Hybrid Market-Maker from communicating
to the Exchange, timely and accurate electronic quotes in a class,
the duration of the failure will not be considered in determining
whether the Hybrid Market-Maker has satisfied the 99% (and soon to
be 90%) quoting standard with respect to that option class. The
Exchange may consider other exceptions to this continuous electronic
quote obligation based on demonstrated legal or regulatory
requirements or other mitigating circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to exclude series that have a time to
expiration of nine months or more (i.e., Long-Term Equity Options
Series, or ``LEAPS'') from PMMs' continuous quoting obligation. As a
result, PMMs' continuous quoting obligation will not apply to options
series with a time to expiration of nine months or more.\6\ Exchange
Rule 8.7(d)(ii)(B) currently excludes series that have a time to
expiration of nine months or more from the quoting obligations of
Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As set forth in Rule 8.13(d), PMMs also have no quoting
obligations in adjusted option series, which are option series for
which, as a result of a corporate action by the issuer of the
underlying security, one option contract in the series represents
the delivery of other than 100 shares of underlying stock or Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing this rule change for competitive reasons.
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') excludes, among other series, option
series with a time to expiration of nine months or more from the
quoting obligations of its streaming quote traders (``SQTs), remote
SQTs (``RSQTs''), directed SQTs (``DSQTs'') and directed RSQTs
(``DRSQTs''), the PHLX market participants generally equivalent to
Market-Makers (SQTs and RSQTs) and PMMs (DSQTs and DRSQTs).\7\ The
Exchange believes this proposal changes the continuous quoting
obligation of PMMs so that PMMs are required to quote in substantially
similar types of series as equivalent market participants at another
options exchange and is therefore essential for competitive
purposes.\8\ CBOE believes it is disadvantageous to PMMs if they are
subject to stricter quoting requirements with respect to their
continuous quoting obligations than equivalent market participants at a
competing options exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See PHLX Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(4). Additionally, while not
specified in its rules, International Securities Exchange (``ISE'')
Regulatory Information Circular 2009-248 similarly excludes these
option series from the quoting obligations of competitive market-
makers, including competitive market-makers that receive preferenced
orders, the ISE market participants generally equivalent to PMMs.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges exclude these long-term
options from the quoting obligations of market participants that are
equivalent to Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs'') or Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``DPMs''), but not PMMs. See, e.g., NYSE MKT Options
Rule 925.1NY, Commentary .01; and NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.37B,
Commentary .01.
    \8\ As noted below, PMMs will still be required to quote in
quarterly options series, which DSQTs and DRSQTs are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that this proposed rule change is
consistent with the approach in current Rule 5.8, which states that
strike price interval, bid/ask differential and continuity rules will
not apply to equity LEAPS until the time to expiration is less than
nine months.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Similarly, Rule 24.9(b)(1)(A) states that strike price
interval, bid/ask differential and continuity rules will not apply
to index LEAPS until the time to expiration is less than twelve
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will continue to
ensure that PMMs create a fair and orderly market in classes in which
they receive PMM orders, as it does not absolve PMMs from providing
continuous electronic quotes in a significant percentage of series of
each class for a substantial portion of the trading day. PMMs must
engage in activities that constitute a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, including (1) Competing with other Market-Makers to improve
markets in all series of options classes comprising their appointments,
(2) making markets that, absent changed market conditions, will be
honored in accordance with firm quote rules, and (3) updating market
quotations in

