  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review
under

The Paperwork Reduction Act

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	l(a)	Title of the Information Collection

	TITLE:   Chemical-Specific Rules, TSCA Section 8(a)

	EPA ICR No.:   1198.10	OMB Control No:   2070-0067

	1(b)	Short Characterization

	This information collection request requires OMB’s approval for the
continued collection of chemical-specific information under section 8(a)
of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2607); see
Attachment 1. TSCA section 8(a) authorizes the Administrator of the EPA
to promulgate rules that require persons who manufacture, import or
process chemical substances and mixtures, or who propose to manufacture,
import, or process chemical substances and mixtures, to maintain such
records and submit such reports to EPA as may be reasonably required.
Information that may be collected under TSCA section 8(a) includes, but
is not limited to, chemical names, categories of use, production volume,
byproducts of chemical production, existing data on deaths and
environmental effects, exposure data, and disposal information. These
data are collected by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) and may be used by other EPA offices and/or Federal agencies to
ensure knowledge of specific practices that may affect human health and
the environment.

	There may be circumstances when EPA may require different information
than is readily available or information that is different from that
available through existing regulatory information collection tools, like
the TSCA section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)
which is discussed in another ICR under a different OMB control number.
EPA promulgated PAIR on June 22, 1982 (see 40 CFR Part 712). Whenever a
substance is added to the PAIR, manufacturers and importers of the
substance are required to complete a PAIR report form. The PAIR report
requests a very limited amount of information on listed chemicals
regarding activities occurring over a specific time period.

	Any chemical covered by TSCA for which OPPT, other EPA Offices or
another Federal agency has a reasonable need for information, and which
cannot be satisfied via readily available sources or by use of PAIR, is
a proper potential subject for a chemical-specific TSCA section 8(a)
rulemaking. For instance EPA may wish to ask detailed questions in
regard to how industry oversees the use and production of a chemical.
These specific monitoring capabilities could allow EPA to react to
change in market conditions that may warrant a change in EPA’s
regulatory strategy. Therefore, EPA could promulgate a TSCA section 8(a)
rule to gather this information by requesting that current or potential
manufacturers, importers or processors of the substance provide
chemical-specific information.

	EPA’s OPPT, other EPA Offices and/or other Federal agencies will
generally be the primary groups for which information will be collected.
However, to the extent that reported information is not considered to be
confidential business information (CBI), environmental groups,
environmental justice advocates, state and local government entities and
other members of the public will have access to this information for
their own use.

	Rather than requiring respondents to submit information on reporting
forms such as those used for PAIR, EPA has in the past allowed
individual firms to choose the reporting means and format that is best
suited to their recordkeeping resources. EPA believes that for TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific rules, this allowance keeps reporting
costs low.

	Total annual cost of a rule varies depending upon the number of
chemicals per rule and the number of respondents per chemical. Based on
the recent past usage of chemical-specific TSCA section 8(a) rules and
expected future usage, EPA assumes  that it will promulgate one TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific rule with four respondents (notices) per
year for the three-year duration of the ICR (see Section 6(b), below).
The maximum total annual number of burden hours for respondents range
from 67 hours to 275 hours per TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule.
The maximum cost associated with the promulgation of a TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rule is $3,711 to $16,551. However, the cost per
respondent varies with the type of chemical-specific information
requested, and subsequently, the tasks required to comply with a TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific rule. Because all respondents may not
have to provide information on all data items listed (see Sections 3 and
6(b), below), the ranges presented above are maximums. Assuming that all
respondents do not have to complete all tasks identified to comply with
a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule, total annual reporting costs
to all respondents range from $8,104 to $36,316 per rule.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Generally, EPA may need chemical-specific information under TSCA
section 8(a) to evaluate the potential for adverse human health and
environmental effects caused by the manufacture, importation,
processing, use or disposal of identified chemical substances and
mixtures. Additionally, EPA may use TSCA section 8(a) information to
assess the need or set priorities for testing and/or further regulatory
action.

	The information required in TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules
can be custom-tailored to aid in achieving EPA’s goals of protecting
human health and the environment. Information collected may vary
depending on the substance, its current and potential uses and EPA’s
concerns about potential human or environmental risks caused by
exposures to the substance. Promulgated TSCA section 8(a) rules may
require persons manufacturing, importing or processing the chemical
substance to report to EPA on specific information such as: a
chemical’s composition, byproducts, quantity produced, employee
exposure and environmental release. Persons have in the past also been
required to notify EPA of a management decision to initiate the
manufacturing, importing, or processing of a chemical substance or
mixture.

