[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33641-33643]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0159]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; The Pacific Grove Feast of Lanterns, Fireworks
Display, Pacific Grove, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of Monterey Bay, off of Lovers Point, in Pacific
Grove, California in support of the Pacific Grove Feast of Lanterns
Fireworks Display. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety
of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the
pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 30,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0159 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0159 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Allison Natcher at (415)
399-7442, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to

comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect
to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking
process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in these fireworks displays, the safety zones are
necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators,
spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the
safety concerns noted, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM with
respect to this rule as these regulations must be in effect during the
event.

Basis and Purpose

    Pacific Grove Feast of Lanterns will sponsor the Pacific Grove
Feast of Lanterns Fireworks Display on July 30, 2011, on the navigable
waters of Monterey Bay, off of Lovers Point, in Pacific Grove,
California. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes.
This safety zone establishes a temporary restricted area on the waters
surrounding the fireworks launch site during the fireworks displays.
This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect
spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated
with the pyrotechnics over the water. The Coast Guard has granted the
event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks displays.

Discussion of Rule

    From 9 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. the area to which the temporary safety
zone applies will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks
launch site off of Lovers Point within a radius of 1,000 feet. At 9:45
p.m., the safety zone shall terminate. The fireworks launch site will
be located in positions: 36[deg]37'26.42'' N, 121[deg] 54'54.03'' W
(NAD 83).
    The effect of the temporary safety zones will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks sites while the fireworks
are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled displays. Except
for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These
regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance
away from the launch site to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 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.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant. The
entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities. In addition, the rule will only restrict
access for a limited time. Finally, the Public Broadcast Notice to
Mariners will notify the users of local waterway to ensure that the
safety zone will result in minimum impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Although this rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure
craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, it will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel
traffic can pass safely around the area; (iii) vessels engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the
affected areas of Monterey Bay, CA to engage in these activities; and
(iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 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 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 rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a
temporary safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165-T11-413 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-T11-413  Safety Zone; Pacific Grove Feast of Lanterns,
Pacific Grove Feast of Lanterns Fireworks Display, Pacific Grove, CA

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
navigable waters of Monterey Bay, off of Lovers Point, in Pacific
Grove, CA. The fireworks launch sites will be located in positions:
36[deg]37'26.42'' N, 121[deg]54'54.03'' W (NAD 83).
    From 9 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. the area to which the temporary safety
zone applies will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks
launch site off of Lovers Point within a radius of 1,000 feet. At 9:45
p.m., the safety zone shall terminate.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 9 p.m. through
9:45 p.m. on July 30, 2011.

    Dated: May 17, 2011.
Cynthia. L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-14329 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14505]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD14-6-000]

Reliability Standards for Physical Security Measures; Notice of
Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission today in the
above-captioned docket, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(3) (2013), the
staff identified below from the Office of Electric Reliability are
designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this
docket. Accordingly, these persons will not serve as advisors to the
Commission or otherwise be involved in the decisional process in this
proceeding. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR
385.2201 (2013), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory
staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.
    The staff designated as non-decisional are:

Edward Franks
Regis Binder
David O'Connor
Mary Agnes Nimis
Justin Kelly
Andres Lopez

     Dated: March 7, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05628 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


XVI  1 Appendix XV. Differences Between Deterministic and Probabilistic Risk Assessments Deterministic Risk Assessments The standard method used in the OPP to characterize ecological risk is the ratio or quotient method. " Typically, the ratio ( or quotient) is expressed as an exposure concentration divided by an effects concentration" ( U. S. EPA 1998, Part A, Section 5.1.3). A risk quotient ( RQ) is the ratio of the estimated environmental concentration of a chemical to a toxicity test effect level for a given species. It is calculated by dividing an appropriate exposure estimate ( e. g. EEC or estimated environmental concentration) by an appropriate toxicity test effect level ( e. g. LC50). Thus, the RQ is an index ( an indicator or measure of a condition) of the potential adverse effects. As an index, the risk quotient needs some reference point or bearing to have meaning. Thus, the Agency has established Levels of Concern ( LOCs) in order to identify when the potential adverse effects are of concern to the Agency ( see Table 1). LOCs are criteria used to indicate potential risk to non target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a pesticide, when used as directed, has the potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms. Typically, an RQ is compared to an LOC to determine if the OPP should consider taking some regulatory action to reduce or eliminate the potential risk, or to further refine the risk assessment.

OPP first presented this risk index method in the Standard Evaluation Procedure for Ecological Risk Assessment in 1986 ( U. S. EPA. 1986). Since the issuance of the 1992 policy by the Assistant Administrator ( U. S. EPA. 1992), OPP has generally pursued ecological risk mitigation whenever RQs exceed the LOCs. Currently these RQs and LOCs are used in screening level risk assessments to express potential acute and chronic risk to birds, wild mammals, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants.