response to changed market conditions in their appointed options
classes and to assure that any market quote it causes to be
disseminated is accurate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 8.7(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relief proposed in this filing is mitigated by a PMM's other
obligations. The proposed rule change would not excuse a PMM that is
present on the trading floor from its obligation to provide a two-sided
market complying with the bid/ask differential requirements in response
to any request for quote by a floor broker, Trading Permit Holder or
PAR Official.\11\ The proposed rule change would also not excuse a PMM
that is present on the trading floor from its obligation to provide an
open outcry two-sided market complying with the bid/ask differential
requirements in response to a request for a quote by a Trading Permit
Holder or PAR Official directed at that Market-Maker or when, in
response to a general request for a quote by a Trading Permit Holder or
PAR Official, a market is not then being vocalized by a reasonable
number of Market-Makers.\12\ Further, the proposed rule change would
not excuse a PMM from its obligation to submit a single quote or
maintain continuous quotes in one or more series of a class to which
the PMM is appointed when called upon by an Exchange official if, in
the judgment of such official, it is necessary to do so in the interest
of maintaining a fair and orderly market.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 8.7(d)(i)(C) (relating to a request for quote by a
floor broker) and (ii)(C) (relating to a request for a quote by a
Trading Permit Holder or PAR Official).
    \12\ See Rule 8.7(d)(iv).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also adds Interpretation and Policy .02 to
Rule 8.13 to clarify that while Rule 8.13(d) does not require a PMM to
provide continuous electronic quotes in LEAPS in the classes for which
it receives Preferred Market-Maker orders, a PMM may still receive a
participation entitlement in a LEAPS series if it elects to quote in
that series and otherwise satisfies the requirements set forth in Rule
8.13(b). If a PMM elects to quote in a LEAPS series in one of its
preferred classes, in order to receive the participation entitlement in
that series, the PMM must still be quoting at the best bid or offer on
the Exchange and satisfying its other obligations set forth in Rule
8.13(b). PMMs already receive participation entitlements in series they
are not required to quote. As discussed above, a PMM is currently
required to provide continuous electronic quotes in at least 90% of the
non-adjusted option series of each class for which it receives PMM
orders.\14\ If the PMM elects to quote in 100% of the non-adjusted
series in the class, it will receive a participation entitlement in all
of those series when quoting at the best price, including the 10% of
the series in which it is not required to quote. Thus, under the
proposed rule change, the market would continue to function as it does
now. The Exchange believes this benefit is appropriate, as it
incentivizes PMMs to quote in as many series as possible in the classes
in which it receives PMM orders, even LEAPS, which Rule 8.13 does not
require them to continuously quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As discussed above, this obligation will change upon
implementation of a recent rule change. See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
adversely affect the quality of the Exchange's markets or lead to a
material decrease in liquidity. Rather, the Exchange believes that its
current market structure with its high rate of participation by Market-
Makers permits the proposed rule change without fear of losing
liquidity. This is especially true given that the quoting obligations
of LMMs, DPMs, and electronic DPMs (``e-DPMs'') in Hybrid option
classes set forth in Rules 8.15A, 8.85, and 8.93, respectively, will
still apply to LEAPS, so the Exchange may still have a disseminated
continuous two-sided market in LEAPS. Further, the Exchange believes
that the current quoting obligation in LEAPS is a minor part of PMMs'
overall obligations, so the burden of continuous quoting in these
series by PMMs while DPMs and LMMs are also required to continuously
quote in those series is counter to efforts to mitigate the number of
quotes collected and disseminated. The Exchange also believes that
market-making activity may increase as a result of adopting a provision
that is already in place at another options exchange. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to clarify that PMMs
may still receive participation entitlements in LEAPS in the classes
for which they received PMM orders in which they are quoting, even
though Rule 8.13(d) does not require the PMMs to continuously quote in
LEAPS, will incent PMMs to quote in LEAPS, which may increase liquidity
in those classes.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no
later than 150 days following the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\15\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it reduces
burdens and unnecessary restrictiveness on PMMs. The quoting
obligations of LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMS will still apply to LEAPS, which
the Exchange believes eliminates the risk of a material decrease in
liquidity of LEAPS. The Exchange still imposes many obligations on PMMs
to maintain a fair and orderly market in their appointed classes,
including obligations to provide continuous electronic quotes for a
significant part of the trading day in a substantial number of series
of each appointed class. Further, the elimination of PMMs' continuous
quoting obligations in LEAPS is a minor change and should not impact
the quality of CBOE's market. Consequently, continuous quotes in these
series by PMMs, in addition to DPMs and LMMs, increases quote traffic
and burdens systems without a corresponding benefit. Thus, by not
requiring PMMs to continuously quote in LEAPS, the Exchange's proposed
rule change would further the Exchange's goal of measured quote
mitigation. Additionally, PMMs will continue to be obligated to quote
the series when requested by a floor broker, Trading Permit Holder, or
PAR Official, or if the need otherwise arises.