	The legal authority for this information collection is TSCA section
8(a), U.S.C. 2607(a). TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules have
been codified at 40 CFR 704, subpart B; see Attachment 2.

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

	EPA will use the information obtained through the TSCA section 8(a)
reporting rules to satisfy specifically identified data needs. The
information collected will be relevant to risk identification, all
stages of risk assessment, and/or control action functions. Receipt of
TSCA section 8(a) information may also give the Agency an opportunity to
work with the respondent, if necessary, to minimize exposure risks
associated with specific uses. Generally, a specific information
collection request would be made by the Chemical Control Division or
another division in OPPT. However, other regulatory agencies and
departments, such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other members of the
Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) may also present a need for and
subsequently use TSCA section 8(a) data to, for example, assess worker
or consumer exposures.

	An example of a use of a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule that
was key in affecting a benefit to human health was 1,1-aminoundecanoic
acid (1,1-AA). From submitted TSCA section 8(e) “substantial risk”
reports, EPA discovered that 1,1-AA is a carcinogen in one sex of one
rodent species (male rat), and that exposure is limited to workers
producing the nylon in which the chemical is an ingredient. The
manufacturer was contacted to obtain exposure data for this chemical.
From this contact EPA learned: (1) 1,1-AA was imported and converted
into nylon by one company and there was no domestic manufacture; (2)
1,1-AA was handled and transferred in a closed system and all 1,1-AA was
converted during the reaction to produce nylon. Consequently, because of
limited exposure potential, 1,1-AA was dropped from further review.
However, concern would arise if 1,1-AA were to be manufactured
domestically because of the greater likelihood for worker exposure. To
alert EPA to domestic manufacture, on May 28, 1987, OPPT promulgated a
TSCA section 8(a)/5 (SNUR) rule for 1,1-AA (52 FR 19860). Users of TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific data rarely make a judgment based solely
on the content of the TSCA section 8(a) information received but rather
use the TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific information as part of the
larger risk management strategy. 1,1-AA TSCA section 8(a) information
would be instrumental in affecting a benefit to human health if a
company were to begin to manufacture the substance.

3.  NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATION, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-Duplication

	Section 8(a)(2) of TSCA states, “To the extent feasible, the
Administrator shall not require any reporting which is unnecessary or
duplicative.”  The reporting requirements of TSCA section 8(a) rules
only require information that EPA believes will assist in a reasoned
evaluation of the human health and environmental effects of chemical
substances and mixtures. This information is unlikely to be duplicative
since, (1) EPA estimates that each rule will generate only a few
notices, (2) the information required by the TSCA section 8(a) rule is
unique to the manufacturer, importer or processor (e.g., the proposed
date of production or importation, the amount produced or imported, the
chemical composition, and uses of the chemical substance or mixture),
and (3) EPA thoroughly checks other public and unpublished sources to
see if the required data may already be available. Finally, once EPA
became aware of a source of substantially similar information, for
example via comments on a proposed rule, EPA would not continue with the
information collection.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be
made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register
notice.  The public will have 60 days to provide comments.  Any comments
received will be given consideration when completing the supporting
statement that is submitted to OMB.

