[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2808-2809]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 522

Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Flunixin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new
animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd.
The supplemental ANADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of
flunixin meglumine solution by intravenous injection in lactating dairy
cattle for control of pyrexia associated with acute bovine mastitis.

DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works,
Newry BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland, filed supplemental ANADA 200-308 that
provides for veterinary prescription use of Flunixin Injection
intravenously in lactating dairy cattle for control of pyrexia
associated with acute bovine mastitis. The supplemental ANADA is
approved as of December 19, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21
CFR 522.970 to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 522

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is
amended as follows:

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  522.970, revise paragraph (b)(2) and add paragraph (b)(4)
to read as follows:

Sec.  522.970  Flunixin.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) See Nos. 057561, 059130, and 061623 for use as in paragraphs
(e)(1), (e)(2)(i)(A), (e)(2)(ii)(A), and (e)(2)(iii), of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) See No. 055529 for use as in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of
this section.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 4, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-699 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24697-24698]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9640]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9346-2]

Access to Confidential Business Information by CGI Federal Inc.
and Its Identified Subcontractor, FedConcepts/Jorge

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, CGI Federal Inc. (CGI) of
Fairfax, VA and Its Identified Subcontractor, to access information
which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed
or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than May 2,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Pamela Moseley, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8956; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at
Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors
are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed
through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the
building and returned upon departure.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number GS-35F-4797H, Task Order Number EP-G11D-
00056, contractor CGI of 12601 Fair Lakes Circle, Fairfax, VA; and its
Identified Subcontractor, FedConcepts/Jorge of 2231 Crystal Drive,
Suite 400, Arlington, VA, will assist the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing support for two operations
security management areas:
    1. Security Technical Operations, including the operations and
maintenance of EPA's network security infrastructure devices and
    2. Operations Security Program Management, which covers security
operations oversight and monitoring, security management and reporting,
security assessment and consulting and security audits support for the
Wide Area Network (WAN) and the National Computer Center (NCC).
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number GS-35F-4797H, Task Order Number EP-G11D-00056, CGI
and Its Identified Subcontractor will require access to CBI submitted
to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties
specified under the contract. CGI and Its Identified Subcontractor's
personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under
all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or
determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide CGI and Its Identified
Subcontractor access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis
only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA
Headquarters and the Research Triangle Park facilities in accordance
with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until September
30, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue
for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    CGI and Its Identified Subcontractor's personnel will be required
to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate
security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Matthew G. Leopard,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2012-9640 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0156 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for Rubber Tire Manufacturing ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBB) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR 1158.08 9. Keywords Rubber tire, undertread cementing operation, sidewall cementing operation, bead cementing operation, green tire spraying operation.

10. Abstract Respondents are owners or operators of rubber tire manufacturing plants which includes each undertread cementing operation, each sidewall cementing operation, each tread end cementing operation, each bead cementing operation, each green tire spraying operation, each Michelin A operation, each Michelin B operation, and each Michelin C automatic operation. The standards require the submission of notification when conducting performance tests and during periods of excess emissions. Owners/ operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Annual and semiannual reports are also required.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. _ Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 41 b. Total annual responses 80 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 ________ % c. Total hours requested 13,323 d. Current OMB inventory 13,151 e. Difference 172 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 172 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 16 c. Total annualized cost requested 16 d. Current OMB inventory 17 e. Difference ( 1) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment ( 1)

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initially 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Maria Malave Phone: ( 202) 564 7027 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility,

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25044-25045]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0002-N-19]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice and comment request.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and renewed approval. The ICRs describe the information
collections and their expected burden. On March 14, 2017, FRA published
a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202)
493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop
35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone
numbers are not toll free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506,
3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On March 14, 2017, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 82 FR 13714. FRA
received no comments in response to the March 14, 2017 notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs and their expected burden.
FRA is submitting the renewal requests for clearance by OMB as the PRA
requires.
    Title: Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0545.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 239, Passenger Train Emergency
Preparedness, FRA requires railroads to