Accordingly, the proposal supports the quality of CBOE's markets by
helping to ensure that PMMs will continue to be obligated to quote in
series when necessary. The Exchange believes these changes are
reasonable and are offset by PMMs' continued responsibilities to
provide significant liquidity to the market to the benefit of market
participants. In addition, the proposed rule change removes impediments
to and allows for a free and open market, while protecting investors,
by promoting additional transparency regarding PMMs' obligations and
benefits in the Exchange Rules. In addition, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is designed to not permit unfair
discrimination, as the proposed rule change provides the proposed
relief for all PMMs.
    The proposed rule change to clarify that PMMs may still receive
participation entitlements in LEAPS in the classes for which they
received PMM orders in which they are quoting, even though Rule 8.13(d)
does not require the PMMs to continuously quote in LEAPS, further
supports the quality of the Exchange's trading markets because it
encourages PMMs to quote in LEAPS, which ultimately benefits all
investors. This benefit is offset by the PMMs' continued quoting
obligations and the fact that they must still satisfy all of their
other obligations in order to receive the entitlement in these ``non-
required'' series. The Exchange also believes that this proposed change
is consistent with its current practice, pursuant to which PMMs receive
participation entitlements in additional series in which they elect to
quote above the minimum percentage of series in which they are required
to continuously quote under Rule 8.13.
    The proposed rule change is also consistent with the rules of
another options exchange.\18\ The proposed rule change requires its
PMMs to provide continuous quotes in the same types of series as
equivalent market participants at a competing options exchange, which
the Exchange believes could increase market-making activity on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the balance
between the benefits provided to and the obligations imposed upon PMMs
by the proposed rule change is appropriate.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
provides the same relief to a group of similarly situated market
participants--PMMs. While other types of Market-Makers will still be
required to continuously quote in LEAPS, the Exchange believes this is
not unfairly discriminatory, as its Rules already impose different
obligations on each type of Market-Maker based on the purposes and
functions of, and benefits received by, that type of Market-Maker (e.g.
Market-Makers are already not required to continuously quote in LEAPS,
while LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMs are, and will continue to be).
    CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will in fact relieve
any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. The Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is procompetitive because it would enable the
Exchange to provide its PMMs with rules that are similar to those of
another options exchange applicable to equivalent market participants
at that exchange. The Exchange believes this will promote trading
activity on the Exchange to the benefit of the Exchange, its Trading
Permit Holders, and market participants.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-008 and should be
submitted on or before February 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01485 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78289-78290]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0914]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0015, Bridge
Permit Application Guide. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2011-
0914], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, a copy is available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax (202) 475-
3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2011-0914], and must be received by January 17,
2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2011-0914], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you
include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact
information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0914'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in
an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to

know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and will address them
accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0914'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West Building Ground
Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: [1625-0015].

Privacy Act

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

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (76 FR 61369, October 4, 2011)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Bridge Permit Application Guide.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0015.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Public and private owners of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States.
    Abstract: The collection of information is a request for a bridge
permit submitted as an application for approval by the Coast Guard of
any proposed bridge project. An applicant must submit to the Coast
Guard a letter of application along with letter-size drawings (plans)
and maps showing the proposed project and its location.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 10,760 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 12, 2011.
C.A. Mathieu,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-32232 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4707-4708]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0069]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0010; Implementation of Coastal Barrier
Resources Act

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; OMB No.
1660-0010, Form Number(s): None.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
applications for National Flood Insurance Program insurance for
buildings located in Coastal Barrier Resources System communities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2010-0069. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2010-0069 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Chang, Insurance Examiner, Risk
Insurance Division, Mitigation Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional
information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies
of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202)
646-3347 or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.; Pub. L. 97-348) and the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act
of

