[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80871-80875]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27395]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90604; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend its Fees Schedule

December 8, 2020.
    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 December 3, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') by amending (1) Retail
Volume Tiers, (2) modifying Fee Codes EA and ER and (3) eliminating
unused fee codes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
December 1, 2020 (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-059). On December 3, 2020, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first 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 at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays credits to members that provide liquidity and assesses
fees to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets
forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders
priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of
$0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity, assesses a standard
fee of $0.00270 per share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses
a standard fee of $0.0030 for orders that are routed. For orders priced
below $1.00, the Exchange a standard rebate of $0.00009 per share for
orders that add liquidity, assesses a fee of 0.30% of Dollar Value for
orders that remove liquidity and for orders that are routed.
Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange
also offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to
qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental
incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (November 27, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Volume Tiers
    Pursuant to footnote 3 of the fee schedule, the Exchange currently
offers Retail Volume Tiers which provide Retail Member Organizations
(``RMOs'') \5\ an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate from the
standard rebate for Retail Orders \6\ that add liquidity (i.e.,
yielding fee code ``ZA'' \7\). Currently, the Retail Volume Tiers offer
three levels of criteria difficulty and incentive opportunities in
which RMOs may qualify for enhanced rebates for Retail Orders. The tier
structure is designed to encourage RMOs to increase their order flow in
order to receive an enhanced rebate on their liquidity adding orders,
and the Exchange now proposes to amend existing Retail Volume Tiers 1,
2 and 3. The current Retail Volume Tiers are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Retail Member Organization'' or ``RMO'' is a Member (or
a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under
this Rule to submit Retail Orders. See EDGX Rule 11.21(a)(1).
    \6\ A ``Retail Order'' is an agency or riskless principal order
that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the
order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See EDGX Rule 11.21(a)(2).
    \7\ Appended to Retail Orders that add liquidity to EDGX and
offered a rebate of $0.0032 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 1 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0034 for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) where

