[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22840-22841]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08932]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0091; FRL-9803-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; State Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) on January 11, 2013. The SIP revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for all criteria
pollutants of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in
relation to State Boards. In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Delaware SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0091 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0091, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0091. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; State Board Requirements,'' that is located in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: April 3, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-08932 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24676-24678]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09596]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77660; File No. SR-BOX-2016-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Extend the Pilot Program for the Listing and Trading of Options
Settling to the RealVolTM SPY Index (``Index'')

April 20, 2016.
    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 April 18, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC
(the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program for the listing
and trading of options settling to the RealVolTM SPY Index
(``Index''). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
period for the listing and trading of options settling to the
RealVolTM SPY Index (``Index''), which is currently
scheduled to expire on May 6, 2016.\3\ The Exchange is proposing to
extend the pilot period for an additional twelve (12) month period,
until May 6, 2017. This filing does not propose any substantive changes
to the listing and trading of options settling to the
RealVolTM SPY (``the RealVolTM SPY Pilot
Program'' or ``Pilot Program'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74876 (May 5, 2015),
80 FR 26966 (May 11, 2015) (Order Approving SR-BOX-2015-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the initial proposal to list and trade this product, the
Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, permanent
approval or termination of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit
a filing proposing such amendments to the program.\4\ Accordingly, the
Exchange is submitting this filing to extend the program, as the
Exchange has not yet begun to list or trade options settling to the
RealVolTM SPY Index, but plans to do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in the initial filing, the Exchange proposes to submit
a Pilot Program Report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot
Program (the ``annual report'').\5\ The annual report would contain an
analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The analysis
would examine trading in the proposed option product as well as trading
in SPY. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open
interest parameters, the annual report would provide analysis of index
price volatility and SPY trading activity. In addition to the annual
report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with periodic interim
reports while the pilot is in effect that would contain some, but not
all, of the information contained in the annual report. The annual
report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. The Exchange did not submit an annual report because the
Index was never listed for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual report would contain the following volume and open
interest data:
    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
    (2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
    (3) monthly volume for each individual series;
    (4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
    (5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration
date; and
    (6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
    In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the
Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1)
through (6) above periodically as required by the Commission while the
pilot is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a
confidential basis.
    In addition, the annual report would contain the following analysis
of trading patterns in VOLS series in the pilot:
    (1) A time series analysis of open interest; and
    (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes.
    Also, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual
report would contain the following analysis related to index price
changes and SPY trading volume at the close on expiration Fridays:
    (1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on
a given expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control
sample. The data would include a calculation of percentage price
changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the
respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as
percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market
volatility, as measured by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') Volatility Index (VIX), would be provided; and
    (2) a calculation of trading volume for a sample set of SPY
representing an upper limit on trading that could be attributable to
expiring in-the-money series. The data would include a comparison of
the calculated volume for SPY in the sample set to the average daily
trading volumes of SPY over a sample period.
    The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time
intervals, and sample periods would be determined by the Exchange and
the Commission.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes the proposed extension will further the Exchange's goal of
introducing new and innovative products to the marketplace. The
Exchange believes that listing the RealVolTM SPY Index will
provide an opportunity for investors to hedge, or speculate on, the
market risk associated with changes in realized volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the RealVolTM SPY
Index Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional
investors and retail investors, the potential to establish

greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed extension will allow for the listing and trading of a novel
index option product that will enhance competition among market
participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

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

    The Exchange has 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 proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period
and make the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing
because it will allow for the listing and trading of a previously
approved novel index option product that will enhance competition among
market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is non-controversial and would
not affect the protection of investors or the public interest and will
not impose any burden on competition as it only seeks to extend the
operation of a previously approved pilot program before it expires on
May 6, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2016-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-19. 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-BOX-2016-19, and should be
submitted on or before May 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09596 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56508-56511]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75915; File No. SR-BATS-2015-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