1990 (Pub. L. 101- 591) are Federal laws that were enacted on October
18, 1982, and November 16, 1990, respectively, as part of a Department
of the Interior (DOI) initiative to preserve the ecological integrity
of areas DOI designates as coastal barriers and otherwise protected
areas. The laws provide this protection by prohibiting all Federal
expenditures or financial assistance including flood insurance for
residential or commercial development in areas identified with the
system. When an application for flood insurance is submitted for
buildings located in Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
communities, documentation must be submitted as evidence of
eligibility. Part 71 of 44 CFR implements section 11 of the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act and section 9 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement
Act of 1990, as those Acts amend the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.). The documentation required in 44 CFR
71.4 is provided to FEMA for a determination that a building which is
located on a designated coastal barrier and for which an application
for flood insurance is being made, is neither new construction nor a
substantial improvement, and therefore, is eligible for National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage. If the information is not collected,
NFIP policies might be provided for buildings, which are legally
ineligible for it, thus exposing the Federal Government to an insurance
liability Congress chose to limit.

Collection of Information

    Title: Implementation of Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0010.
    Form Titles and Numbers: No forms.
    Abstract: When an application for flood insurance is submitted for
buildings located in CBRS communities, one of the following types of
documentation must be submitted as evidence of eligibility: (a)
Certification from a community official stating the building is not
located in a designated CBRS area; (b) A legally valid building permit
or certification from a community official stating that the start date
of a building's construction preceded the date that the community was
identified in the CBRS; or (c) Certification from the governmental body
overseeing the area indicating that the building is used in a manner
consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Businesses or other
for-profits; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government;
and State, local or Tribal governments.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 672.5 burden hours.

                                               Annual Hour Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      No. of       Frequency of     Hour burden       Annual       Total annual
    Data collection activity/       respondents      responses     per response      responses     burden hours
           instrument            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (A)             (B)             (C)         (D) = (AxB)        (CxD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.            2690               1             .25            2690           672.5
--Legally Valid Building Permit
--Written and Signed Statement
 from a Community Official
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL.......................            2690               1             .25            2690           672.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: The estimate annual operations and maintenance
costs for technical services is $2690.00. There are no annual start-up
or capital costs.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: January 5, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-1591 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Phone Call with Tremco and EPA to discuss conditions of use for butyl benzyl phthalate

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On December 19[th], 2019, EPA spoke with Tremco to discuss use information for butyl benzyl phthalate (CASRN 85-68-7). EPA provided a general overview of the process of gathering use information under TSCA Section 6 and the process for prioritization. Tremco shared details about the use of butyl benzyl phthalate in their products.