meet minimum Federal standards for the preparation, adoption, and
implementation of emergency preparedness plans connected with the
operation of passenger trains, including freight railroads hosting
operations of rail passenger service. To help ensure compliance with
the regulations, FRA requires railroads to conduct operational tests of
their personnel responsible for implementing the emergency preparedness
plans.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 69,670.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 21,470 hours.
    Title: Locomotive Cab Sanitation Standards.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0552.
    Abstract: FRA's locomotive cab sanitation standards, 49 CFR 229.137
and 229.139, prescribe minimum standards for locomotive cab sanitation
facilities. FRA uses the information collection associated with these
provisions to promote rail safety and the health of railroad workers by
ensuring that all locomotive crew members have access to functioning
and hygienic toilet/sanitary facilities as needed and to ensure
railroads timely repair defective locomotive sanitary facilities.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 113,256.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,272 hours.
    Title: Locomotive Crashworthiness.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0564.
    Abstract: FRA's Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements (49
CFR part 229, subpart D) prescribe minimum crashworthiness standards
for locomotives. These crashworthiness standards are intended to help
protect locomotive cab occupants in the event of a collision or other
accident involving a locomotive. FRA uses the information collection
associated with Subpart D to ensure railroads use locomotives that meet
the prescribed minimum performance standards and design load
requirements for newly manufactured and re-manufactured locomotives.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 501.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 6,470 hours.
    Title: Critical Incident Stress Plans.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0602.
    Abstract: FRA issued its Critical Incident Stress Plans Final Rule
(49 CFR part 272) on March 25, 2014. See 79 FR 16218. Part 272 requires
Class I, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads to develop, and
submit to FRA for approval, critical incident stress plans that, among
other things, provide appropriate support services be offered to their
employees who are affected by a critical incident as defined at 49 CFR
272.9. FRA uses the information collected to ensure railroads meet the
minimum standards of Part 272.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads)/Rail Labor Unions.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 663.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 314 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA
Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the
following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for DOT to properly perform
its functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of DOT's estimates of the burden of the proposed
information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collections of information on respondents, including the
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

John Seguin,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-11139 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 57617]
[DOCID:fr03oc08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 26, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG08-83-000.
    Applicants: Project Orange Associates, LLC.
    Description: Project Orange Associates, LLC submits its Amendment
to Exempt Wholesale Generator Notice adding of additional language to
Item 8 of ``Representations'' section of filing.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080819-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 03, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER08-340-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc request that the proposed
Tariff sheets become effective on or before 2/1/09, upon notice by SPP.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080924-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-895-002.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
affidavit of John P. Beck as a supplement to its prior response to
Inquiry 3(b) posed in the Notice of Deficiency that was issued on 6/24/
08.
    Filed Date: 09/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080926-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1549-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised pages to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff intended to implement a rate change for
Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power
Company etc.
    Filed Date: 09/17/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080919-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 08, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1567-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits the Generation
Interconnection Process Reform Tariff Amendment for its Wholesale
Distribution Access Tariff.
    Filed Date: 09/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080925-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1569-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to Schedule
1 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement as well as the
parallel provisions of the Appendix to Attachment K of the PJM Open
Access Transmission Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 09/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080926-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1570-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Engineering and Procurement
Agreement dated 8/27/08 between PacifiCorp and Eurus Combine Hills II
LLC to be designated as Service Agreement 507 under PacifiCorp's
Seventh Revised Volume 11 OATT.
    Filed Date: 09/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080926-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1571-000.
    Applicants: Bridgeport Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Bridgeport Energy II, LLC's emergency request for
limited waiver of forward capacity market rules and request for
expedited consideration and shortened notice period.
    Filed Date: 09/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080926-0136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 09, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23315 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5617-5618]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA 2015-0003]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on an information collection that will be expiring in
the summer of 2015. PHMSA will request an extension with no change for
the information collection titled ``Pipeline Safety: Periodic
Underwater Inspection and Notification of Abandoned Underwater
Pipelines'' identified by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
number 2137-0618.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
    E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of DOT, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: When you submit a comment on this notice to the
docket, identify the docket number, PHMSA-2015-0003, at the beginning
of your comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive confirmation of
receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard with the following

statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2015-0003.'' The Docket Clerk will date
stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal
offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an
alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of
submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at
DOT.
    Privacy Act Statement: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, PHMSA solicits comments from the public to better inform
its information collection process. PHMSA posts these comments, without
edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at
202-366-1319 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an
information collection request PHMSA will submit to OMB for renewal.
The following information is provided for each information collection:
(1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3)
Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the
information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public;
(7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and
(8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of
approval for each information collection activity. PHMSA requests
comments on the following information collections:
    1. Title: Pipeline Safety: Periodic Underwater Inspection and
Notification of Abandoned Underwater Pipelines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0618.
    Current Expiration Date: 8/31/2015.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: The Federal pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 192.612
and 195.413 require operators to conduct appropriate periodic
underwater inspections in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets. If an
operator discovers that its underwater pipeline is exposed or poses a
hazard to navigation, among other remedial actions such as marking and
reburial in some cases, the operator must contact the National Response
Center by telephone within 24 hours of discovery and report the
location of the exposed pipeline.
    PHMSA's regulations for reporting the abandonment of underwater
pipelines can be found at Sec. Sec.  192.727 and 195.59. These
provisions contain certain requirements for disconnecting and purging
abandoned pipelines and require operators to notify PHMSA of each
abandoned offshore pipeline facility or each abandoned onshore pipeline
facility that crosses over, under or through a commercially navigable
waterway.
    Affected Public: Operators of pipeline facilities (except master
meter operators).
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Estimated number of responses: 92.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 1,372.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections of
information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 27, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
John A. Gale,
Director, Office of Standards and Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-01838 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 63744-63747]
[DOCID:fr27oc08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58817; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Registered Representative Fee and an
Options Regulatory Fee

October 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 14, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by CBOE. 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to eliminate
registered representative fees and institute a new transaction-based
``Options Regulatory Fee.'' The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE 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
Background
    Registered representative fees (``RR Fees'') as well as other
regulatory fees collected by the Exchange are intended to cover a
portion of the cost of the Exchange's regulatory programs.\3\ The
Exchange has assessed RR Fees since 1990. Each CBOE member firm that
registers a financial advisor (or registered representative),
Registered Options Principal or Financial/Operations Principal is
assessed RR Fees based on the action associated with the registration.
There are annual fees as well as initial, transfer and termination
fees.\4\ Today all options exchanges, regardless of size, charge
similar registered representative fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition to RR Fees, CBOE derives revenue associated with
its regulatory programs from Designated Examining Authority
(``DEA'') Fees and Communication Review Fees. These fees are
discussed further below.
    \4\ See Section 12(A) of the CBOE Fees Schedule and CBOE Rule
2.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some member firms have raised concerns that the current self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') regulatory fee structure, in which
every options exchange charges similar fees to their member firms, does
not appear justified. Each RR Fee is a fixed amount of money a member
firm pays to the Exchange for each registered representative within the
firm. The Exchange believes that RR Fees are no longer the most
equitable manner to assess regulatory fees because today there are more
Internet and discount brokerage firms with few registered
representatives that pay little in RR Fees and fewer traditional
brokerage firms with many registered representatives. The regulatory
effort the Exchange expends to review the transactions of each type of
firm is not commensurate with the number of registered representatives
that each firm employs.
    In addition, due to the manner in which RR Fees are charged, it is
possible for a member firm to restructure its business to avoid paying
these fees altogether. A firm can avoid RR Fees by terminating its CBOE
membership and sending its business to the Exchange through another
member firm, even an affiliated firm that has many fewer registered
representatives. If member firms terminated their memberships to avoid
RR Fees, the Exchange would suffer the loss of a major source of
funding for its regulatory programs. The Exchange notes that one member
firm has already terminated its membership to avoid RR Fees. The
Exchange believes other firms will do the same unless the Exchange
changes it regulatory fee structure.
Options Regulatory Fee
    In order to address the concerns raised by member firms and to
avoid the possibility of losing significant regulatory fee revenue, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate RR Fees and replace them with a
transaction-based ``Options Regulatory Fee'' (``ORF''). The ORF would
be $.0045 per contract and would be assessed by the Exchange to each
member for all options transactions executed by the member that are
cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer
range (i.e., that clear in the customer account of the member's
clearing firm at OCC), excluding P/A Orders as defined in the Options
Intermarket Linkage Plan (``Linkage''). The ORF would be imposed upon
all such transactions executed by a member, even if such transactions
do not take place on the Exchange.\5\ The ORF would be collected