a Member adds a Retail Order ADV \8\ (i.e., yielding fee code ZA)
greater than or equal to 0.35% of the TCV.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
    \9\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 2 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0037 for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) where a Member
(1) has a Retail Step-Up Add TCV \10\ (i.e. yielding fee code ZA) from
May 2020 greater than or equal to 0.10% and (2) removes a Retail Order
ADV (i.e., yielding fee code ZR) greater than or equal to 0.15% of the
TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of TCV in
the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a
percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 3 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0036 for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) where a Member
adds a Retail Order ADV (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) greater than or
equal to 0.60% of the TCV.
    The Exchange proposes to update the criteria in Retail Volume Tier
2, adopt new Retail Volume Tier 4 and renumber Retail Volume Tiers 2
and 3. First, the Exchange proposes to ease the criteria under Retail
Volume Tier 2. Particularly, to meet the proposed criteria in Tier 2 a
Member must continue to satisfy the first prong of Retail Volume Tier 2
but also remove an ADV greater than or equal to 0.70% of the TCV
(instead of removing Retail Order ADV greater than or equal to 0.15%).
The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Retail Volume Tier 4 which
would provide a rebate of $0.0037 per share where a Member (1) has a
Retail Step-Up Add TCV \11\ (i.e. yielding fee code ZA) from July 2020
greater than or equal to 0.05% and (2) adds a Retail Order ADV (i.e.,
yielding fee code ZA) greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV. The
Exchange also proposes to switch the order of current Retail Volume
Tiers 2 and 3 such that Retail Volume Tier 2 becomes Retail Volume Tier
3 and Retail Volume Tier 3 becomes Retail Volume Tier 2. The proposed
change would provide that the Retail Volume Tiers would be in ascending
order with respect to the available rebates, which the Exchange
believes would alleviate potential confusion and make the table easier
for market participants to follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of TCV in
the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a
percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes Retail Volume Tier 2, as modified, continues to
be available to all RMOs and provide RMOs an opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate. Moreover, the proposed change to Retail Volume Tier 2
and the proposed new Retail Volume Tier 4 are both designed to
encourage RMOs to increase retail order flow on the Exchange, which
further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even
more execution opportunities for active market participants at improved
prices.
Fee Codes EA and ER
    The Exchange proposes to amend fee codes EA and ER which are
appended to Internalized Trades. An Internalized Trade is a trade where
the two orders inadvertently match against each other and share the
same Market Participant Identifier (``MPID''). Fee code EA is appended
to the side of an Internalized Trade that adds liquidity, while fee
code ER is appended to the side of an Internalized Trade that removes
liquidity. Orders that yield fee codes EA or ER are currently charged a
fee of $0.00050 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and
0.15% of the dollar value of the trade in securities priced below
$1.00. The Exchange proposes to provide that both fee codes apply to
Displayed orders only. The proposed rule change would allow Non-
Displayed orders that inadvertently match against each other and share
the same MPID to be eligible to receive better prices, including
rebates applicable to Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Cboe EDGX Equities Fees Schedule, Fee Code HA
which provides Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity a rebate of
$0.00100 and Footnote 1 which provides for 3 incentive tiers
applicable to Non-Displayed Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Certain Routing Fee Codes
    The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to
various exchanges. The Exchange proposes to eliminate several routing-
related fee codes that have been unused for several years.
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the following fee
codes:
     Fee Code 9, which is appended to orders routed to NYSE
Arca and adds liquidity (Tapes A or C) and provides a rebate of
$0.00210 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and are free
for securities priced below $1.00;
     Fee Code NB, which is appended to orders routed to any
exchange not covered by Fee Code NA and adds non-displayed liquidity
and assesses a fee of $0.00300 per share for securities priced at or
above $1.00 and a fee of 0.30% of dollar value for securities priced
below $1.00;
     Fee Code R, which is appended to orders re-routed by NYSE
and assesses a fee of 0.00300 per share for securities priced at or
above $1.00 and a fee of 0.30% of dollar value for securities priced
below $1.00;
     Fee Code RA, which is appended to orders re-routed to EDGA
and adds liquidity and assess a fee of 0.00300 per share for securities
priced at or above $1.00 and are free for securities priced below
$1.00; and
     Fee Code RB, which is appended to orders routed to BX and
adds liquidity and assess a fee of 0.00200 per share for securities
priced at or above $1.00 and are free for securities priced below
$1.00.
    As noted, above the Exchange has observed no volume in recent years
in orders yielding fee codes 9, NB, R, RA and RB. The Exchange believes
that because no Members elect to route their orders that yield these
fee codes, the current demand (or lack thereof) does not warrant the
infrastructure and ongoing Systems maintenance required to support
separate fee codes specifically applicable to these types of
transactions. Therefore, the Exchange now proposes to delete fee codes
9, NB, R, RA and RB in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that
Members will continue to be able to choose to route their orders to any
exchange covered by these fee codes and such orders will be
automatically and uniformly assessed the current fees (or rebates) in
place for routed orders, as applicable (e.g., the standard fees applied
to routed orders, which yields fee code X).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes
reflect a competitive pricing structure

designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow
to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market
quality to the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to Retail
Volume Tier 2 (to be renumbered to Retail Volume Tier 3) are reasonable
because the tier, as modified, continues to be available to all RMOs
and provides RMOs an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate using
less stringent criteria. Similarly, the Exchange believes Retail Volume
Tier 4 provides an additional opportunity for RMOs to receive an
enhanced rebate if they meet the proposed criteria. The Exchange next
notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been
widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members (and RMOs as applicable) on an equal basis and provide
additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the
value to an exchange's market quality and (ii) associated higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several equity
venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small percentage of the overall market. It is also only
one of several maker-taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer
similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including
schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving
certain volume thresholds. These competing pricing schedules, moreover,
are presently comparable to those that the Exchange provides, including
the pricing of comparable tiers.
    The Exchange also believes that the current enhanced rebates under
Retail Volume Tier 2, along with the proposed new rebate under Retail
Volume Tier 4 are commensurate with the proposed criteria. That is,
these rebates reasonably reflect the difficulty in achieving the
corresponding criteria as amended.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal relating to the Retail
Volume Tiers also represents an equitable allocation of rebates and is
not unfairly discriminatory because all RMOs will continue to be
eligible for each Retail Volume Tier. The proposed changes are designed
as an incentive to any and all RMOs interested in meeting the tier
criteria, as amended to submit additional adding and/or removing, or
Retail, order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that greater add
volume order flow provides for deeper, more liquid markets and
execution opportunities, and greater remove volume order flow increases
transactions on the Exchange, which incentivizes liquidity providers to
submit additional liquidity and execution opportunities, thus,
providing an overall increase in price discovery and transparency on
the Exchange. Also, an increase in Retail Order flow, which orders are
generally submitted in smaller sizes, tends to attract Market-Makers,
as smaller size orders are easier to hedge. Increased Market-Maker
activity facilitates tighter spreads, signaling an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
which contributes towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. The Exchange also notes all RMOs will continue to have the
opportunity to submit the requisite order flow and will receive the
applicable enhanced rebate if the tier criteria is met. The Exchange
additionally notes that while the Retail Volume Tiers are applicable
only to RMOs, the Exchange does not believe this application is
discriminatory as the Exchange offers similar rebates to non-RMO order
flow.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Such as the other Add/Remove Volume Tiers under Footnote 1
of the EDGX Fees Schedule which provide opportunities to all Members
to submit the requisite order flow to receive an enhanced rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would definitely result in any RMOs qualifying for the proposed
amended tier. The Exchange notes that most recently, one Member
satisfied Retail Volume Tier 2. While the Exchange has no way of
predicting with certainty how the proposed tier will impact Member
activity, the Exchange anticipates that at least one Member will be
able to satisfy Retail Volume Tier 2 (as amended). The Exchange also
anticipates that approximately two Members will be able to satisfy new
Retail Volume Tier 4. The Exchange also notes that the proposed amended
tiers will not adversely impact any RMO's ability to qualify for other
rebate tiers. Rather, should an RMO not meet the criteria for Retail
Volume Tier 2, as amended, or Retail Volume Tier 4 as proposed, the RMO
will merely not receive the corresponding proposed enhanced rebate.
Furthermore, the rebates under each Retail Volume Tiers would uniformly
apply to all RMOs that meet the required criteria.
    The Exchange believes renumbering Retail Volume Tiers 2 and 3 will
eliminate potential confusion and make the Fees Schedule easier to read
by organizing the Retail Volume Tier program in ascending order with
respect to available rebates.
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to exclude non-displayed
orders from Fee Codes EA and ER as such orders would then be eligible
to receive better prices, including rebates applicable to Non-Displayed
orders that add liquidity.\16\ The Exchange notes that other exchanges
do not require Non-Displayed orders that match against each other and
share the same MPID to be subject to specific internalization fees, but
rather are treated the same as other non-displayed transactions.\17\
The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies equally to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., Cboe EDGX Equities Fees Schedule, Fee Code HA
which provides Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity a rebate of
$0.00100 and Footnote 1 which provides for 3 incentive tiers
applicable to Non-Displayed Orders.
    \17\ See e.g., Cboe BZX Equities Fees Schedule, Cboe BYX
Equities Fees Schedule and Cboe EDGA Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to remove fee
codes 9, NB, R, RA and RB is reasonable as the Exchange has observed no
volume in orders yielding these fee codes and, therefore, the Exchange
believes the proposed change will have a de minimis impact.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that infrastructure and ongoing
Systems maintenance required to support separate fee codes specifically
applicable to these types of routed orders is not warranted or
necessary in light of the fact that it has not received any recent
volume yielding these fee codes. As noted above, to the extent volume
for transactions currently covered by these fee codes ever increases,
such orders will be automatically and uniformly assessed the current
fees (or rebates) in place for routed orders, as applicable (e.g., the
standard fees applied to routed orders, which yield fee code X).
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the fee
codes is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies
equally to all members that use the Exchange to route orders. If