Attendees

EPA:
Bethany Masten
Doug Parsons

Tremco:
Julee Kasprisin


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74261-74263]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0128]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation: Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic
Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation (SLR) in the Atlantic Ocean east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
in connection with the Ft Lauderdale Air Show. The Ft Lauderdale Air
Show is listed as typically occurring annually over one weekend in May.
This year, however, the sponsor changed the event's date to the weekend
of November 20, 2020. The SLR extends north of the Port Everglades
Inlet approximately six miles and is necessary to ensure the safety of
the public, spectators, participating vessels, and marine environment
during aerobatic maneuvers by low-flying airplanes and high-speed
surface demonstrations during the Fort Lauderdale Air Show. This SLR
prohibits persons and non-participant vessels from entering,
transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily from
November 20, 2020, through November 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0128 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Omar Beceiro, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule since
this event has previously undergone the NPRM process and is listed as a
recurring event in 33 CFR 100.702, on Line 3 of Table 1 to Sec.
100.702. In addition, the sponsor notified the Coast Guard of the event
with insufficient time to prepare and publish an NPRM. Immediate action
is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with
aerobatic and high-speed surface demonstrations associated with the
Fort Lauderdale Air Show. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM
because we must establish this safety zone by November 20, 2020.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with aerobatic and
high-speed surface demonstrations associated with the Fort Lauderdale
Air Show.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The COTP Miami has determined potential hazards associated with
aerobatic and high-speed surface demonstrations from November 20, 2020,
through November 22, 2020, will be a safety concern for anyone within
the regulated area. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels,
and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the SLR.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary SLR in connection with the Ft
Lauderdale Air Show from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily from November 20, 2020
through November 22, 2020. The Ft Lauderdale Air Show is listed in 33
CFR 100.702, on Line 3 of Table 1 to Sec.  100.702 as typically
occurring annually over one weekend in May. This year; however, the
sponsor changed the event's date to the weekend of November 20, 2020.
The SLR extends north of the Port Everglades Inlet approximately six
miles and is necessary to ensure the safety of the public, spectators,
participating vessels, and marine environment during aerobatic
maneuvers by low-flying airplanes and high-speed surface demonstrations
during the Fort Lauderdale Air Show. Non-participant vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Miami or
a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), 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 scope of the SLR. The SLR will affect a small
designated area of the Atlantic Ocean over a period of three days
during the month of November, making it limited in size, location and
duration. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the
regulated area and vessels may seek permission to enter the zone,
making it limited in scope. Moreover, the Coast Guard will notify the
public of the regulated area through an entry in the Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM marine channel 16.
In addition, the rule would allow.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-1, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a SLR
lasting seven hours per day over three days that will prohibit persons
and vessels from entering or transiting the regulated area during the
air show. In April 2018, the Coast Guard prepared a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment to assess the effects of the Ft Lauderdale Air
show on the human environment resulting in a finding of no significant
impact. The Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T07-0128 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0128  Special Local Regulation; Fort Lauderdale Air Show;
Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area on the Atlantic Ocean in Fort Lauderdale, FL: All waters
of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line connecting
the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26[deg]11'01'' N
080[deg]05'42'' W; thence due east to Point 2 in position
26[deg]11'01'' N 080[deg]05'00'' W; thence south west to Point 3 in
position 26[deg]05'42'' N 080[deg]05'35'' W; thence west to Point 4 in
position 26[deg]05'42'' N 080[deg]06'17'' W; thence following the
shoreline north back to the point of origin. These coordinates are
based on North American Datum 1983.
    (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 COTP
Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant vessels or persons are
prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Miami or a designated
representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Miami by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF-FM
radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the COTP Miami or a designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule is will be enforced from 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m. daily from November 20, 2020, through November 22, 2020.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
J.F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2020-25748 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11249-11252]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03428]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68879; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-124]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various
CBOE Rules Governing Letters of Guarantee and Authorization

February 8, 2013.
    On December 14, 2012, 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 amend various CBOE Rules
governing letters of guarantee and authorization. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
27, 2012.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68487 (December 20,
2012), 77 FR 76320
    (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

    As further described below, each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'')
that has trading functions on CBOE currently is required to submit to
CBOE a letter of guarantee or authorization for its trading activities
on CBOE from a Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``Clearing TPH'').
Typically, by a letter of guarantee, the Clearing TPH guarantees any
trades made its TPH customer and, by a letter of authorization, a
Clearing TPH accepts financial responsibility for all transactions on
CBOE made by a guaranteed Floor Broker.
    The purpose of the proposal is to amend various CBOE rules
governing letters of guarantee and authorization to:
     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a TPH does not have an effective letter of guarantee or
authorization on file with the Exchange;
     Provide that any written revocation of a letter of
guarantee or authorization will be given effect as quickly as CBOE can
process it;
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions

by the Clearing Corporation,\4\ such as restricting the activities of a
Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') is the
only Clearing Corporation of CBOE. See Notice, supra note 3, at
76320, n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a TPH if the TPH does not have a required letter of guarantee
or authorization in place for ninety consecutive days;
     Delete obsolete and outdated rule text; and
     Make technical, non-substantive rule text changes.
    Generally, these substantive changes are designed to ensure that
TPHs who engage in trading activities always have a valid letter of
guarantee or authorization from a Clearing TPH.
    Changes to Rule 3.28 (Letters of Guarantee). The Exchange proposes
to amend CBOE Rule 3.28 so that it will govern both letters of
guarantee and authorization.\5\ The Exchange proposes to add new
paragraphs (b) through (g) to expressly provide CBOE with remedial
powers in the event the OCC restricts or suspends a Clearing TPH. The
Exchange also proposes to add new paragraph (h) to Rule 3.28 to govern
the termination of TPH status when a TPH is without a required letter
of guarantee or authorization for a period of ninety consecutive days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, the rule governs only letters of guarantee. Rule
6.72 will continue to govern Letters of Authorization for Floor
Brokers and Rule 8.5 will continue to govern Letters of Guarantee
for Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under new paragraph (b) of the rule, a TPH may not engage in any
trading activities on the Exchange if an effective letter of guarantee
or authorization required to engage in those activities is not on file
with the Exchange. If a Trading Permit Holder does not have an
effective letter of guarantee or authorization on file with the
Exchange, the Exchange will be permitted to prevent access and
connectivity to the Exchange by that Trading Permit Holder. If a TPH
has a letter of guarantee or authorization that is revoked or
invalidated (as discussed below), that TPH's orders and quotes will be
rejected after the revocation or invalidation after the revocation or
invalidation becomes effective unless and until the TPH has another
effective letter of guarantee or authorization in place and on file
with the Exchange. This means that a TPH without an effective letter of
guarantee or authorization will not be able to continue to trade on the
Exchange.
    Under new paragraph (c) of the rule, letters of guarantee and
authorization filed with the Exchange will remain in effect until a
written notice of revocation has been filed with the TPH Department and
the revocation becomes effective or the letter of guarantee or
authorization otherwise becomes invalid pursuant to Exchange rules. A
written notice of revocation will become effective as soon as the
Exchange is able to process the revocation. A revocation will in no way
relieve a Clearing TPH of responsibility for transactions guaranteed
prior to the effectiveness of the revocation.
    Under new paragraph (d) of the rule, if the OCC restricts the
activities of a Clearing TPH or suspends a Clearing TPH as a Clearing
Member of the OCC, the Exchange will be permitted to give effect to the
restriction or suspension. For example, if the OCC restricts
transactions cleared by a Clearing TPH to ``closing only''
transactions, the Exchange similarly will be able to restrict
transactions on the Exchange for clearance by that Clearing TPH as a
Clearing Member of the OCC to ``closing only'' transactions; if the OCC
suspends a Clearing TPH, the Exchange similarly will be able to prevent
access and connectivity to the Exchange by the suspended Clearing TPH.
    Under new paragraph (e) of the rule, if a Clearing TPH's status as
a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's
status as a CBOE TPH is terminated, all letters of guarantee and
authorization on file with the Exchange from that Clearing TPH will no
longer be valid, effective as of the time the Exchange processes the
invalidation of those letters. Similarly, under new paragraph (f) of
the rule, if a Clearing TPH has been suspended as a Clearing Member of
the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, all existing letters of guarantee and
authorization from that Clearing TPH will be invalid during the period
of the suspension, effective as soon as the Exchange processes the
invalidation of those letters.\6\ New paragraph (g) of the rule
provides that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee or
authorization will in no way relieve the Clearing TPH that issued the
letter of guarantee or authorization of responsibility from
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange states that it will endeavor to process
revocations and invalidations under proposed Rules 3.28(c) and
3.28(f) in a timely manner. See Notice, supra note 3, at 76321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, under the terms of new paragraph (h) of the rule, if a TPH
does not have a required letter of guarantee or authorization for
period of ninety consecutive days, its trading permit(s) and status as
a TPH shall automatically terminate.
    Changes to Rule 6.72 (Letters of Authorization). The Exchange
proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.72 to provide that a letter of
authorization previously filed with the Exchange will remain effective
until a written notice of revocation has been filed with the TPH
Department and the revocation becomes effective or until such time that
the letter of authorization otherwise becomes invalid under CBOE's
rules. In the event a written notice of revocation is provided, the
Exchange is proposing to provide that the revocation shall become
effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process it.\7\ The
Exchange also proposes to eliminate a provision that allows a Clearing
TPH to request that the Exchange post notice of the revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, the rule sets forth a specific time period for
the effectiveness revocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add an internal cross reference,
which provides that letters of authorization issued for Floor Brokers
under Rule 6.72 will be subject to Rule 3.28.\8\ The effects of this
addition would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Previously, letters of authorization issued to Floor Brokers
were governed only by Rule 6.72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow CBOE to prevent access to its marketplace if a Floor
Broker TPH does not have an effective letter of authorization on file
with the Exchange;
     Allow CBOE to take action necessary to give effect to
actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the activities
of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a Floor Broker's letter of
authorization if it was issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH
status as a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing
TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is terminated effective as soon as the
Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the letter of
authorization;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a Floor Broker's letter of
authorization, if it was issued by a Clearing TPH who has been
suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during the
period of the suspension effective as soon as the Exchange is able to
process the invalidation of the letter of authorization;
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of authorization
shall in no way relieve the Clearing TPH that issued the letter of
authorization of responsibility from transactions guaranteed prior to
the effectiveness of the invalidation; and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Floor Broker if the Floor Broker does not have a required
letter of guarantee or