The current ecological risk characterization process, which is based on RQs and LOCs, is useful and can provide the risk managers with a screening method to facilitate the rapid identification of pesticides that are not likely to pose an ecological risk or those that may pose a risk. As noted in the EPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines, " The principal advantages of the quotient method are that it is simple and quick to use and risk assessors and managers are familiar with its application. It provides an efficient, inexpensive means of identifying high or low risk situations that can allow risk management decisions to be made without the need for further information" ( U. S. EPA 1998, Part A, Section 5.1.3). It also provides a " crude index of magnitude of effects and therefore can be used for comparisons among alternative compounds where comparable data are available" ( Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods, 1999b, Section 5.3, page 5 11). Thus, RQs and LOCs are useful as part of an initial or screening level characterization of the ecological risk. In addition, there are a number of reasons to continue to include RQs and LOCs in OPP ecological risk assessment, including: " Quotients may serve as an interim measure that provides a bridge for risk assessors and risk managers between current and new probabilistic risk assessment methods; Quotients remain a primary method ... may continue to be used by EPA risk managers; [ lacking good case studies using other methods including probability]... it is premature to eliminate deterministic quotients; Quotients may play a role in 1Much of the discussion of probabilistic risk assessment methods was based on the following document: U. S. EPA. 1999. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ( RAGS): Volume 3, Part A, Process for conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessments. Draft.

XVI  2 future evaluations by providing a benchmark to which new methods could be compared; Further evaluation of risk characterization methods ... may demonstrate that quotients serve a useful purpose in determining the applicability of the risk assessment and identification of scenarios of concern ( e. g., during the Problem Formulation stage)" ( ibid, Section 6.2, pages 6 3 and 6 4).

While the objective of EFED is to advance toward probabilistic risk assessment methods, current deterministic methods such as the quotient have not been dismissed. Rather, they remain an integral component of the current risk assessment for the registration and reregistration of pesticides. This is consistent with current Agency guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. However, many risk assessors and risk managers who use RQs recognize that they contain an unknown degree of conservatism and they tend to obscure uncertainties and variability. Thus, while an RQ can be useful in determining whether risk is likely to be high or low, it may not be helpful to a risk manager who needs to make a decision requiring an incremental quantification of risk ( U. S. EPA 1998 p. 97). Likewise, an RQ does not provide the risk manager with an indication of uncertainty surrounding the risk estimation ( ibid). Further, RQs cannot address some questions raised by risk managers which can be pivotal to major regulatory decision making on the basis of ecological risk concerns: ° What is the magnitude of defined risk  How big is it? ° What is the probability of the risk  How likely is it to occur? ° How certain are you that an adverse effect will occur  How sure are you?

As noted in the US EPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines ( U. S. EPA 1998, p. 92), " If the risks are not sufficiently defined to support a management decision, risk managers may elect to proceed with another iteration of one or more phases of the risk assessment process."

Refined Risk Assessment Methods1 Ecological risk assessments may be refined in many ways, including deterministic and probabilistic methods. The newest method, and the one receiving widespread attention at the present time, is the probabilistic risk assessment. Probabilistic risk assessment is a general term for a risk assessment that uses probability distributions to characterize variability and/ or uncertainty in risk estimates. In these risk assessments, one or more ( random) variables in the risk equation are defined mathematically by probability distributions. Similarly, the output of a probabilistic risk assessment is a range or distribution of risks experienced by the various members of the exposed population of non target organisms of concern. A risk assessment performed using probabilistic methods relies on the same fundamental concepts and equations as the traditional point estimate approaches.

In ecological risk assessments, risk distributions may reflect variability or uncertainty in exposure or toxicity. Following a deterministic screening level assessment that indicated XVI  3 potential high acute risk, a risk manager may request an answer to the following question: " What is the magnitude and likelihood ( i. e., probability) of acute risks to an exposed individual from the use of Pesticide X?" After determining that the time, resources and expertise required to perform a probabilistic risk assessment was justified, the results of such an assessment could provide the following conclusion: Based on the best available information regarding exposure and toxicity, mortality is expected to be 10% or greater in the majority ( 50% of more) of the scenarios, with a probability of 95%. The above example is based on a situation where the available data permitted the development of distributions for both the toxicity and exposure variables. Other probabilistic results are possible when only one of the variables can be represented by a distribution.

An essential concept in PRA is the distinction between " variability" and " uncertainty". Variability refers to true heterogeneity or diversity. For example, among a population of birds that feeds in a field treated with a pesticide, the risks from consuming contaminated short grass, insects and seeds may vary. This may be due to differences in exposure ( i. e., different birds consuming different amounts and kinds of food items, having different body weights, different exposure frequencies, and different exposure durations) as well as differences in response ( e. g., genetic differences in resistance to a chemical dose). These inherent differences are referred to as variability. Differences among individuals in a population are referred to as inter species variability, while differences for one individual over time is referred to as intra species variability.

Uncertainty occurs because of a lack of knowledge. It is not the same as variability. For example, a risk assessor may be very certain that different birds consume different amounts of contaminated food, but may be uncertain about how much variability there is in food consumption within the population. Uncertainty can often be reduced by collecting more and better data, while variability is an inherent property of the population being evaluated. Variability can be better characterized with more data, but it cannot be reduced or eliminated. Efforts to clearly distinguish between variability and uncertainty are important for both risk assessment and risk communication.