members do not favor the Exchange's pricing for routed orders, they can
send their routable orders directly to away markets instead of using
routing functionality provided by the Exchange. Routing through the
Exchange is voluntary, and the Exchange operates in a competitive
environment where market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues or providers of routing services if they deem fee
levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution
opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change
furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
changes to the Retail Volume Tier program apply to all RMOs equally in
that all RMOs are eligible for those tiers, have a reasonable
opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced
rebates if such criteria are met. Additionally, the proposed tiers are
designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the updated tier criteria would incentivize market
participants to direct liquidity adding and/or removing order flow to
the Exchange, bringing with it additional execution opportunities for
market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall
order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits
all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. Additionally, the
proposed change to fee codes EA, ER and the proposal to remove unused
routing-related fee codes apply equally to all Members.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 15 other equities exchanges and
off-exchange venues and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 16% of the market share. Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' The fact that this market is competitive has also long
been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes 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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeEDGX-2020-060 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-CboeEDGX-2020-060. 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 website (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 website 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 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-060 and should be
submitted on or before January 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27395 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57677]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-10566A; 34-84325A; 39-2522A; IC-33261A]

Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in
the Federal Register of November 5, 2018 adopting revisions to the
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (``EDGAR'')
Filer Manual and related rules. There was a mistake in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

DATES: Effective November 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Windsor, EDGAR Business
Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2018-24128 appearing on page
55264 in the Federal Register of Monday, November 5, 2018, the
following corrections are made:

Correction

    On page 55264, in the 20th line of the third column, the phrase
``(Version 32)'' is corrected to read ``(Version 31)''.

    Dated: November 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25005 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 109001 DP Code: D290003 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 2003 SUBJECT: Comments to 60 Day Response by Registrant to the EFED Reregistration Elegibility Decision Chapter of Oxadiazon TO: Mark J. Seaton, Ph. D., Chemical Review Manager Margaret Rice, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch II Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

FROM: Faruque A. Khan, Ph. D., Environmental Scientist Miachel Rexrode, Ph. D., Fishery Biologist José Luis Meléndez, Chemist Environmental Fate and Effects Division THROUGH: Mah T. Shamim, Ph. D., Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division The registrant of oxadiazon, Bayer Environmental Science, submitted a 60 Day Response to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects ( EFED) Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Elegibility Decision of Oxadiazon. The registrant presented the following comments:

Comment: The registrant's new name is Bayer Environmental Science. Response: All references to " Aventis" or " Aventis Environmental Science" will be changed to " Bayer" or " Bayer Environmental Science."

Comment: The Tier II Aquatic Plant Testing ( 123 2) has been met by submission of MRID# 41610108 and 41610105. Response: EFED agrees, the requirement does not apply. The EFED Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision of Oxadiazon will be revised accordingly.

Comment: EFED required Acute and Chronic Sediment Toxicity Testing for oxadiazon ( similar comments appear in the cover memo, and in Appendix G). The registrant believes that the requirement may not be applicable for this chemical. Response: Oxadiazon is a persistent, lipophilic compound that has a strong capacity to bind to particulate and organic carbon in the water column. This combination of chemical/ physical attributes and the relatively 2 high toxicity profile to fish and invertebrates suggest concern for accumulation in the sediments. Since sediments can act as a repository for lipophilic compounds, there can be direct impact to aquatic organisms through respiration, ingestion, dermal contact, and/ or indirect impact through alterations of the food chain. According to monitoring that has been conducted on aquatic ecosystems in suburban watersheds, one of the chemicals most frequently detected in water ( low ppt) and sediment ( low ppb) was oxadiazon ( Armbrust et. al., 2003). Both liquid and granular formulations labels of oxadiazon specify that the chemical's effectiveness is improved if it is wetted in after application. Furthermore, both labels recommend mowing the grass prior to application. Although the turf could present a barrier towards erosion, it also appears that oxadiazon can quickly runoff during the period after the application, but thereafter, the chemical could reach soil surfaces or be intercepted by the foliage. The exact mechanism of runoff for oxadiazon from a turf site to an adjacent body of water can show variation with time. While oxadiazon is expected to bind to soil particles, the turf scenarios offer vegetation interception. EFED believes that the sediment testing outlined in the RED is consistent with Division policy and is still a requirement.