authorization in place for ninety consecutive days.
    Changes to Rule 8.5 (Letters of Guarantee). The Exchange proposes
to amend CBOE Rule 8.5 to provide that a letter of guarantee previously
filed with the Exchange will remain effective until a written notice or
revocation has been filed with the TPH Department and the revocation
becomes effective or until such time that the letter of guarantee
otherwise becomes invalid under CBOE's rules. In the event a written
notice of revocation is provided, the Exchange is proposing to provide
that the revocation shall become effective as soon as the Exchange is
able to process it.\9\ The Exchange also proposes to eliminate a
provision that allows a Clearing TPH to request that the Exchange post
notice of the revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Currently, the rule sets forth a specific time period for
the effectiveness revocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add an internal cross-
reference, which provides that letters of guarantee issued for Market-
Makers under Rule 8.5 will be subject to Rule 3.28.\10\ The effects of
this addition would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Previously, letters of authorization issued to Market
Makers were governed only by Rule 8.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow CBOE to prevent access to its marketplace if a
Market-Maker TPH does not have an effective letter of guarantee on file
with the Exchange;
     Allow CBOE to take action necessary to give effect to
actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the activities
of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a Market-Maker's letter of
guarantee if it was issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH status
as a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's
status as a CBOE TPH is terminated effective as soon as the Exchange is
able to process the invalidation of the letter of guarantee;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a Market-Maker's letter of
guarantee, if it was issued by a Clearing TPH who has been suspended as
a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during the period of the
suspension effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process the
invalidation of the letter of guarantee;
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee
shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that issued the
letter of guarantee of responsibility from transactions guaranteed
prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation; and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Market-Maker if the Market-Maker does not have a required
letter of guarantee or authorization in place for ninety consecutive
days.