September 14, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 2, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule effective immediately, in order to: (i) Modify pricing
charged by the Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options'') including
for orders routed away from the Exchange and executed at various away
options exchanges; (ii) amend the thresholds related to meeting certain
pricing tiers and to increase the rebate associated with such tiers;
(iii) amend the fee for Customer \6\ orders that remove liquidity in
Penny Pilot Securities; \7\ and (iv) make two non-substantive clean up
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Customer range at the OCC, excluding any
transaction for a Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in
Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \7\ ``Penny Pilot Securities'' are those issues quoted pursuant
to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routing Fees
    The Exchange currently charges the following rates for orders
routed to certain other options exchanges: (i) Customer orders routed
to C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''), which yield the fee code
2C, are charged $0.47 per contract; (ii) non-Customer orders routed to
C2, which yield fee code 2F, are charged $0.95 per contract; (iii)
Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities routed to NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca''), which yield fee code AC, are charged $0.52 per contract;
and (iv) Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities routed to Nasdaq
Options Market LLC (``NOM''), which yield fee code QC, are charged
$0.52 per contract. In an effort to continue to offer routing services
to its Members at prices that approximate the cost to the Exchange,
BATS Options is proposing to amend those rates as follows: (i) The fee
for Customer orders routed to C2 and any Customer orders in Penny Pilot
Securities routed to Arca or NOM (fee codes 2C, AC, and QC,
respectively) would be increased to $0.70 per contract; and (ii) the
fee for non-Customer orders routed to C2 (fee code 2F) would be reduced
to $0.72 per contract.

    As noted previously and as set forth above, the Exchange's current
approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain
sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other
options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the
fees charged as compared to the costs of its routing services and
adjusts its routing fees and/or sub-categories to ensure that the
Exchange's fees do indeed result in a rough approximation of overall
Routing Costs, and are not significantly higher or lower in any area.
In performing this analysis, the Exchange has concluded that certain
orders that it was routing to other options exchanges were costing more
than it was charging, and in one case, were significantly less than it
was charging. As a result, and in order to avoid subsidizing routing to
away options exchanges and to continue providing quality routing
services, the Exchange proposes relatively modest increases and
adjustments to the charges assessed for the orders described above.
Tier Thresholds and Associated Rebate
    The Exchange currently offers enhanced rebates under both the Firm,
Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers
(which apply to fee code PF) and the Market Maker and Non-BATS Market
Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers (which apply to fee code PM) to
Members with trading activity on BATS Options that meets certain
thresholds. More specifically, in Tier 3 of each of these sets of
tiers, BATS Options offers enhanced rebates to orders that yield fee
code PF and PM ($0.43 and $0.42, respectively) for Members that: (i)
Have an ADAV \8\ in Firm,\9\ Broker Dealer,\10\ and Joint Back Office
\11\ orders in Penny Pilot Securities (yielding Fee Code PF) equal to
or greater than 0.35% of average TCV; and (ii) have an ADV \12\ equal
to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV.\13\ The Exchange is proposing
to amend the numerical thresholds associated with meeting these tiers
by lowering the threshold for requirement (i) from 0.35% to 0.25% and
increasing the threshold for requirement (ii) from 1.00% to 1.50%.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that an order yielding fee code
PF or PM will meet Tier 3 of the respective tiers where: (i) The Member
has an ADAV in Firm, Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office orders in
Penny Pilot Securities (yielding Fee Code PF) equal to or greater than
0.25% of average TCV; and (ii) the Member has an ADV equal to or
greater than 1.50% of average TCV. The Exchange is also proposing to
increase the rebates for meeting these tiers to $0.47 per contract for
fee code PF and PM, from $0.43 and $0.42 per contract, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts per day.
    \9\ ``Firm'' applies to any transaction identified by a Member
for clearing in the Firm range at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), excluding any Joint Back office transaction.
    \10\ ``Broker Dealer'' applies to any order for the account of a
broker dealer, including a foreign broker dealer, that clears in the
Customer range at the OCC.
    \11\ ``Joint Back Office'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Firm Range at the OCC that is
identified with an origin code as Joint Back Office. A Joint Back
Office participant is a Member that maintains a Joint Back Office
arrangement with a clearing broker-dealer.
    \12\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \13\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently charges $0.80 per contract for Customer
orders that remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the fee to $0.84 per contract. The
Exchange notes that the proposed fee is lower than the fees charged on
NOM for removing liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities ($0.85 per
contract) and is generally in line with the pricing at other options
exchanges.
Clean Up Changes
    Finally, the Exchange is also proposing to make two non-substantive
clean up changes to its fee schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to capitalize the ``O'' in ``Joint Back office'' as it
appears in the definition for ``Firm'' and to add a bullet in front of
the definition of ``Penny Pilot Securities'' in order to make the
formatting consistent with that of the other definitions in the fee
schedule.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule effectively immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes
that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees is fair, equitable
and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the
cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such exchanges and the
Exchange has concluded that certain orders that it was routing to other
options exchanges were costing more than it was charging, and in one
case, were costing significantly less than it was charging. Further to
this point, the Exchange notes that it is proposing to decrease fees
for non-Customer orders routed to C2. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed increases are fair, equitable and reasonable
because they will help the Exchange to avoid subsidizing routing to
away options exchanges and to continue providing quality routing
services. The Exchange believes that its fee structure for orders
routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing,
as it provides certainty with respect to execution fees at away options
exchanges. Under its straightforward fee structure, taking all costs to
the Exchange into account, the Exchange may operate at a slight gain or
slight loss for orders routed to and executed at away options
exchanges. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fees will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing routing
services to such exchanges. The Exchange notes that routing through the
Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange

also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and
executed at these away options exchanges is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
    The Exchange reiterates that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. Finally,
the Exchange notes that it constantly evaluates its routing fees,
including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in
connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would
consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the
extent it was recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to
away options exchanges.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to the fee
schedule related to the thresholds required to meet Tier 3 of both the
Firm, Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers
and the Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume
Tiers and the increased rebate of $0.47 per contract for achieving such
tiers is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will encourage
greater participation on BATS Options, which, as described above the
Exchange believes will result in higher levels of liquidity provision
and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery processes, which will benefit all participants on BATS
Options. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the reduction in the
threshold for a Member's ADAV in Penny Pilot Securities that yield fee
code PF from 0.35% of average TCV and the increased threshold for a
Member's ADV of average TCV from 1.00% to 1.50% combined with the
increased rebate for meeting the thresholds is a reasonable, fair and
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and
rebates because, in conjunction, they will provide Members with a
reasonably achievable threshold for receiving a greater rebate than
they do today while simultaneously encouraging and rewarding higher
levels of participation on the Exchange. By lowering the requirement
for Firm, Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office orders in Penny Pilot
securities, increasing the requirement for ADV as a percentage of TCV,
and increasing the rebate for achieving such tiers, the proposed
amendment will encourage greater general participation on the Exchange,
which will result in higher levels of liquidity provision and
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery processes, which will benefit all participants on BATS
Options.
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase of the standard fees
for Customer orders that remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities
(from $0.80 per contract to $0.84 per contract) is a reasonable, fair
and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and
rebates because the additional revenue generated through the increased
fees will allow the Exchange to continue to offer competitive pricing
and incentives for other types of orders, which will result in better
market quality for all participants. Further, as noted above, the
proposed standard fee is still lower than the standard fee offered by
NOM for of $0.85 per contract.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed non-substantive
changes to the definition of Firm and adding of the bullet to
definition of Penny Pilot Securities are reasonable, fair, and
equitable because they are designed to make the fee schedule easier to
read and understand. The Exchange notes that neither of the proposed
changes are designed to amend any fee or rebate, nor alter the manner
in which the Exchange assess fees and rebates. These non-substantive
changes to the fee schedule are intended to make the fee schedule
clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential
investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As it relates to the proposed
changes to routing fees, the proposed changes will assist the Exchange
in recouping costs for routing orders to other options exchanges on
behalf of its participants in a manner that is a better approximation
of actual costs than is currently in place and that reflects pricing
changes by various options exchanges as well as increases to other
Routing Costs incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that
Members may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to
avoid incurring routing fees.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BATS Rule 21.1(d)(8) (describing ``BATS Only'' orders
for BATS Options) and BATS Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the BATS
Options routing process, which requires orders to be designated as
available for routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to the thresholds in the Firm,
Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers and
the Market Maker and Non-BATS Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers
and the increased rebates associated therewith, the Exchange does not
believe that any such changes burden competition, but instead, that
they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the
competitiveness of and draw additional volume to BATS Options.
    Finally, with respect to the change in fees for Customer orders
that remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities, the Exchange does
not believe that such change burdens competition, but instead, that it
enhances competition as the proposed new pricing remains generally in
line with that of other options exchanges and would still be lower than
the per contract fee for an identical transaction that occurred on NOM.
    As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive
or providers of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be
excessive.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 \17\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the

Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-71. 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 will also 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-BATS-2015-71 and should be
submitted on or before October 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23399 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67459-67460]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0766]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Survey of ``Health Care Providers' Responses to
Medical Device Labeling''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on this proposed information collection
``Health Care Providers' Responses to Medical Device Labeling.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Survey of ``Health Care Providers' Responses to Medical Device
Labeling''--21 CFR Part 801 (OMB Control Number 0910-New)

    The purpose of this study is to determine the most effective device
labeling format and inform an FDA's regulatory approach on standardized
device labeling. Building upon the research methodology and success of
the approach FDA used to evaluate drug labeling, we propose to ask
health care providers (HCPs) to evaluate the quality of labeling (e.g.
instructions for use, directions) for a medical device and to report
the degree to which they could follow those instructions, how useful
the information is, and how well organized the information is. This
work will allow FDA to assess whether HCPs find the format and content
of device labeling clear, understandable, useful, and user-friendly.
Findings will provide evidence to inform FDA's regulatory approach to
standardizing medical device labeling across the United States.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
           Respondents               Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Interviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians......................               6               1               6               1               6
Advanced practice nurses (NPs)                 9               1               9               1               9
 and registered nurses..........
Medical technicians.............               9               1               9               1               9
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....................              24               1              24               1              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians......................             120               1             120              .5              60
Advanced practice nurses (NPs)               240               1             240              .5             120
 and registered nurses..........
Medical technicians.............             240               1             240              .5             120
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             324
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: October 26, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-28241 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87765-87766]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27828]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11610-01-OA]

Public Meetings of the Science Advisory Board Inorganic Arsenic
Review Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing two public meetings of the
Science Advisory Board Inorganic Arsenic Review Panel. The purpose of
the meetings is to receive a briefing from EPA, review and discuss
charge questions, listen to public comments and peer review the EPA's
draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic.

DATES:
    Public meetings: The Science Advisory Board Inorganic Arsenic
Review Panel will meet on the following dates. All times listed are in
Eastern Time.
    1. January 5, 2024, from 12 noon to 5 p.m.
    2. January 24-26, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Comments: See the section titled ``Procedures for providing public
input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions and deadlines.

ADDRESSES: The meeting on January 5, 2024, will be conducted virtually.
Please refer to the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov for information
on how to attend the meeting. The January 24-26, 2024, meeting will be
conducted in person and virtually at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel
Washington DC--Crystal City, located at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington,
Virginia, 22202. Please refer to the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov
for information on how to attend the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning this notice may contact Dr. Diana Wong,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at [email protected]. General information about the SAB, as
well as any updates concerning the meetings announced in this notice,
can be found on the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The SAB was established pursuant
to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide
independent scientific and technical advice to the EPA Administrator on
the scientific and technical basis for agency positions and
regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S. Code 10. The SAB will
comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office
procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby
given that the Science Advisory Board Inorganic Arsenic Review Panel
will hold two public meetings to review and discuss charge questions,
listen to agency presentations, listen to public comments and peer
review the EPA's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic.
    Availability of meeting materials: All meeting materials, including
the agendas, will be available on the SAB web page at https://sab.epa.gov.
    Procedures for providing public input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide

independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit
relevant comments pertaining to the committee's charge or meeting
materials. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact
if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis
for the SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of
the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide
comments should follow the instruction below to submit comments.
    Oral statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a meeting conducted virtually will be limited to
three minutes, and individuals or groups requesting an oral
presentation at an in-person meeting will be limited to five minutes.
Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written
comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented
orally can be expanded upon in writing. Persons interested in providing
oral statements should contact the DFO, in writing (preferably via
email) at the contact information noted above by December 29, 2023, for
the January 5, 2024, meeting; by January 17, 2024, for the January 24-
26, 2024, meeting to be placed on the list of registered speakers.
    Written statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by SAB members,
statements should be submitted to the DFO by December 29, 2023, for
consideration at the January 5, 2024, meeting, and January 17, 2024,
for consideration at the January 24-26, 2024 meeting. Written
statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information
above via email. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned
version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should
be aware that their personal contact information if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without the explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO, at the contact
information noted above, preferably at least ten days before the
meetings, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

V Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-27828 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9383-9384]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3554]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63887; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-015]