Comment: EFED required a phototoxicity study on fathead minnow because oxadiazon is a LDPH, which could be the cause of enhanced toxicity in the presence of solar radiation. The registrant objects to this requirement. Similar comments appear in the cover memo, and Chapter 3 of the document. Response: Enhanced toxicity of oxadiazon to aquatic organisms after light exposure is an uncertainty. The inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase, the rapid accumulation of protoporphyrin IX with the resulting generation of singlet oxygen ( free radicals) and eventual cell membrane destruction suggest that exposure to this compound may increase toxicity to aquatic organisms. This issue was evaluated by EFED's Aquatic Biology Tech Team ( ABTT) with recommendations that phototoxicity studies be conducted on " herbicides with this mode of action to determine if animals exposed to LDPHs and intense light ( similar to sunlight) show increased toxicity relative to controls exposed to LDPHs and low intensity light. The results of these studies will help to determine if animals that are exposed to sunlight in LDPH use areas are at higher risk than guideline toxicity studies suggest".

The ABTT has requested that a LDPH phototoxicity protocol be submitted for review by the registrants for evaluation by EFED prior to study initiation since fish and other aquatic organisms are expected to be exposed to LDPHs through run off. Aquatic organisms inhabiting small, shallow water bodies, exposed to high levels of solar radiation would be expected to be at greatest risk for potential phototoxic effects. Therefore, the ABTT is requesting a small fish species be used in a phototoxicity assay to assess the potential of light enhanced LDPH toxicity.

The ABTT requests that the study adequately address the following issues and suggests the paper, " Photoenhanced Toxicity of a Carbamate Insecticide to Early Life Stage Anuran Amphibians", and other studies in the peer reviewed scientific literature serve as sources of additional guidance:

Species The fathead minnow may be an appropriate test species because of existing toxicity protocols which may be adapted for this study.

Exposure Duration A subchronic exposure duration would be adequate for proof of principle. A single exposure may not allow adequate time for porphyrin accumulation, however, a life cycle is not necessary to identify a phototoxic effect. 3 Dosing A range finding study should be conducted under defined low light conditions to identify an LC50 value and lower dose levels expected to be similar to controls. Doses used in the phototoxicity study should not be expected to result in significant mortality in low light controls. Dissolved concentrations of the test chemical should be confirmed by an appropriate analytical method.

Endpoints Behavioral observations should be made in addition to measurements of mortality, growth, weight, morphology, and appearance. Ideally, measurements of protoporphyrin and heme concentrations in the blood and protox activity in the liver of each test organisms should be made.

Light sources Artificial light may be preferred to natural light that will vary in different regions and seasons as well as with weather. If artificial light is used, the light should resemble full, natural sunlight as closely as possible, particularly around 400 nm. The most important wavelength for porphyrin induced phototoxicity in ~ 400 nm. No matter what the light source, the duration and intensity of UV and visible light should be reported at all wavelengths ( 200 800 nm). At this point EFED does not have a specific recommendation for an artificial light source.

Dark, Light, and Positive Controls As this study is intended to identify potential effects of light on LDPH toxicity, an appropriate study protocol should include a dark, or low light, control group. Another group not exposed to chemicals but exposed to full light should be included ( a full light control). In addition to the dark and light controls, a positive control group using protoporphyrin IX may be useful.

Exposure Chambers and Light Filters Light intensity should be measured inside test chambers if glass or any other material is placed between the light source and the test animals. Any filters should be cured under the study light for 72 hours prior to study initiation to ensure consistent transmittance.