	3(c)	Consultations

	EPA has not published a proposed or final TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific information gathering rule for more than twenty-five
years and has, therefore, not received any comments since that time. EPA
has received comments on the use of TSCA section 8(a) reporting rules
through published Federal Register notices. Various organizations
responded to EPA’s request for comments during the 1985 to 1988 ICR
period. For example, the Agency originally proposed a SNUR for
4,4,1-methylenebis (2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) but public comments
received in July and August of 1986 on the  proposed SNUR suggested that
a TSCA section 8(a) rule would be more appropriate. This suggestion was
followed, reducing the burden on the public since the TSCA section 8(a)
rule exempted small manufacturers, whereas the proposed SNUR would not
have had this exemption. Also, after receiving public comment on the
proposed SNUR/8(a) rule for 1,1- aminoundecanoic acid (July 22, 1986),
the proposed definition of the term “enclosed process” was modified
to account for possible releases through emergency pressure relief, thus
expanding the number of processes that would be considered
“enclosed” and lessening compliance costs. The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) has also responded to several TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rules. The NRDC is a national nonprofit environmental
organization dedicated to the protection of human health and the
environment. The NRDC generally urges EPA to adopt a more extensive,
detailed set of information requirements.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies to
consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific
aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for
review and approval.  In accordance with this regulation, EPA will
pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the
development of the renewal of this collection.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Generally companies are required to report only once under a TSCA
section 8(a) reporting rule. EPA may consider requiring reporting on an
annual, semiannual, monthly or other basis if the Administrator deems
this necessary to protect human health and the environment. EPA tailors
each rule to meet chemical-specific data requirements, thus reducing the
potential for too frequent data collections.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	This information collection activity is necessary to implement the
statutory requirements of section 8(a) of TSCA and is consistent with
the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	Submitters may designate information as confidential, trade secret or
proprietary. EPA has implemented procedures to protect any confidential,
trade secret or proprietary information from disclosure. These
procedures comply with EPA’s confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR Part
2, Subpart B.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable. TSCA section 8(a) reporting rules do
not include any questions of a sensitive nature.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) Codes

	Respondents affected by this collection activity primarily include
those businesses that fall under NAICS codes 325, Chemical Manufacturers
and Processors, and 324110, Petroleum Refineries.

	4(b)	Information Requested

	4(b)(i)	 Data Items

	Section 8(a) of TSCA specifically lists a wide range of data items that
may be required by EPA, including information on use, production volume,
exposure, and health and safety. Data items requested of manufacturers,
importers, or processors of certain chemicals vary with each collection
request, but will not repeat information previously requested in the
PAIR or other information gathering tools. Some data items requested
under TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules in the past include:
notification and description of changes in the end use of identified
substances and mixtures, information on planned manufacturing and
on-site processing, and notification of changes to the method of
manufacturing the substance (see 40 CFR subpart B).

	An example of a past TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule is one
issued on 4,4,1-methylenebis (2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA). It required
persons who propose to manufacture MBOCA to notify EPA of that intent
and to submit information on their planned manufacturing and on-site
processing activities. The rule also required persons who are
manufacturing MBOCA to notify the Agency if they propose to alter their
manner or method of manufacturing the substance.

	4(b)(ii)  Respondent Activities

	Activities a respondent may be required to perform as a result of TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific rule are as follows:

9 to 29.5 Hours of Managerial Labor

- Identify listed chemicals;

- Assign principal technical contact person;

- Identify by-product;

- Review marketing data;

- Research the date of the initiation of manufacture or importation of
the chemical;

- Research occupational exposure, environmental release, health and
environmental data, disposal methods; and

- Process, compile, and review information for accuracy, substantiate a
claim of confidential business information.

17.5 to 98 Hours of Technical Labor

- Identify chemical and trade name and chemical composition;

- Identify by-product;

- Describe use of chemical;

- Report quantity manufactured or imported;

- Research workplace exposures, environmental releases, health and
environmental data, and disposal methods; and

- Provide occupational description.

7 to 21 Hours of Clerical Labor

- Format research on occupational exposures, environmental releases,
health and environmental data;

- Format attachments; and

- Prepare notice.

Recordkeeping Estimate

	TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules may contain recordkeeping
requirements. The recordkeeping estimate is rough, but it is reasonably
related to the maximum reporting burden. EPA estimates that
recordkeeping will account for approximately four percent of the
reporting burden, or a maximum of 3 hours (see Table 2.)

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities Inventory

	For any TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule the Agency would have
to perform a number of tasks. They are:

o  	Industry/Public Assistance (answering questions regarding rule)