indirectly from members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf
of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ORF would apply to all ``B'', ``C'', and ``W'' account
origin code orders executed by a member on the Exchange. CBOE order
origin codes are defined in CBOE Regulatory Circular RG08-105.
Exchange rules require each member to record the appropriate account
origin code on all orders at the time of entry in order to allow the
Exchange to properly prioritize and route orders and assess
transaction fees pursuant to the rules of the Exchange and report
resulting transactions to the OCC. The Exchange represents that it
has surveillances in place to verify that members mark orders with
the correct account origin code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF would become effective on January 1, 2009, at which time RR
Fees would be eliminated. The ORF is designed to recover a portion of
the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its
members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange has set the ORF
at a rate that it anticipates will approximately replace the amount of
revenue that would be lost from the elimination of RR Fees.
    The ORF would not be charged for member options transactions
because members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are
not applicable to non-members.\6\ The dues and fees paid by members go
into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to
help pay the costs of regulation. Thus, the Exchange believes members
are already paying their fair share of the costs of regulation.\7\
Moreover, because the ORF would replace RR Fees, which relate to a
member's customer business, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, non-broker-dealer customers generally are not
charged transaction fees to trade equity options on the Exchange.
    \7\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to impose the ORF or a separate regulatory fee on members if
the Exchange deems it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange expects that member firms will pass-through the ORF to
their customers in the same manner that firms pass-through to their
customers the fees charged by SROs to help the SROs meet their
obligation under Section 31 of the Exchange Act.
    The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less
than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs. The total amount of
regulatory fees collected by the Exchange is significantly less than
the regulatory costs incurred by the Exchange on an annual basis. In
general, on a year over year basis, regulatory fee revenue (not
including regulatory fine revenue) only covers about 65% of the
Exchange's regulatory costs.
    RR Fees make up the largest part of the Exchange's total regulatory
fee revenue. The Exchange collects other regulatory revenues from DEA
Fees,\8\ and Communication Review Fees.\9\ The Exchange notes that its
regulatory responsibilities with respect to member compliance with
options sales practice rules have been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2
agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options sales
practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange assesses the DEA Fee to each firm for which the
SEC has designated the Exchange to be the DEA pursuant to SEC Rule
17d-1. The DEA Fee is intended to reimburse the Exchange for its
costs associated with examining member firms and is generally the
same throughout the SRO community. Currently the rate is set at
$0.40 per $1,000.00 of gross revenue for the firm. See Section 12(C)
of the CBOE Fees Schedule.
    \9\ Although the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') is the SRO that reviews most securities industry
advertisements and other communications, a number of firms still
prefer to have CBOE review their materials. These requests are
charged at $150 per regular occurrence (unless it involves extended
review, such as a book) and $1,000 for an expedited, two-day
turnaround. See Section 12(E) of the CBOE Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to
monitor regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on an annual basis.
If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs,
the Exchange would adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to
the Commission. The Exchange would notify members of adjustments to the
ORF via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitably allocated
because it would be charged to all members on all their customer
options business (as defined above). The Exchange believes the proposed
ORF is reasonable because it will raise revenue related to the amount
of customer options business conducted by members, and thus the amount
of Exchange regulatory services those members will require, instead of
how many registered persons a particular member firm employs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange expects that implementation of the proposed
ORF will result generally in many traditional brokerage firms paying
less regulatory fees while Internet and discount brokerage firms
will pay more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by its members and their associated
persons with the Exchange Act and the rules of the Exchange and to
surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants
(including non-members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot
effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating
activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market
surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate
activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position
limit violations, manipulation, insider trading, frontrunning, contrary
exercise advice violations and locked/crossed markets in connection
with the Linkage.\11\ Also, CBOE and the other options exchanges are
required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'')
system in order to surveil member activities across markets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2
agreement allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities
relating to compliance by their common members with rules for
expiring exercise declarations (formerly known as contrary exercise
advices). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56941 (December
11, 2007), 72 FR 71723 (December 18, 2007). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57649 (April 11, 2008), 73 FR 20976 (April
17, 2008) (approving an amendment which sought to add The Nasdaq
Stock Market, LLC as a participant to such agreement). The Exchange
and other options SROs have recently filed with the Commission an
amendment to this agreement to include the allocation of examination
responsibility with respect to options position limits. The Exchange
retains significant regulatory responsibilities under this
agreement. The Exchange notes within the last year it brought
charges against members in two separate cases relating to member
activity on CBOE as well as on another exchange. One case involved a
contrary exercise advice violation and the other a position limit
violation.
    \12\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct markets promptly,
effectively surveil them and enforce order handling, firm quote,
trade reporting and other rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues.\13\ Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance
Group (``ISG'') the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket

manipulation and trading abuses.\14\ The Exchange's participation in
ISG helps it to satisfy the Exchange Act requirement that it have
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Recently the Exchange, at the direction of the SEC, led a
sweep examination of member firms relating to compliance with
Regulation SHO that involved reviewing data with respect to members
of other exchanges and coordinating such reviews with other
exchanges. As a result of this examination, the Exchange has been
assisting FINRA with a Regulation SHO review of a firm for which the
Exchange is not the DEA.
    \14\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \15\ See Exchange Act Section 6(h)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share of
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets, then
members would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges would, of course, be free to impose a similar
fee on their member's activity, including the activity of those members
on CBOE.
    Finally, there is established precedent for an SRO charging a fee
across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee.\16\ While the
Exchange does not have all of the same regulatory responsibilities as
FINRA, the Exchange believes (as described above) that its broad
regulatory responsibilities with respect to its members' activities,
irrespective of where their transactions take place, supports a
regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other markets. Unlike the
TAF, the ORF would apply only to a member's customer options
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Related Rule Text Changes: In addition to being set forth in
Section 12 of the CBOE Fees Schedule, DEA Fees and RR Fees are also set
forth in CBOE Rules 2.22(a) and (b), respectively. The Exchange
proposes to delete paragraph (b) from Rule 2.22 to reflect the
elimination of RR Fees. The Exchange proposes to delete paragraph (a)
from Rule 2.22 relating to DEA Fees because the Exchange does not
believe it is necessary for those fees to be set forth in the rule
since they are included on the CBOE Fees Schedule. Also, as a
housekeeping matter, the Exchange proposes to delete Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 2.22 because it relates to charges imposed for
services rendered by Order Book Officials (``OBOs'') and the Exchange
no longer employs OBOs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\17\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \18\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the ORF is objectively allocated to CBOE members because it would
be charged to all members on all their transactions that clear as
customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures
fairness by assessing higher fees to those member firms that require
more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer
options business they conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the initial level of the fee is reasonable
because it relates to the recovery of the costs of supervising and
regulating members and it is expected to equal the Exchange's revenue
from RR Fees for 2007. The Exchange notes that the Commission has
addressed the funding of an SRO's regulatory operations in the Concept
Release Concerning Self-Regulation \19\ and the release on the Fair
Administration and Governance of Self-Regulatory Organizations.\20\ In
the Concept Release, the Commission states that: ``Given the inherent
tension between an SRO's role as a business and as a regulator, there
undoubtedly is a temptation for an SRO to fund the business side of its
operations at the expense of regulation.'' \21\ In order to address
this potential conflict, the Commission proposed in the Governance
Release rules that would require an SRO to direct monies collected from
regulatory fees, fines, or penalties exclusively to fund the regulatory
operations and other programs of the SRO related to its regulatory
responsibilities.\22\ The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate
revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other
regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's
regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that
regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the
Exchange's business side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release'').
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004) (``Governance Release'').
    \21\ Concept Release at 71268.
    \22\ Governance Release at 71142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \24\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-105 and should be submitted on or before
November 17, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25502 Filed 10-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11435-11437]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0148]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL. This action is necessary and
intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United
States immediately prior to, during, and after a bridge demolition.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 4, 2016
to 1 p.m. on March 10, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on February 29, 2016, or in
the event of inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances
enforcement will take place on an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to
March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0148 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<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
Pub. L. Public Law
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 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 because doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish a
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the
hazards associated with a bridge demolition being conducted on February
29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for
a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    On February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to
March 10, 2016 a bridge demolition will take place on the Grand Calumet
River at the junction with the Little Calumet River in Chicago, IL. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the bridge
demolition will pose a significant risk to public safety and property.
Such hazards include launched and falling debris.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of the public during a bridge demolition
on the Grand Calumet River at the junction with the Little Calumet
River. This safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on
February 29, 2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10,
2016. This zone will encompass all waters 1,500 feet in both directions
on the Little Calumet River from the junction of the Little Calumet
River and the Grand Calumet River.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan,
or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced on February 29, 2016 or an alternate date
from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Under
certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the
safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This
rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small
entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a
portion of the Little Calumet River on February 29, 2016 or an
alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 1
p.m.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Public Notice of Safety Zone so vessel owners and
operators can plan accordingly.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for a bridge
demolition on the Grand Calumet River at the junction with the Little
Calumet River, Chicago, IL. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0148 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0148  Safety Zone; Little Calumet River, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters 1,500 feet in both directions on the
Little Calumet River from the junction of the Little Calumet River and
the Grand Calumet River.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on February 29,
2016 or an alternate date from March 1, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from 8
a.m. to 1 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on
his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2016-04825 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P