References:

1 Matringe, M., J. M. Camadro, P. Labbe, and R. Scalla. 1989. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase as a molecular target for diphenyl ether herbicides. Biochem. J. 260: 231 235.

2 Birchfield, N. B., and J. E. Casida. 1997. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase of mouse and maize: Target site selectivity and thiol effects on peroxidizing herbicide action. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 57, 36 43.

3 Halling, B. P., D. A. Yuhas, V. F. Fingar, and J. W. Winkleman. 1994. " Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors for tumor therapy" in Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications, ( S. O. Duke and C. A. Rebeiz, Eds.) pp. 280 290, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 559, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, D. C., 1994.

4 Birchfield, N. B. Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase as a Herbicide Target: Characterization of the [ 3 H] Desmethylflumipropyn Binding Site. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 1996.

5 American Society for Testing and Materials. 1994. Standard guide for conducting the frog embryo 4 teratogenesis assay Xenopus. E 1439 91. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.5, pp. 825 835. Philadelphia, PA.

Comment: Environmental Risk Conclusions. d. Likelihood of Water Contamination: " The turf itself offers a vegetative interception layer ( including thatch), that prevents rapid deposition of the oxadiazon on the surface of the soil." Chapter 2: Introduction. b. Use Characterization: " Since efficacy ( pre emergent control is based on oxadiazon reaching and remaining in the soil, product labels may specify to mow, if necessary, before application, and to irrigate, if rain is not expected shortly." Chapter 4: Environmental Fate and Transport Assessment. Section: Fate and Transport Processes  Summary: " Thus, oxadiazon can be transported as sorbed species to erodible soil particles via surface runoff to nearby surface water bodies." The registrant points out that " soil particles are not usually eroded from established turf and so this route of transport to surface water bodies is unlikely." Response: Taken individually, each statement makes sense in context. However, EFED recognizes that all the sentences do not appear to be consistent, and will amend them in the EFED Chapter to clarify their meaning and context.

Comment: The registrant indicates that the percentage of use of oxadiazon on golf courses is 77% instead of 65%. The former value agrees with the HED report. Response: EFED agrees and will make the necessary changes in the RED.

Comment: Usage information was obtained from BEADS Qualitative Use Assessment, " Appendix K," which is not present in the document. Response: EFED submits that the correct identification of the appendix is Appendix H.

Comment: RP 17623 and G 315 are product codes, and not trade names. Response: This will be corrected in the EFED document.

Comment: The rat NOAEC is 200 ppm. It is stated in several places that it is 100 ppm ( Table 2, Table C 5, Appendix F). Response: EFED will make this correction and the RQ's will be recalculated to reflect this change.

Comment: The avian reproduction study using mallard resulted in a NOAEC> 1000 ppm ( highest dose tested). Since the study did not define a NOAEC, the study was classified as supplemental. The registrant requests reconsideration of the study classification. Response: EFED agrees ( the highest terrestrial EEC is 960 ppm) and will make the appropriate changes in the RED.

Comment: Individual growth data for the rainbow trout had not been provided by the registrant. These data were provided with this submission. Response: The data has been evaluated and the rainbow trout early life stage study ( MRID41811601) has been upgraded to core. 5 Comment: In Appendix C: Ecological Toxicity Data. Section: Aquatic Plants, a sentence reads: " Tier I of Tier II Aquatic Plant growth testing using the TEP is required for fungicides." Response: Inadvertently the word fungicides was used instead of herbicides. This will be corrected in the final report.

Comment: In Appendix C. Table C. 13, a study report was not referenced. Response: The cited study will be referenced: Anabaena flos aquae study ( MRID#' s 41610108 and 42659001).

Comment: Chapter 5: Drinking Water Assessment: EFED used the tiered approach in estimating drinking water concentrations. The reported concentrations in the EFED report are the most conservative ( Tier I). At a later time, HED requested additional refinements and EFED issued a revised drinking water memorandum. The revised Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations ( EDWCs) using standard Percent of Crop Area ( PCA) for golf courses produced the worst case drinking water exposure assessment for oxidiazon. The registrant sponsored and submitted a GIS study related to PCA calculation for golf courses conducted in Florida, where most of the oxadiazon is used.