o  	Data Processing and System Support Personnel

o  	Storage and Distribution

o  	Compliance Monitoring

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	An improved information technology to minimize burden of a TSCA section
8(a) chemical-specific rule has not been found. EPA has not been able to
identify a more efficient, less expensive, or more flexible means of
obtaining the required data than the one currently being used. To the
extent data are not CBI, all information collected is made available to
the public through the public docket office. At the present time, EPA is
not requiring firms to submit this information on any one standard
reporting form. Reporting facilities will be able to choose the format
that best suits their reporting resources. TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rules typically require one-time reporting. As future
data needs arise, EPA will consider the use of electronic or other types
of reporting methods. EPA believes the flexibility already allowed in
the reporting structure significantly eases burden.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	Section 8(a) of TSCA generally exempts small manufacturers and
processors. However, under TSCA section 8(a)(3), EPA may require small
manufacturers and processors to report or keep records if the substance
or mixture is subject to a rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA
sections 4, 5(b)(4), or 6 or with respect to which relief has been
granted pursuant to a civil action brought under sections 5 or 7 of
TSCA. All respondents to TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules,
including small businesses, are granted flexibility in their reporting
methods.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules are generally one-time
collections of specific information, usually regarding one chemical
substance. Proposed TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rules request
comments. The comments are then addressed and incorporated as
appropriate in the final rule, which specifies the reporting deadline.
Generally, EPA requires that information be reported no sooner than 30
days after the effective date of a final rule.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a) 	Estimating Respondent Burden

	Wage rates, including fringe benefits and overhead, for three broad
categories of labor (managerial, technical, and clerical) were used in
this analysis. The basis for estimating wage rates for the purposes of
this analysis is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, for December 2012, for manufacturing
industries. Based on the BLS data, the average hourly wage rates (as of
December 2012) are $43.95 for managerial personnel, $38.53 for technical
personnel and $17.64 for clerical personnel.

	The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific
to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series and an
additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account
for overhead. The overhead factor of 17 percent is used in accordance
with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two
major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics
Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic
Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA,
2002a). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading
factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the
fully loaded wage. The loaded hourly wage rates are $72.87 for
managerial personnel, $64.38 for technical personnel and $29.51 for
clerical personnel, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category.

Labor Category	Average Wages1	Benefits and Overhead

Loading Factor2	Loaded Hourly Rate3

Managerial	$43.95	1.66	$72.87

Technical	$38.53	1.67	$64.38

Clerical	$17.64	1.67	$29.51

Notes:

1 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December
2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013).

2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates
for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA,
2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory
Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).

3 Wage data are rounded to the closest penny in this table; however, in
calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were
used.

	This ICR maintains the assumption of the previous ICR that, on average,
four notices per year are submitted in response to one section 8(a)
chemical-specific rule per year. Current labor rates and burden hours
used to calculate the cost to respondents are listed below.

Labor Category	Burden Hours	Hourly Rate

Managerial	9.0 – 29.5	$72.87

Technical	17.5 – 98.0	$64.38

Clerical	7.0 – 21.0	$29.51

	6(b) 	Estimating Respondent Costs

	The following are the tasks that managers, technical, and clerical
personnel are expected to perform when preparing to submit a notice in
response to an 8(a) chemical-specific rule. However, as discussed at the
end of this section, not all respondents are likely to be required to
perform all tasks under each labor category. Therefore, the ranges of
labor hours presented below for each labor category (e.g., 9 to 29.5
hours for managers) are the maximums and are based on the assumption
that all tasks are performed for each notice.

Managerial Labor

Manufacturer identifies listed chemicals;

Assign principal technical contact person;

Identify by-product;

Review marketing data;

Research the date of the initiation of manufacture or importation of the
chemical;

Research occupational exposure, environmental release, health and
environmental data, disposal methods;

Process, compile, and review information for accuracy, substantiate a
claim of 	     confidential business information.

	In performing these tasks, managerial labor hours have been estimated
to range from 9.5 to 29.5 hours per TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific
rule. At $72.87 per hour for management labor times, the range of hours
predicted [$72.87 x (9.5 to 29.5)], the range of cost for management
work is $692 to $2,150 per notice resulting from a TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rule. With an average of four notices per year for the
three-year ICR period, the range of  costs per year for managerial labor
is [4 x ($692 to $2,150)] = $2,768 to $8,600.

Technical Labor

Identify chemical and trade name and chemical composition;

Identify by-product;

Describe use of chemical;

Report quantity manufactured or imported;

Research occupational exposures, environmental releases, health and
environmental data, and disposal methods;

Provide occupational description.

	In performing these tasks, technical labor hours have been estimated to
range from 17.5 to 98 hours per notice resulting from a TSCA section
8(a) chemical-specific rule. At $64.38 per hour for technical labor,
times the range of hours predicted [$64.38 x (17.5 to 98)], a range of
cost for technical work is estimated to be $1,127 to $6,309 per notice
resulting from a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule. With four
notices per year for a three-year period, the range of annual costs for
technical labor is [4 x ($1,127 to $6,309)] = $4,508 to $25,236.