The primary advantage of probabilistic risk assessment for assessing ecological risks within OPP is that it gives a quantitative description of the probability or likelihood of the impact as well as the magnitude or severity of the effect. The quantitative analysis of uncertainty and variability provides a more comprehensive characterization of risk than is possible in the deterministic RQ or point estimate method. Another significant advantage of probabilistic risk assessment is the additional information and potential flexibility it affords the risk manager. For example, the risk assessor can provide a range of percentile exposures ( e. g., 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th) based on the distribution of these exposures, and the manager can select the percentile at which he/ she is comfortable making a decision. Probabilistic risk assessment can also more reliably identify the variables and model parameters that have the greatest influence on the risk estimates through sensitivity analyses. Finally, once the probabilistic model is developed, it is relatively easy to modify the model to run " what if" scenarios to determine the effect of mitigation measures on the risk conclusions. XVI  4 While a probabilistic risk assessment can provide a useful tool to characterize and quantify variability and uncertainty in risk assessments, it is not appropriate for every site. It generally requires more time, resources, and expertise on the part of the assessor, reviewer, and risk manager than a point estimate risk assessment. In addition, communicating the results of a probabilistic risk assessment may be a challenge. If the additional information is unlikely to affect the risk management decision, then it may not be prudent to proceed with a probabilistic risk assessment. However, if there is a clear value added from performing this assessment, then the use of probabilistic risk assessment as a risk assessment tool generally should be considered despite the additional resources that may be needed. The decision to use probabilistic risk assessment methods is pesticide and use specific and is based on the complexity of the problems due to the behavior of the pesticide and the quality and extent of site specific data. EFED recommends a tiered approach to risk assessment so that the scope of the assessment matches the scope of the pesticide and use specific problems being assessed.

The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) ( FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, 1996a and 1996b) recognized and generally reaffirmed the utility of the current assessment process and methods for screening. The Panel also indicated that OPP's methods were deterministic for assessing the effects of pesticides to non target organisms and suggested moving to probabilistic assessments for the chemicals of concern. The Panel strongly encouraged OPP to develop and validate tools and methodologies to conduct probabilistic assessments of ecological risk, as the Panel believed that these methods were necessary in order to achieve an appropriate level of understanding of ecological risk to support major regulatory decision making. In 1997 EFED returned to the SAP and provided it with an overview of EFED's plans to move forward to address the comments made during the May 1996 meeting. The SAP was extremely supportive of EFED's efforts and commended the Agency for its " proactive response" to the comments made during the May 1996 meeting and for its extensive outreach efforts ( FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, 1997). In June 1997, OPP began an initiative to develop and validate tools and methodologies for conducting probabilistic assessments that address terrestrial and aquatic risk within the context of the FIFRA regulatory framework. Subsequently, EFED formed the Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods ( ECOFRAM), which was divided into Aquatic and Terrestrial Workgroups. They were comprised of experts drawn from government agencies, academia, contract laboratories, environmental advocacy groups, and industry and were tasked with identifying and developing probabilistic tools and methods for terrestrial and aquatic assessments under the FIFRA regulatory framework. They were also asked to identify developmental information and validation needs to ensure that their approaches support an assessment process that is scientifically defensible.

ECOFRAM's conclusions and recommendations were summarized in the Draft Aquatic Workgroup Report ( Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods, 1999a) and the Draft Terrestrial Workgroup Report ( Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods, 1999b) which were completed in April 1999. In these reports, ECOFRAM provided a proposed framework for risk assessment refinement. This was based on a tiered approach which moves from simple deterministic assessments through probabilistic methods, to an issue specific probabilistic assessment at the higher tiers. After completion of the ECOFRAM draft reports, XVI  5 the Agency held two workshops ( June 22  24, 1999) to provide EPA with scientific peer review, comment, and discussion of the recommendations contained in the reports. In general, the workshop participants supported the basic approach described by ECOFRAM and concluded it was scientifically sound. They noted some general issues, such as the need for validation of models, describing uncertainty at each tier, the lack of addressing multiple stressors or multiple chemicals, and the need for case studies. They also provided numerous specific comments and suggestions.

Following ECOFRAM, EFED formed the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Team within EFED, which was charged with developing an implementation plan for OPP that incorporates probabilistic tools and methods for the evaluation of potential ecological risk from pesticide exposure. The reports originating out of the ECOFRAM initiative served as the basis for development of this EFED implementation plan for conducting probabilistic ecological risk assessments. The implementation plan, presented to the SAP in April of 2000, outlined a proposed general approach for assessing pesticide risks to birds and aquatic organisms, including the use of probabilistic tools in a tiered manner ( actually four Levels of Refinement). During the following months, EFED developed pilot aquatic and terrestrial models as well as a ` generic case study' in order to demonstrate the models. The models and the case study were reviewed by the SAP in March 2001, and the Panel described the Agency's efforts as being at the forefront of conducting an ecological probabilistic risk assessment. The EFED Implementation Team is currently finalizing the models which will be used for Level 2 Probabilistic Risk Assessments. [ Find information for all SAP meetings at http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 2001/ index. htm ]

Bibliography Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods ( 1999a) ECOFRAM Draft Aquatic Report dated May 4, 1999, and ( 1999b) ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report dated May 10, 1999. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( 1997) A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Agency in Connection with the Progress Report on developing Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methodologies for Aquatic and Terrestrial Risk. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( 1996a) A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Agency in Connection with EPA's Corn Cluster Ecological Risk Assessment. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ sapreprt. htm FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( 1996b) A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Agency in Connection with EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment of Carbofuran Flowable Products. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ carbofur. htm XVI  6 U. S. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. EPA/ 630/ R 95/ 002F. April. May 14, 1998 Federal Register 63( 93): 26846 26924.