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

February 10, 2011.
    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 February 1, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to extend the CFLEX
Surcharge Fee cap to all orders. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's principal office, 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
    On November 15, 2007, the Commission approved Exchange rules that
provide for the trading of Flexible Exchange (``FLEX'') options on the
Exchange's new FLEX Hybrid Trading System (``CFLEX'').\3\ CFLEX is a
trading platform that incorporates both open outcry and electronic
trading functionality. On November 20, 2007, the Exchange filed an
amendment to the Exchange Fees Schedule to establish a $.10 per
contract surcharge fee on all orders (i.e., applicable to all origin
codes) executed electronically on the CFLEX system (``CFLEX Surcharge
Fee'').\4\ Pursuant to that filing, the CFLEX Surcharge Fee is
currently charged up to the first 2,500 contracts per trade for public
customers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56792 (November 15,
2007), 72 FR 65776 (SR-CBOE-2006-99).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56852 (November 28,
2007), 72 FR 68226 (December 4, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-139).
    \5\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 5 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to the Fees Schedule would extend the cap on
the CFLEX Surcharge Fee to all orders. The CFLEX Surcharge Fee would be
charged up to the first 2,500 contracts per trade, regardless of the
order type. The purpose of the proposed fee change is to encourage more
use of the CFLEX system.
    The proposed change is scheduled to take effect on February 1,
2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\6\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE
Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities. The
proposed rule change, by extending the cap on the CFLEX Surcharge Fee
to all order types, would provide for lower fees for all market
participants trading on the CFLEX system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 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-2011-015 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-2011-015. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the 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-2011-015 and should be
submitted on or before March 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3554 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 17105]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0078]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards; Rotel North American
Tours, LLC; Application for Renewal of Exemption; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA corrects two notices published in the Federal Register
on January 31, 2012, and June 14, 2010. In each instance, FMCSA
announced in error that 22 named drivers being renewed for an exemption
were employed by Rotel North American Tours, LLC. This notice corrects
the error and provides the correct name of the employer for these
drivers, Rotel Tours of Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA published a notice and request for
comments in the Federal Register on January 31, 2012 (77 FR 4881), and
June 14, 2010 (75 FR 33661), announcing that Rotel North American
Tours, LLC (Rotel) had applied for renewal of its current exemption
permitting 22 named drivers, employed by Rotel, possessing German CDLs,
to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States
without a CDL issued by one of the States. The 22 drivers named are
actually employed by Rotel Tours of Germany (currently, Rotel Tours,
Das Rollende Hotel, through Georg Hoeltl GmBh & Co.Kg, Tittling, or
George Hoeltl GmbH, Tittling), of which Rotel North American Tours,
LLC, is an affiliate and not the employer. The driver-employees of
Rotel Tours of Germany are utilized by Rotel North American Tours, LLC,
which conducts international tours.
    For FMCSA's notice of application for renewal of exemption
published on January 31, 2012 (77 FR 4881), the following correction is
made:
    On page 4881, in the third column, Summary section, we correct the
first sentence ``FMCSA announces that Rotel North American Tours, LLC
(Rotel), has applied for renewal of its current exemption permitting 22
named drivers, employed by Rotel and possessing German CDLs, to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States without a CDL
issued by one of the States,'' to read ``FMCSA announces that Rotel
North American Tours, LLC (Rotel), has applied for renewal of its
current exemption permitting 22 named drivers, employed by Rotel Tours
of Germany (currently, Rotel Tours, Das Rollende Hotel, through Georg
Hoeltl GmBh & Co.Kg, Tittling, or George Hoeltl GmbH, Tittling) and
possessing German CDLs, to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
the United States without a CDL issued by one of the States.''
    For FMCSA's notice of application for renewal of exemption
published on June 14, 2010 (FR 75 33661), the following correction is
made:
    On page 33661, in the first column, Summary section, we correct the
first sentence ``FMCSA announces that Rotel North American Tours, LLC
(Rotel), has applied for renewal of its current exemption permitting 22
named drivers, employed by Rotel and possessing German CDLs, to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States without a CDL
issued by one of the States,'' to read ``FMCSA announces that Rotel
North American Tours, LLC (Rotel), has applied for renewal of its
current exemption permitting 22 named drivers, employed by Rotel Tours
of Germany (currently, Rotel Tours, Das Rollende Hotel, through Georg
Hoeltl GmBh & Co.Kg, Tittling, or George Hoeltl GmbH, Tittling) and
possessing German CDLs, to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
the United States without a CDL issued by one of the States.''