Clerical Labor

Format research on occupational exposure, environmental releases, health
and 	     environmental data;

Format attachments;

Prepare notice.

	In performing these tasks, clerical labor has been estimated to range
from 7 to 21 hours per notice resulting from a TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rule. At $29.51 per hour for clerical labor, times the
range of hours predicted [$29.51 x (7 to 21)], the range of cost for
clerical work is estimated to be $207 to $620 per notice resulting from
a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule. With four notices per TSCA
section 8(a) chemical-specific rule, the range of costs per year for
clerical labor is [4 x ($207 to $620)] = $828 to $2,480.

	The cost to a respondent for filing a TSCA section 8(a) notice depends
upon the various tasks performed. These tasks could include gathering
the required data, preparing and submitting the TSCA section 8(a)
notice, and possibly keeping records. Based on promulgated TSCA section
8(a) rules, EPA estimates that each respondent will submit one notice
per TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule. EPA anticipates issuing
one TSCA section 8(a) rule per year and expects to receive an average of
four notices per year.

	The cost to a respondent for submitting a TSCA section 8(a) notice is a
function of the number of hours and the hourly labor costs for the
individuals developing and preparing the notice. The annual estimated
range of cost to the respondent is $2,026 ($692 + $1,127 + $207) to
$9,079 ($2,150 + $6,309 + $620) per notice, and $8,104 to $36,316 per
TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule [4 notices per rule x ($2,026
to $9,079 per notice)]. However, as mentioned above, these figures are
likely to overstate the true cost because not all respondents may be
required to supply information regarding each activity. Thus, the
average actual cost to the respondent will be lower than the $2,026 to
$9,079 per notice estimate calculated above. The estimated frequency of
each activity, along with total respondent cost and burden calculations,
is presented in Table 2. The total cost to all respondents reporting
under a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule is estimated to range
from $3,711 to $16,551 per year.

Table 2. Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Associated with
Preparing and Filing a TSCA Section 8(a) Notice.

Activity	Managerial Hours $72.87/hr	Technical Hours $64.38/hr	Clerical
Hours $29.51/hr	Notices per Year	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Costs

Manufacturer ID

and Principal Technical Contact	1 - 4

	4	4 - 16	$291-

$1,166

Chemical and

Trade Name

1 - 4

3	3 - 12	$193-

$773

Chemical

Composition

0.5 - 2

4	2 - 8	$129-

$515

Byproduct ID	1	1 - 4

2	4 - 10	$275-

$661

Use Description

1 - 4

4	4 - 16	$258-

$1,030

Quantity Manufactured

or Imported

1 - 4

4	4 - 16	$258-

$1,030

Marketing Data	1 - 2

	2	2 - 4	$146-

$292

Date of Initiation

of  Manufacture or Importation	0.5

	4	2	$146

Occupational Exposure	1 - 4	2 - 16	1 - 3	2	8 - 46	$462-

$2,820

Environmental Release	1 - 4	1 - 8	1 - 3	2	6 - 30	$334-

$1,790

Occupational Description

1 - 10

1	1 - 10	$64-

$644

Health and Environmental Data	2 - 8	8 - 40	1 - 3	1	11 - 51	$690-

$3,247

Disposal Methods	1 - 2	1 - 6

1	2 - 8	$137-

$532

Attachments

	2 - 6	1	2 - 6	$59-

$177

Preparation of

Notice

	1 - 3	4	4 - 12	$118-

$354

Managerial/Legal Review of Submission	1 - 4

	4	4 - 16	$291-

$1,166

Recordkeeping

	1 - 3	4	4 - 12	$118-

$354

TOTAL	9.5 - 29.5	17.5 - 98	7 - 21

67 - 275	$3,711 -

$16,551

	6(c) 	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The Agency has developed the following burden hour estimates for
activities related to promulgating a section 8(a) Chemical Specific
rule.