U. S. EPA. 1992. Memorandum from Linda J. Fisher, Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, to Douglas Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, October 29, 1992. Decisions on the Ecological, Fate, and Effects Task Force.

U. S. EPA. 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division, Standard Evaluation Procedure  Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/ 9 86 167.

Table 1.

Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC Birds Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft2 or LD50/ day3 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOEC 1 Wild Mammals Acute High Risk EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day ( or LD50 < 50 mg/ kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or LD50/ sqft or LD50/ day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/ NOEC 1 1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration ( ppm) on avian/ mammalian food items 2 mg/ ft2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/ day LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC Acute High Risk EEC1/ LC50 or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ LC50 or EC50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/ MATC or NOEC 1 1 EEC = ( ppm or ppb) in water XVI  7 Risk Presumptions for Plants Risk Presumption RQ LOC Terrestrial and Semi Aquatic Plants Acute High Risk EEC1/ EC25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ EC05 or NOEC 1 Aquatic Plants Acute High Risk EEC2/ EC50 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/ EC05 or NOEC 1 1 EEC = lbs ai/ A 2 EEC = ( ppb/ ppm) in water


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54796-54800]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23734]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84490; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to List and Trade Options That Overlie the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index

October 25, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on October 15, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is provided below in Exhibit
5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 is currently authorized to list for trading options on
ten S&P Select Sector Indexes.\5\ The purpose of this proposed rule
change is to amend certain rules to authorize the Exchange to list for
trading options on a recently added eleventh S&P Select Sector Index--
the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index. Each S&P Select
Sector Index represents the performance of companies that are
components of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (``S&P 500'') within a
specific sector (each of which is referred to as an ``S&P Select Sector
Index''). Each constituent of an S&P Select Sector Index is a
constituent of the S&P 500, and each S&P Select Sector Index is a
subindex of the S&P 500. S&P Dow Jones Indices \6\ assigns each
constituent to a S&P Select Sector Index(es) based on the constituent's
classification under a global industry classification standard. S&P Dow
Jones Indices monitors and maintains each Select Sector Index and
rebalances each S&P Select Sector Index quarterly. S&P Dow Jones
Indices recently added an eleventh sector. As a result, the following
represents the current breakdown of the sectors and the components of
each sector:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 24.9(a); see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 34-81879 (October 16, 2017), 82 FR 48858 (October 20, 2017) (SR-
CBOE-2017-065).
    \6\ S&P Dow Jones Indices is the reporting authority for the S&P
Select Sector Indexes, including the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index. See proposed Rule 24.1, Interpretation and
Policy .01.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                Sector                      Symbol \7\        components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial............................  IXM                            68
Energy...............................  IXE                            31
Technology...........................  IXT                            76
Health Care..........................  IXV                            63
Utilities............................  IXU                            29
Consumer Staples.....................  IXR                            32
Industrials..........................  IXI                            70
Consumer Discretionary...............  IXY                            80
Materials............................  IXB                            24
Real Estate..........................  IXRE                           32
Communication Services...............  IXC                            26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial and Maintenance Listing Criteria
    The S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index meets the
definition of a narrow-based index as set forth in Rule 24.1(i)(2) (an
index designed to be representative of a particular industry or a group
of related industries and include indices having component securities
that are all headquartered with in a single country). Additionally, the
S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index satisfies the initial
listing criteria of a narrow-based index, as set forth in Rule 24.2(b):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These symbols represent the index. The corresponding option
symbols are SIXM, SIXE, SIXT, SIXV, SIXU, SIXR, SIXI, SIXY, SIXB,
SIXRE, and SIXC respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Options will be A.M.-settled;
    (2) the index is capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, equal
dollar-weighted, or modified capitalization-weighted, and consists of
ten or more component securities (the S&P Communication Services Select
Sector Index is modified capitalization-weighted);
    (3) each component security has a market capitalization of at least
$75 million, except that for each of the lowest weighted component
securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than
10% of the weight of the index, the market capitalization is at least
$50 million;
    (4) trading volume of each component security has been at least one
million shares for each of the last six months, except that for each of
the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the
aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index,
trading volume has been at least 500,000 shares for each of the last
six months;
    (5) in a capitalization-weighted index or a modified
capitalization-weighted index, the lesser of the five highest weighted
component securities in the index or the highest weighted component
securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30%