Further, the Exchange proposes to delete Interpretations and Policies
.01, .02 and .04 from Rule 8.5 because it states that they are
obsolete.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange states that it no longer trades the product
referenced in .01, and .02 and .04 are obsolete because the OCC is
no longer involved in approving CBOE letters of guarantee. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 76322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to Rules 24A.15 and 24B.13 (Letters of Guarantee or
Authorization). The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 24A.15 and 24B.13,
which relate to FLEX options, by deleting a provision in each rule
relating to OCC approval of letters of guarantee that are being amended
to include FLEX option transactions. According to the Exchange, that
provision is obsolete because the OCC is no longer involved in
approving CBOE letters of guarantee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add an internal cross-
reference, which provides that letters of guarantee or authorization
issued for FLEX Market-Makers and Floor Brokers under Rules 24A.15 and
24B.13 will be subject to Rule 3.28.\13\ The effects of this addition
would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Previously, letters of authorization issued to FLEX Market-
Makers or Floor Brokers were only governed by Rules 24A.15 and
24B.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow CBOE to prevent access to its marketplace if a FLEX
Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH does not have an effective letter of
guarantee or authorization on file with the Exchange;
     Allow CBOE to take action necessary to give effect to
actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the activities
of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a FLEX Market-Maker or Floor
Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization if it was issued by a
Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH status as a Clearing Member of the OCC
is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is terminated
effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process the invalidation
of the letter of guarantee or authorization;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a FLEX Market-Maker or Floor
Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization, if it was issued by
a Clearing TPH who has been suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC
or as a CBOE TPH, during the period of the suspension effective as soon
as the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the letter of
guarantee or authorization;
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee or
authorization shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that
issued the letter of guarantee or authorization of responsibility from
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation;
and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a FLEX Market-Maker or Floor Broker if the FLEX Market-Maker
or Floor Broker does not have a required letter of guarantee or
authorization in place for ninety consecutive days.
    Changes to Rules 26.11 (Market-Makers) and 26.13 (Floor Broker
Financial Requirements). CBOE Rules 26.11 and 26.13 relate to market
basket contracts, which the Exchange does not currently list for
trading. The Exchange proposes to amend those rules by deleting a
provision in each rule relating to OCC approval of letters of guarantee
that are amended to include market basket transactions.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange states that provision is obsolete because the
OCC is no longer involved in approving CBOE letters of guarantee.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 76323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add an internal cross-
reference, which provides that letters of guarantee or authorization
issued for Market-Makers in market basket contracts, and letters of
authorization issued for Floor Brokers in market basket contracts,
under Rules 26.11 and 26.13, respectively, will be subject to Rule
3.28.\15\ The effects of this addition would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Those letters of guarantee or authorization issued to
Market-Makers and Floor Brokers in market basket contracts
previously were governed only by Rules 26.11 and 26.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow CBOE to prevent access to its marketplace if a
Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH in market basket contracts does not
have an effective letter of guarantee or authorization on file with the
Exchange;
     Allow CBOE to take action necessary to give effect to
actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the activities
of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a market basket Market-Maker or
Floor Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization if it was
issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH status as a Clearing Member
of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is
terminated effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process the
invalidation of the letter of guarantee or authorization;
     Allow CBOE to invalidate a market basket Market-Maker or
Floor Broker

TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization, if it was issued by a
Clearing TPH who has been suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or
as a CBOE TPH, during the period of the suspension effective as soon as
the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the letter of
guarantee or authorization;
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee or
authorization shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that
issued the letter of guarantee or authorization of responsibility from
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation;
and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Market-Maker or Floor Broker in market basket contracts if
the Market-Maker or Floor Broker in market basket contracts does not
have a required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for
ninety consecutive days.

II. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, 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.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange's proposal will
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and, in general, protect investors by requiring that a TPH have
an effective and unrestricted letter of guarantee, which will help
prevent the execution of trades on CBOE that ultimately may not be able
to be cleared and settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with the Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\18\ which requires that
the rules of an exchange provide a fair procedure for the denial of
membership to any person seeking membership therein and the prohibition
or limitation by an exchange of any person with respect to access to
services offered by the exchange. Under the proposed rule change, a TPH
without an effective letter of guarantee or authorization will not be
able to continue to trade on the Exchange and, if a TPH does not have a
required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for ninety
consecutive days, the permit of the TPH is automatically terminated.
The Commission believes that it is appropriate to prohibit a TPH from
trading on CBOE without a financial guarantee, and the 90-day period
provides the TPH adequate time to cure its deficiency. The Commission
notes that CBOE stated that the automatic termination provision does
not prohibit or limit a previously terminated TPH from applying again
to become a TPH once the TPH acquires the required letter of guarantee
or authorization.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 76324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2012-124) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03428 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P