Activity	Burden

Industry/Public Assistance (answering questions regarding the rule)	0.1
FTE

Data processing and systems support personnel	0.2 FTE

Storage and Distribution	0.1 FTE

Compliance monitoring	0.1 FTE

TOTAL FTEs	0.5 FTE

	The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics bases its burden hour and
labor cost estimates on prior experience in gathering and processing
information associated with other information collections. Because these
activities involve a team approach, the Agency has used a composite
burden hour estimate containing workers at various GS levels and
calculated hourly costs based upon the wage rate for a GS-12 Step 1
employee. The 2013 annual salary for a GS-12 Step 1 employee in the
Washington DC area is $74,872. The cost for 0.5 FTE is $37,436.
Incorporation of an overhead and benefits factor of 1.6 yields a fully
loaded cost of $59,898 to the Agency for promulgating and supporting a
TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule. The full-time work year is
considered to be 2,080, so that there are 1,040 burden hours associated
with 0.5 FTE.

	6(d) 	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	The following table displays the annual burden and costs borne by
respondents and EPA associated with preparing, filing and reviewing a
notice resulting from a TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific rule.

Table 3. Annual Burden and Cost of a TSCA Section 8(a) Chemical-Specific
Rule.

	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Costs

Industry	67 to 275	$3,711 to $16,551

Agency	1,040	$59,898

6(e) 	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The current request for renewal estimates a total annual burden to
respondents of 275 hours, which is unchanged from the previous ICR
renewal. EPA anticipates issuing one TSCA section 8(a) chemical-specific
rule per year with an average of four respondents submitting notices per
rule. EPA may promulgate more than one TSCA section 8(a)
chemical-specific rule per year over the next three years. If EPA does
this, the Agency will submit a technical amendment to OMB to reflect the
change in estimated burden to the regulated industry and the government.

	6(f) 	Burden Statement

	The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 68.8 hours per response (one-quarter of maximum annual burden of
275 hours for four notices). Of the 68.8 hours, 65.8 hours are
associated with reporting tasks such as reviewing instructions,
gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection
of information. The remaining three hours are associated with
recordkeeping. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor such a request and a person or facility is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The OMB
control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and
included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

	The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0458, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC).  The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is located in the EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA/DC 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 EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques. Submit your comments, referencing
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0458 and OMB Control No. 2070-0067, to
(1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by
mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  12


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7900-7902]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. SIPA-183; File No. SIPC-2021-01]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Determination

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 3(e)(2) of the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 (``SIPA''), notice is hereby given that the
Board of Directors of SIPC (the ``Board'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') on January 5, 2021,
notification that the Board has determined, beginning January 1, 2022,
and for the five year period immediately thereafter, that the standard
maximum cash advance amount available to satisfy customer claims for
cash in a SIPA liquidation proceeding will remain at $250,000. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Board's
determination from interested parties.

DATES: Comments are to be received on or before February 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments concerning the foregoing by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/submitcomments.htm); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SIPC-2021-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All comments should refer to File Number SIPC-2021-01. This file
numbers 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/other.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to this Notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Notice
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 a.m. and 3
p.m. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at
(202) 551-5521; Randall W. Roy, Deputy Associate Director, at (202)
551-5522; Raymond A. Lombardo, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Timothy C. Fox,
Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or A.J. Jacob, Special Counsel, at
(202) 551-5583; Office of Financial Responsibility, Division of Trading
and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. SIPC'S Statement of the Purpose of and Statutory Basis of the
Determination of the Board of Directors of SIPC Not To Adjust the
Standard Maximum Cash Advance Amount for Inflation

    In its filing with the Commission, SIPC included statements
concerning the purpose of and statutory basis of the SIPC Board's
determination. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified above, and appear in the text, below.
* * * * *
    ``Pursuant to section 9(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection
Act (``SIPA''), 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3(e)(1),\1\ the Board of Directors
(``Board'') of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
(``SIPC'') must determine, ``[n]ot later than January 1, 2011, and
every five years thereafter, and subject to the approval of the
Commission,'' whether to adjust for inflation the standard maximum cash
advance amount that SIPC can advance to satisfy customer claims for
cash under SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(a)(1). The Board considered the issue at
its Meeting on September 9, 2020, and again at its Meeting on November
12, 2020. Among other things, and as more fully set forth below, the
Board considered the criteria set forth in SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(5),
and the views of the staffs of the Commission, the FDIC, and FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For convenience, references herein to provisions of SIPA
shall be to the United States Code, and shall omit ``15 U.S.C.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board has determined that the maximum cash advance amount
should remain at the current level of $250,000 per customer. Pursuant
to SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(4), and subject to the approval of the
Commission as provided under SIPA Sec. Sec.  78ccc(e)(2) and 78fff-
3(e)(1),\2\ the Board's determination will become effective January 1,
2022. Further, pursuant to SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(3)(A), the Commission
``shall publish in the Federal Register the standard maximum cash
advance amount'' not later than April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(1) provides that approval by the
Commission be obtained ``as provided under section 78ccc(e)(2)'' of
SIPA. SIPA Sec.  78ccc(e)(2) establishes procedures governing
proposed changes to SIPC's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of the Statutory Criteria