of the total number of component securities in the index each have had
an average monthly trading volume of at least 2,000,000 shares over the
past six months;
    (6) no single component security represents more than 25% of the
weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities
in the index do not in the aggregate account for more than 50% (60% for
an index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities) of the
weight of the index;
    (7) component securities that account for at least 90% of the
weight of the index and at least 80% of the total number of component
securities in the index satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.3 applicable
to individual underlying securities;
    (8) all component securities are ``reported securities'' as defined
in Rule 11A a3-1 under the Exchange Act;
    (9) non-U.S. component securities (stocks or ADRs) that are not
subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the
aggregate represent more than 20% of the weight of the index;
    (10) the current underlying index value will be reported at least
once every fifteen seconds during the time the index options are traded
on the Exchange;
    (11) an equal dollar-weighted index will be rebalanced at least
once every calendar quarter; and
    (12) if an underlying index is maintained by a broker-dealer, the
index is calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer, and
the broker-dealer has erected a ``Chinese Wall'' around its personnel
who have access to information concerning changes in and adjustments to
the index.
    The S&P Select Sector Index options will be subject to the
maintenance listing standards set forth in Rule 24.2(c):
    (1) The conditions stated in (1), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11) and (12) above must continue to be satisfied, provided that the
conditions stated in (6) above must be satisfied only as of the first
day of January and July in each year;
    (2) the total number of component securities in the index may not
increase or decrease by more than 33 \1/3\% from the number of
component securities in the index at the time of its initial listing,
and in no event may be less than nine component securities;
    (3) trading volume of each component security in the index must be
at least 500,000 shares for each of the last six months, except that
for each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that
in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the
index, trading volume must be at least 400,000 shares for each of the
last six months; and
    (4) in a capitalization-weighted index or a modified
capitalization-weighted index, the lesser of the five highest weighted
component securities in the index or the highest weighted component
securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30% of
the total number of stocks in the index each have had an average
monthly trading volume of at least 1,000,000 shares over the past six
months.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As is the case with other index options authorized for
listing and trading on Cboe Options, in the event the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index fails to satisfy the
maintenance listing standards, the Exchange will not open for
trading any additional series of options of that class unless such
failure is determined by the Exchange not to be significant and the
Commission concurs in that determination, or unless the continued
listing of that class of index options has been approved by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act (the ``Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expiration Months, Settlement, and Exercise Style
    Consistent with existing rules for certain index options, the
Exchange will allow up to twelve near-term expiration months for the
S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options.\9\ The Exchange
elects to have the ability to list up to twelve near-term expiration
months, as that is the same amount the Rules permit for options on the
S&P 500 (``SPX options'') and the other S&P Select Sector Indexes. The
S&P Select Sector Indexes consist of the same components as the S&P
500, as discussed above. Because of the relation between the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index, the other S&P Select Sector
Indexes, and the S&P 500, which will likely result in market
participants' investment and hedging strategies consisting of options
over all, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to permit the same
number of monthly expirations for the S&P Communication Services Select
Sector Index options as SPX options and the other S&P Select Sector
Index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 24.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options will be
A.M., cash-settled contracts with European-style exercise.\10\ A.M.-
settlement is consistent with the generic listing criteria for
industry-based indexes \11\ (as well as broad-based indexes \12\), and
thus it is common for index options to be A.M.-settled. The Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 24.9(a)(4) to add the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index options to the list of other A.M.-settled options.
Standard third-Friday SPX options and the other S&P Select Sector Index
options are A.M.-settled. European-style exercise is consistent with
many index options, as set forth in Rule 24.9(a)(3). Standard third-
Friday SPX options and the other S&P Select Sector Index options are
A.M.-settled with European-style exercise. The Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 24.9(a)(3) to add the S&P Communication Services Select
Sector Index options to the list of other European-style index options.
Because of the relation between the S&P Communication Services Select
Sector Index, the other S&P Select Sector Indexes, and the S&P 500,
which will likely result in market participants' investment and hedging
strategies consisting of options over both, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to list the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index
options with the same settlement and exercise style as the other S&P
Select Sector Index options and SPX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 24.9(a)(3)(cxxiv) and (4)(xcxix).
    \11\ See Rule 24.2(b)(1).
    \12\ See Rule 24.2(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Hours
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 24.6(b) to add the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options to the list of index
options that may trade on the Exchange from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.
Chicago time.\13\ The Exchange understands that investors who plan to
trade options on the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index
would often use the prices of the stock components of the Index to
price options rather than futures on the Index (which are often used to
price index options, such as options on the S&P 500). Investors
similarly use pricing of underlying stocks to price shares of exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs'') derived from the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index (e.g., Communication Services Select Sector SPDR
ETF), the components of which are stocks that are components of the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index. The underlying stocks end
regular trading at 3:00 p.m. Chicago time each day. Closing trading in
the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options at the same
time the stocks end regular trading \14\ will