Response: Concurrently with the 60 Day Response, the registrant submitted the following document: Andrish, S. D., et. al. 2003. " Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Oxadiazon Residues in the Index Reservoir Associated with Use on Golf Course Turf," an unpublished report performed by Waterborne Environmental, Inc., Leesburg, VA, and sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, Report No. WEI 746.29, B004306. ( MRID# 45920102). EFED will not be able to complete the review of the submitted study within the 60 day response period. EFED intend to complete the review process in near future. In the meantime, EFED will continue to use EFED's guidance document in estimating drinking water concentrations for pesticides using recommended adjusting factors for the golf courses scenario.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37810-37811]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0729]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Fort Pierce, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the A1A North Causeway Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AICW), mile 964.8 at Fort Pierce, St Lucie County, FL. This
proposed action would eliminate the on-demand drawbridge openings. This
proposed action is intended to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and
provide scheduled openings for the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0729 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Samuel Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Sector Miami
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-
4307, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
FL Florida
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), who owns and
operates the A1A North Causeway Bridge, has requested a rule to allow
for scheduled drawbridge openings. There has been an increase in
vehicular traffic over the bridge in recent years due to residential
development along the beach.
    The exisiting A1A North Causeway Bridge across the AICW, mile 964.8
in Fort Pierce, St Lucie County, FL is a bascule bridge. It has a
vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water in the closed position
and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. The bridge currently operates
under 33 CFR 117.5.
    On August 30, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation
entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, Fort Pierce, FL in the Federal Register (83 FR 44233). We
received 113 comments.
    During the test, the majority of comments received were in support
of scheduled openings. However, most felt that the bridge was still
opening too frequently. A review of the bridge tender logs did not
support the claim that the bridge was opening too frequently. The logs
did show, however, that openings tended to be twice per hour as opposed
to three times per hour. In addition, the majority of comments
recommended scheduled openings during the evening and on weekends.
    In response to all of the comments from the original Test
Deviation, on March 21, 2019, the Coast Guard published an alternate
Test Deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, Fort Pierce, FL in the Federal Register (84 FR
10411). This test deviation was issued to determine if an alternate
operating schedule to the previous test deviation is appropriate to
better balance the needs of marine and vehicle traffic. We received 33
comments.
    During this test, all comments were in favor of the alternate
operating schedule that included around the clock scheduled weekday and
weekend openings.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule will allow the drawbridge to be placed on a
regular operating schedule. Under this proposed regulation, the draw of
the A1A North Causeway Bridge would open on the hour and half-hour.
    This proposed change would still allow vessels that can transit
under the bridge, without an opening, to do so at any time while taking
into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.
Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States, and tugs with
tows must be passed at any time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge twice an hour, and vessels that
can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so at any time.
Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States and tugs with
tows will be allowed to pass at any time.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures (series) which guide the Coast Guard
in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations
or procedures for drawbridges. Normally this action is categorically
excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3,
Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation
Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 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

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.261 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.261   Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to
Key Largo.

* * * * *
    (n) A1A North Causeway Bridge, mile 964.8 at Fort Pierce. The draw
shall open on the hour and half-hour.
* * * * *

     Dated: July 22, 2019.
Eric C. Jones,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-16478 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 202)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61773-61776]
[DOCID:fr17oc08-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 3

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001; FRL-8730-7]
RIN 2025-AA23

Extension of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule Deadline for
Authorized Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the Final Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Rule (CROMERR) deadline for authorized programs (states,
tribes, or local governments) with existing electronic document
receiving systems to submit an application for EPA approval to revise
or modify their authorized programs. This action proposes to extend the
current October 13, 2008, deadline until January 13, 2010.
Additionally, in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without a
prior proposed rule. If the Agency receives no relevant adverse
comment, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by November 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2003-0001, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: CROMERR Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, Washington, DC 20460. 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-HQ-OEI-
2003-0001. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the CROMERR Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
CROMERR Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evi Huffer, Office of Environmental
Information (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or David Schwarz, Office of Environmental Information (2823T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Does This Rule Do?