A. Amount of Potential Adjustment
    Were the Board to have determined that the maximum cash advance
amount should be adjusted, the formula for calculation of such
adjustment would entail multiplying $250,000 by:

[t]he ratio of the annual value of the Personal Consumption
Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index thereto),
published by the Department of Commerce, for the calendar year
preceding the year in which such determination is made, to the
published annual value of such index for the calendar year preceding
the year 2010.

    SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(1)(B).
    A present-day application of the formula would increase the limit
by $40,000, to a total of $290,000.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e), the $40,000 amount was
determined as follows: $250,000 multiplied by 1.1675 [the ratio of
108.763 (the annual value of the Price Index published by the
Department of Commerce for calendar year 2019), to 94.094 (the
published annual value of the index for 2009)], which equals
$291,875. Pursuant to SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(2), this amount is to be
rounded down to the nearest multiple of $10,000, i.e., $290,000.
However, because the determination is to be made for the calendar
year 2021, the annual value of the Price Index to be used is for the
``calendar year preceding the year in which such determination is
made,'' namely, the year 2020. The 2020 annual value will not be
available until sometime in 2021. Nevertheless, through the month of
November 2020, the index increased by approximately 0.9%.
Consequently, the index value would have to either increase in
December 2020 by approximately 1.9% or decrease by approximately
1.5% for the result to be different from $290,000, which is
extremely unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Inflation Adjustment Considerations
    SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(5) provides that in deciding whether to
adjust the maximum cash advance amount, the Board shall consider the
following criteria:
    (A) The overall state of the fund and the economic conditions
affecting members of SIPC;
    (B) the potential problems affecting members of SIPC; and
    (C) such other factors as the Board of Directors of SIPC may
determine appropriate.
1. The Overall State of the SIPC Fund and Economic Conditions Affecting
Members, and Potential Problems Affecting Members of SIPC
    The Board reviewed the projected growth of the SIPC Fund, including
the target amount for the Fund of $5 billion, the assessment rate
imposed on SIPC members pursuant to SIPC's Assessments bylaw, as
amended, and the potential impact of an inflation adjustment on the
Fund, and determined that keeping the standard maximum cash advance at
$250,000 did not adversely affect SIPC members. In its review, the
Board also considered SIPC's historical experience and examined: (1)
SIPC advances in past and present liquidation proceedings; (2) amounts
generated from assessments on member broker-dealers; and (3) projected
returns on SIPC investments.