ensure investors have access to robust pricing of the underlying stock
components they use to price the options, thus reducing investors'
price risk. Various other index options, including the other S&P Select
Sector Index options and other narrow-based index options, may trade
from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Chicago time.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 24.6(b)(lii). The proposed rule change
also corrects a numbering error in other subparagraphs of Rule
24.6(b).
    \14\ While the stocks may continue to trade in an aftermarket
trading session on the listing exchanges, there is less liquidity in
aftermarket trading, which generally leads to wider spreads and more
volatile pricing.
    \15\ See Rule 24.6(b) (for example, options on the S&P
transportation, retail, health care, banking, insurance, and
chemical indices, and the Cboe PowerPacks SM bank, biotechnology,
gold, internet, iron & steel, oil, oil services, pharmaceuticals,
retail, semiconductor, technology, and telecom indices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointment Costs
    The Exchange proposes a Market-Maker appointment cost of .001 for
the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options, and each
will have a Market-Maker appointment cost of .001.\16\ This is the same
appointment cost as the other S&P Select Sector Index options. The
Exchange determines appointment costs of Tier AA classes based on
several factors, including, but not limited to, competitive forces and
trading volume. The Exchange believes the proposed initial appointment
cost for the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options
will foster competition by incentivizing Market-Makers to obtain an
appointment in these newly listed options, which may increase liquidity
in the new class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 8.3(c)(i). S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index options will be in Tier AA (as are other S&P
index options, including the other S&P Select Sector Index options).
While the appointment costs of Tier AA classes are not subject to
quarterly rebalancing under Rule 8.3(c)(iv), the Exchange regularly
reviews the appointment costs of Tier AA classes to ensure that they
continue to be appropriate. The Exchange determines appointment
costs of Tier AA classes based on several factors, including, but
not limited to, competitive forces and trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity
    The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it
believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to
handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series
that would result from the introduction of the S&P Communication
Services Select Sector Index options up to the proposed number of
possible expirations. Because the proposal is limited to one class, the
Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from
the introduction of the S&P Communication Services Sector Index options
would be manageable.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors, as the Exchange believes there is unmet market
demand for exchange-listed security options listed on this new sector
index. Sector SPDRs and E-mini S&P future products for the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector are listed and traded on other
exchanges.\20\ As a result, the Exchange believes that the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options are designed to
provide different and additional opportunities for investors to hedge
or speculate on the market risk associated with this index by listing
an option directly on this index. Because of the relation between the
S&P Communication Services Select Sector, the other S&P Select Sector
Indexes, and the S&P 500, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will benefit investors, as it will provide market participants'
with additional investment and hedging strategies consisting of options
over each of these indexes. The Exchange notes it is currently
authorized to list options on ten S&P Select Sector Indexes (subject to
the same terms as those proposed for the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The primary listing exchange for the Communication Services
Select Sector SPDR Fund (and the other Select Sector SPDR Funds) is
NYSE Arca (trading under symbol XLC). See the Fund's prospectus,
available at https://us.spdrs.com/public/SPDR_SELECT%20SECTOR_PROSPECTUS.pdf. The contract specifications for
the E-mini Communication Services Select Sector Futures Contract,
which trades on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME''), is
available at https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/select-sector-index/e-mini-communication-services-select-sector-index_contract_specifications.html; see also Chapter 369 of the CME
Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, because the proposed rule change is
consistent with current Rules, which were previously filed with
approved as consistent with the Exchange Act by the Commission. The S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options satisfy the initial
listing standards for narrow-based indexes in the Exchange's current
Rules, which the Commission previously deemed consistent with Act.\21\
The proposed rule change merely adds the S&P Communication Services
Select Sector Index to the table regarding reporting authorities for
indexes, to the rule regarding number of permissible expirations, to
the list of European-style exercise index options, and to the list of
A.M.-settled index options. These changes are consistent with existing
Rules and index options currently authorized and listed for trading on
the Exchange, including the other S&P Select Sector Index options. The
Exchange notes, with respect to these changes, standard third-Friday
SPX options (which overly the S&P 500, which consist of the same
components as the S&P Select Sector Indexes, including the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index) and the other S&P Select
Sector Index options currently have the same reporting authority, the
same number of permissible expirations, the same settlement, and the
same exercise style.\22\ The Exchange has observed no trading or
capacity issues in SPX trading given the number of permissible
expirations, a.m. settlement, and European-style exercise. Because of
the relation between the S&P Communication Services Select Sector, the
other S&P Select Sector Indexes, and the S&P 500, which will likely
result in market participants' investment and hedging strategies
consisting of options over each of these indexes, the

Exchange believes it is appropriate to have the same number of
expiration, settlement, and exercise style for options on each of these
indexes. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support the new option series given these proposed
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-34157 (June 3,
1994), Federal Register Volume 59, Issue 111 (June 10, 1994) (SR-
CBOE-93-59) (order approving generic listing standards for options
on narrow-based indexes).
    \22\ See Rules 24.1, Interpretation and Policy .01 and
24.9(a)(2) through (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed trading hours for the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options are reasonable and
will protect investors, as closing trading in these options at the same
time the stocks end regular trading will ensure investors have access
to robust pricing of the underlying stock components they use to price
the options, which protects investors by reducing their price risk.
Various other index options, including the other S&P Select Sector
Index options and other narrow-based index options, may trade from 8:30
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Chicago time.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed initial low appointment cost for
the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options promotes
competition and efficiency by incentivizing more Market-Makers to
obtain an appointment in the newly listed class. The Exchange believes
this may result in liquidity and competitive pricing in this class,
which ultimately benefits investors. The proposed rule change does not
result in unfair discrimination, as the appointment cost will apply to
all Market-Makers in this class. Additionally, the proposed appointment
cost is the same as the appointment cost for each of the other S&P
Select Sector Index options.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 8.3(c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The S&P Communication
Services Select Sector Index satisfies initial listing standards set
forth in the Rules, and the proposed number of expirations, settlement,
and exercise style are consistent with current rules applicable to
index options, including the other S&P Select Sector Index options and
standard third-Friday SPX options. Because of the relation between the
S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index, the other S&P Select
Sector Indexes, and the S&P 500, which will likely result in market
participants' investment and hedging strategies consisting of options
over each of these indexes, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
have the same number of expirations, settlement, and exercise style for
options on each index. The S&P Communication Services Select Sector
Index options will provide investors with different and additional
opportunities to hedge or speculate on the market associated with the
this index.
    With respect to the proposed trading hours, all market participants
will be able to trade options on the S&P Communication Select Services
Sector Index during the same trading hours. Various other index
options, including the other S&P Select Sector Index options and other
narrow-based index options, may trade from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Chicago time.\25\ The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
promote competition, as it brings the trading hours for the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options in line with those
of the other S&P Select Sector Index options as well as competitive
products trading on other exchanges. Additionally, the S&P
Communication Services Select Sector Index options will trade
exclusively on Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes
make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe
Options market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed initial low appointment cost for
the S&P Communication Services Select Sector Index options promotes
competition and efficiency by incentivizing more Market-Makers to
obtain an appointment in the newly listed class. The Exchange believes
this may result in liquidity and competitive pricing in this class,
which ultimately benefits investors. The proposed rule change does not
result in unfair discrimination, as the appointment cost will apply to
all Market-Makers in this class. Additionally, as discussed above, the
proposed appointment cost for the S&P Communication Services Select
Sector Index options is the same as the appointment cost for the other
S&P Select Sector Index options.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (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 \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-067 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-CBOE-2018-067. 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-
CBOE-2018-067 and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23734 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61672-61674]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73315; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-097]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Algo Test Facility