    Issued on: March 13, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7123 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8601-8602]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0042]

Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are requesting your comments on the planned consolidation
of redundant Coast Guard boat stations. Many stations were established
at a time when boats lacked engines and were powered by oars and
paddles. With modern boat operating speeds and improved direction
finding technology, many calls for Coast Guard assistance can be
responded to by multiple units significantly faster than when these
boat stations were first established. The combination of significantly
improved response times, along with an overall reduction in rescue
calls due to boating safety improvements throughout the nation, has
resulted in a number of boat stations becoming redundant. This
consolidation will result in a more robust response system by
increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat stations.
Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities for boat
operators to properly train instead of missing training opportunities
while standing ready to respond to calls that do not come.

DATES: Written comments and related material may be submitted to the
Coast Guard personnel specified. Your comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0042 using the Federal rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
please call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces,
202-372-2463<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security

II. Background and Purpose

    In October of 2017, the Government Accountability Office issued
report GAO-18-9, titled ``Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified
as Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative.'' This GAO report
recommended the consolidation of eighteen boat stations. Due to
environmental and operational factors, the Coast Guard is not
considering all eighteen boat stations identified in the GAO report for
consolidation. Instead, we anticipate consolidating five stations, with
implementation notionally scheduled for fiscal year 2021. These
stations have been identified because there are other units nearby
capable of responding to cases in these areas, and because these five
stations respond to a low number of cases. We do not anticipate any
adverse effect on Coast Guard response capability. We expect an
improvement to the proficiency of boat operators as well as a less
complicated response system.

III. Discussion

    Station Oxford and Stations-Small Fishers Island, Shark River,
Roosevelt Inlet, and Salem have been identified for consolidation with
neighboring stations.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. In your submission, please include the docket number for
this notice and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions.

    Dated: February 11, 2020.
Matthew W. Sibley,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Capability.
[FR Doc. 2020-03079 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 47)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10692-10694]
[DOCID:fr12mr09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1175]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pamunkey River, West Point, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/30), at mile 1.0, across
Pamunkey River at West Point, Virginia. This proposal would allow the
bridge to open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. This
proposal would provide for the reasonable needs of navigation, due to
the anticipated infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the
drawbridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-1175 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-1175), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone

number 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 Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. 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. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-1175)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal
Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA<PHONE_NUMBER>
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for
the operation of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/30), at mile 1.0, across
Pamunkey River at West Point, VA. VDOT requested advance notification
for vessel openings due to the infrequency of requests for vessel
openings of the drawbridge.
    The new Eltham bascule bridge has recently been completed and is
located immediately adjacent and downstream from the former structure.
The new bridge provides an additional 45 feet of vertical clearance
over the navigable channel. The increase in vertical clearance has
eliminated the need to open on demand for all existing commercial
traffic and it is anticipated that there will be very few requests
other than for scheduled monthly maintenance openings.
    The existing operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.1023,
which requires the draw to open on signal, except that the bridge need
not open for commercial crabbing and fishing vessels and recreational
vessels on Mondays through Fridays, except Federal holidays, from 7
a.m. to 9 a.m., 12 noon to 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., at all other
times, the bridge will open for these vessels only on the hour, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; and Public vessels of the
United States must pass at anytime.
    Bridge opening data, supplied by VDOT, revealed a significant
decrease in yearly openings. In the past three years from 2005 to 2007,
the bridge opened for vessels 593, 415 and 187 times, respectively. Due
to the anticipated infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the
drawbridge, VDOT requested to change the current operating regulation
by requiring the draw of the bridge to open on signal if at least four
hours notice is given year-round.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.1023, by revising the
paragraph to read that the draw of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/30) mile 1.0
located in West Point, VA, shall open on signal if at least four hours
notice is given at all times.
    The surplus language currently stated in 33 CFR 117.1023(b) would
be removed to be consistent with the general operating regulations
under 33 CFR 117.31. The Coast Guard intends to delete the phrase
``Public vessels of the United States must pass at anytime''. This
requirement is currently published in 33 CFR 117.31(b) and is no longer
required to be published in each specific bridge regulation.
    These changes are proposed due to the anticipated infrequency of
requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed
changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the proposed
scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels
needing to transit the bridge who can not clear the bridge at its
closed position.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who
plan their transits in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge
openings can minimize delay.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e), of the Instruction because
it simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

    2. Revise Sec.  117.1023 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1023  Pamunkey River.

    The draw of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/30) mile 1.0, located in West
Point, Virginia shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is
given at all times.

    Dated: February 19, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E9-5405 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P