    This rule proposes to provide temporary regulatory relief to
states, tribes, and local governments with ``authorized programs'' as
defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3.3. Any such
authorized program that operates an ``existing electronic document
receiving system'' as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 will have an additional 15
months to submit an application to revise or modify its authorized
program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 3. Specifically, this
rule proposes to amend 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(3) by extending the October 13,
2008, deadline to January 13, 2010.

II. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    EPA proposes to extend the current due date for submitting
applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing
electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by the underlying final rule (70 FR
59848, October 13, 2005). EPA has published a direct final rule in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final rule.
    If EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment,
the Agency will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all relevant public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.
    EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this proposed rule or the direct
final rule listed elsewhere in today's Federal Register must do so at
this time. For further information about commenting, please see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect states, tribes, and local governments that
have an authorized program as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 and also have an
existing electronic document receiving system, as defined in 40 CFR
3.3. For purposes of this rulemaking, the term ``state'' includes the
District of Columbia and the United States territories, as specified in
the applicable statutes. That is, the term ``state'' includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, depending on
the statute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                  Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government.............  Publicly owned treatment works, owners
                                and operators of treatment works
                                treating domestic sewage, local and
                                regional air boards, local and regional
                                waste management authorities, and
                                municipal and other drinking water
                                authorities.
Tribe and State governments..  States, tribes or territories that
                                administer any federal environmental
                                programs delegated, authorized, or
                                approved by EPA under Title 40 of the
                                CFR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

V. Summary of Rule

    This proposed rule would amend 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(3) by extending the
current October 13, 2008 deadline for authorized programs with existing
electronic document receiving systems to submit applications to January
13, 2010.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule change, see the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the
direct final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any information collection burden. This
action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications
under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document
receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 3) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2025-0003, EPA ICR number 2002.03. A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The ICR is also available electronically in
www.regulations.gov.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the definition for small businesses based on SBA size standards
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000 (Under the RFA definition, States
and tribal governments are not considered small governmental
jurisdictions.); and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the possibility of economic impacts of today's
proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule
are small governmental jurisdictions. In determining whether a rule has
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
``which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.'' Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule merely extends the current due date for
submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with
existing electronic document receiving systems. EPA has therefore
concluded that today's action will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, tribe, or local governments or the private sector.
This action merely extends the current due date for submitting
applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing
electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional
requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a
federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for states, tribes, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Therefore, this action is not subject
to

the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action merely
extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR
for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely extends the
current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for
authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor
preempt Tribal law. This action merely extends the current due date for
submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with
existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no
additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant action as defined by Executive
Order 12866 and it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This action merely extends
the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for
authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    Today's action does not involve technical standards. EPA's
compliance with section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note))
has been addressed in the preamble of the underlying final rule [70 FR
59848, October 13, 2007].

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule merely extends the current regulatory
schedule for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized
programs with existing electronic document receiving systems.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 3

    Environmental protection, Conflict of interests, Electronic
records, Electronic reporting requirements, Electronic reports,
Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: October 10, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-24825 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3006-3007]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0955]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0031

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0031, Plan Approval and Records for Electrical
Engineering Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J. Our ICR describes
the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments
by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0955] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the
following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2017-0955], and must be received by February 21,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0031.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 51284, November 3, 2017)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering
Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0031.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with our
rules on electrical engineering for the design and construction of
U.S.-flag commercial vessels.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 3703 authorize the Coast Guard to
establish rules to promote the safety of life and property in
commercial vessels. The electrical engineering rules appear at 46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter J (parts 110 through 113).
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, shipyards, designers, and
manufacturers of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 6,843
hours to 6,524 hours a year due to an estimated decrease in the annual
number of responses.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-00987 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P