October 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 2, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to offer a new testing environment, The NASDAQ OMX
Algo Test Facility (``Algo Test Facility'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend NASDAQ Rule 7030 entitled ``Other
Services'' to offer NASDAQ Testing Facility (NTF) \3\ subscribers
(``Subscriber'') a new complement to the existing NTF. The Algo Test
Facility is a sophisticated equity market simulation environment based
on a detailed historical database which includes NASDAQ display orders
and trades. During a simulation, Algo Test Facility customers are able
to use their existing trading infrastructure to interact and trade
against this virtualized Nasdaq historical market. By providing a
historically accurate market

simulation, the Algo Test Facility helps increase the safety and
security of the market by mitigating aberrant trading behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NASDAQ Testing Facilities provides firms with the
ability to test their automated systems that integrate with Nasdaq
services in a virtual trading environment. This service supplies
firms with multiple venues to test upcoming Nasdaq releases and
product enhancements. In addition, firms may use the NTF to test
their new software development prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Algo Test Facility provides electronic trading customers with:
(i) A safe environment to rigorously test and calibrate their
algorithmic strategies by replaying and interacting with real
historical market data; (ii) significantly higher accuracy and
determinism on the outcomes of individual orders versus conventional
paper-trading systems, which are forced to make simple probabilistic
assumptions about fill rates because they do not replicate and replay
the market microstructure; (iii) a re-creation of the actual market's
microstructure and real-world trading conditions, providing accurate
views of adverse selection, time priority and fills versus misses; (iv)
support for order entry allowing customers to interact via OUCH \4\
protocols; and (v) interaction of customer activity with the actual
historic orders of other market participants at the microstructure
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange plans to expand to other order entry protocols
and order types and include latencies and intercolo latencies in
future enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Algo Test Facility allows customers to prototype, backtest, and
calibrate their strategies against a variety of different kinds of
real-world market conditions and against real-world market participants
and competition. The Algo Test Facility allows customers to observe,
correct, and test a large range of potential unintended behaviors of
their algorithmic strategies before committing real capital or
impacting the Exchange and other market participants. Also, customers
will be able to mitigate the risk of aberrant or potentially
destabilizing behaviors, such as inadvertent spamming or other
repetitive behaviors, or excessive risk in open orders.
    Customers would connect via their existing trading infrastructure,
including risk systems, OMS, and feed handlers currently housed in the
NASDAQ OMX Data Center in Carteret, New Jersey. The Algo Testing
Facility will allow up to a certain number of simulations to be run for
all users to the Algo Test Facility per day. While the Algo Test
Facility will be available to all NTF subscribers, the capacity of
simulations is limited to a certain number of simulations per day,
which is subject to change. The Algo Test Facility will be available on
a first-come first-serve basis. This limitation will apply equally to
all users and may increase depending on customer interest. The Exchange
intends to evaluate the capacity as the product is utilized.
    Customers consume market data in a format that is similar to ITCH
from the Algo Test Facility and send their orders to the Algo Test
Facility in response. Delays on the customer side are based uniquely on
the customers' actual production trading infrastructure and its ability
to keep up with the Algo Test Facility. Customer orders interact with
the actual historical order books. Both queue priority and time
priority are preserved to the microsecond. For example, if a customer
lifts an offer in the order book 100 microseconds before a competitor
tried to lift that offer, the customer will get a fill and the
competitor will either consume the additional liquidity on the book or
form a new bid. Automated reports will allow customers to observe,
correct, and test a large range of potential unintended behaviors of
their algorithmic strategies before committing real capital or
impacting the Exchange and other market participants. Through new NTF
hand-offs in Carteret, customers will receive market data in a format
similar to NASDAQ ITCH market data and have the ability to execute
trades via the OUCH protocols.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq historical data will be available on a rolling T+1
through six months basis. Only OUCH order entry will be available in
the initial launch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customers desiring to utilize the Algo Test Facility would be
required to be NTF Subscribers to access this environment through NTF
hand-offs in Carteret. Currently, NTF Subscribers with connectivity to
Carteret are assessed a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for
connection to the NTF.\6\ The fees related to the NTF in Rule 7030 will
continue to be assessed to current NTF Subscribers. The Exchange
intends to not assess any other fees to NTF Subscribers for use of the
Algo Test Facility at this time. The Exchange will file a proposed rule
change with the Commission prior to commencing any additional pricing
specifically for this product at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The hand-off fee includes either a 1Gb or 10Gb switch port
and a cross connect to the NTF. NTF Subscribers also pay a one-time
installation fee of $1,000 per handoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the NTF allows users to test connectivity to the
Exchange. As discussed, the Algo Test Facility is a complement to the
NTF, and will be available for testing algorithms, but not for purposes
of rule compliance or validation.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed 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 that by offering this product without charge at
this time, NTF subscribers will have the opportunity to test the
product and utilize the benefits the product offers. The product will
assist NTF subscribers to protect investors and the public interest by
utilizing the simulations to increase the safety and security of the
market by mitigating aberrant trading behavior. Customers will be able
to mitigate the risk of aberrant or potentially destabilizing
behaviors, such as inadvertent spamming or other repetitive behaviors,
or excessive risk in open orders. The Algo Test Facility allows
customers to observe, correct, and test a large range of potential
unintended behaviors of their algorithmic strategies before committing
real capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. This proposal is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because it offers
NTF Subscribers a sophisticated equity market simulation environment
based on a detailed historical database of NASDAQ market data.
Customers are offered a safe environment to rigorously test and
calibrate their algorithmic strategies by replaying and interacting
with real historical market data. Also, the proposal is consistent with
an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer various connectivity services as a means to facilitate
the trading activities of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to offer this product free of charge at this
time to NTF Subscribers at this time, so that NTF Subscribers have the
opportunity

to utilize the Algo Test Facility at no cost in addition to the current
NTF Subscription fees set forth in Rule 7030(d)(1)(C). Moreover, the
Exchange's fees for this service are equitably allocated and non-
discriminatory in that all NTF Subscribers will receive the service
free of cost. Non-NTF Subscribers would be required to become NTF
Subscribers and incur the fees borne by these customers today in order
to receive the Algo Test Facility services at no additional cost.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\11\
The Exchange does not intend to assess fees to NTF Subscribers at this
time to utilize the Algo Test Facility. While non-NTF Subscribers would
be required to become NTF Subscribers in order to receive this service,
the Exchange does not believe this requirement imposes an undue burden
on competition because NTF Subscribers today pay costs for the service
they receive and the hand-offs are necessary for use of the Algo Test
Facility. All customers are being treated in the same manner and the
Exchange is offering the Algo Test Facility for free to those NTF
Subscribers incurring costs today. Also, while there is a limit on the
number simulations per day for this product, this limitation on the
number of simulations applies equally to all users per day. Therefore,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change enhances, rather
than burdens, competition by providing customers an opportunity to
utilize the product for free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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)(ii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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. The Exchange has
provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change.

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-NASDAQ-2014-097 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-NASDAQ-2014-097. 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 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-NASDAQ-2014-097 and should
be submitted on or before November 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24304 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25014-25015]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08980]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9798-01-R1]

2022 Spring Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and
the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
announcing the joint 2022 Spring Meeting of the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-
level ozone precursors and matters relevant to regional haze and

visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant
context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 2, 2022 starting at 9:30 a.m.
and ending at 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Crowne Plaza Princeton Conference Center, 900 Scudders Mill
Road, Plainsboro, NJ 08536,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For documents and press inquiries
contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 89 South Street, Suite 602,
Boston, MA 02111,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; website:
https://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain
Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR),
which is currently comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
parts of Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia, and the
District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to address ground-level
ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed at
in 2001 in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-
VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and
the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC
office<PHONE_NUMBER>; by email: [email protected] or via the OTC
website at https://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: April 21, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022-08980 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2383-2384]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations at
Morgantown Municipal Airport, Morgantown, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release and dispose of airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
application for a release and disposal of approximately 0.31 acres of
federally obligated airport property at Morgantown Municipal Airport,
Morgantown, WV, from Grant Assurance obligations. This acreage is
composed of two parcels of land that was acquired by the City of
Morgantown

on October 30, 1972 by conveyance from Joseph and Phyllis Marshall
through FAA Project #8-54-0015-02. The release will allow the West
Virginia Division of Highways to widen West Run Road (County Route 67/
1). The land requested for release is not required for aviation use and
development and will not interfere with the airport or its operation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on this application may be
submitted to Michael Adkins, Federal Aviation Administration, Beckley
Airports Field Office via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at the email
address [email protected]. Comments on this application may also
be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Matthew Di
Giulian, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Beckley Airports
Field Office, Federal Register Comment, 176 Airport Circle Room 101,
Beaver, West Virginia 25813.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by grant
agreements. The following is a brief overview of the request.The City
of Morganton requested a release from grant assurance obligations to
allow for the release and disposal of approximately 0.31 acres of
airport property at Morgantown Municipal Airport. The airport will
receive fair market value for the property. The proposed use of the
property will not interfere with the airport or its operation; and will
thereby, serve the interests of civil aviation.

    Issued in Beaver, West Virginia, on January 10, 2023.
Matthew Di Giulian,
Manager, Beckley Airports Field Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-00581 Filed 1-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P