In addition, the Board considered the views of the staffs of the
Commission, the FDIC, and FINRA, as reported to the SIPC staff and as
further reported by the SIPC staff to the Board. The Board concluded
that the SIPC Fund remains on a steady growth path for the near future,
barring any unforeseen catastrophic event, and that any increases in
the cash limit of SIPA protection would not appreciably benefit
customers.
2. Other Appropriate Factors
a. Potential Divergence Between FDIC and SIPC Protections
    The Board noted the equivalency--presently $250,000--between SIPA's
maximum cash advance amount and the ``standard maximum deposit
insurance amount'' that fixes the limit on bank deposit insurance under
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (``FDIA''), 12 U.S.C. 1821 et seq. An
inflation adjustment to the former without a corresponding adjustment
to the latter would result in an unprecedented divergence between the
maximum cash advance amount under SIPA and the standard maximum deposit
insurance amount under FDIA.
    Increases to the limit of protection for cash claims under SIPA
historically have been in lockstep with increases in FDIC deposit
insurance.\4\ In 2008, and again, in 2010, parity with deposit
insurance was the primary reason for SIPC's request to Congress to
increase the SIPA limit of protection for cash claims. In 2016,
uniformity with FDIC deposit insurance was a primary factor in the
Board's determination not to adjust the standard maximum cash advance
amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The below compares the limits of protection for cash under
SIPA and the FDIA: SIPA: $20,000 (Pub. L. No 91-598, Sec.
6(f)(1)(A), 84 Stat. 1636, 1651 (1970)). FDIA: $20,000 (Pub. L. 91-
151, 7, 83 Stat. 371, 375 (1969)). SIPA: $40,000 (Pub. L. 95-283, 9,
92 Stat. 249, 265 (1978)). FDIA: $40,000 (Pub. L. 93-495, 102(a), 88
Stat. 1500, 1502 (1974)). SIPA: $100,000 (Pub. L. 96-433, 1, 94
Stat. 1855 (1980)). FDIA: $100,000 (Pub. L. 96-221, 308, 94 Stat.
132, 147 (1980)). SIPA: $250,000 (Pub. L. 111-203, 929H, 124 Stat.
1376, 1865 (2010)). FDIA: $250,000 (temporary until 12/31/2009)
Public Law 110-343, 136, 122 Stat. 3765, 3799 (2008); (permanent)
Public Law 111-203, 335, 124 Stat. 1376, 1540 (2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Historical Claims Experience and Benefit to Customers
    The Board also reviewed the number of claims for cash exceeding the
limit of protection in past and present liquidation proceedings. This
data suggests that the benefit to customers of an inflation adjustment
may be limited. Of the more than 770,000 allowed claims in completed or
substantially completed liquidation proceedings as of year-end 2019,
the unsatisfied portion of cash claims amounted to $25 million. More
than half of that amount involved only three claims. In the seven SIPA
proceedings initiated since 2010, when the cash limit was raised to
$250,000, only one cash claim remains unsatisfied.
c. Aggregate Credit Balances and Sweep Programs
    It also was brought to the Board's attention that aggregate cash
credit balances at member firms have not increased over the last five
years in line with inflation. Instead, member firms have increasingly
utilized sweep programs to move customer free credit balances from
broker- dealers to banks.

Conclusion

    The Board weighed all the relevant factors against a potential
adjustment of $40,000, the amount determined by the formula set forth
in SIPA Sec.  78fff-3(e)(1)(B). The Board concluded that, on balance,
in light of the intent to grow the SIPC Fund to reach a target of $5
billion, the unprecedented break with the FDIC limit that would result,
and the absence of evidence that an appreciable number of investors
would be benefitted, an adjustment to the limit of protection for cash
claims was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Board determined that the
standard maximum cash advance amount should remain at $250,000 per
customer.''
* * * * *

II. Date of Effectiveness and Timing for Commission Action

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
of the SIPC Board's determination in the Federal Register, or within
such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate of not more than
ninety days after such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which SIPC consents, the Commission shall:
    (A) By order approve such determination or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether such determination
should be disapproved.

III. Notice of the Determination of the SIPC Board Not To Adjust the
Standard Maximum Cash Advance Amount for Inflation

    On January 1, 2021, pursuant to section 9(e)(1) of the Securities
Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3(e)(1), the Board of
Directors of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (the
``Board'') determined that an inflation adjustment to the standard
maximum cash advance amount would not be appropriate. Accordingly, the
Board determined that the standard maximum cash advance amount will
remain at $250,000 per customer, effective January 1, 2022.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(3).

    Dated: January 27, 2021.
J. Matthew DesLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02128 Filed 2-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 14452]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-130-000]

ANR Storage Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on March 22, 2018, ANR Storage Company (ANR
Storage), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in
Docket No. CP18-130-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and ANR
Storage's blanket authorizations issued in Docket No. CP82-523-000. ANR
Storage seeks authorization to construct and operate one new injection/
withdrawal (I/W) well, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    ANR Storage proposes to construct and operate in Kalkaska County,
Michigan, one new horizontal I/W well, designated Cold Springs 12-17,
and related pipelines and appurtenances at ANR Storage's Cold Springs
12 Storage Field, located in Kalkaska County, Michigan. ANR Storage
states that the new well is to replace the plugged and abandoned CS12-2
and to improve the field's deliverability. There will be no change in
the certificated physical parameters of the field, including existing
boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer
boundaries, or the certificated storage capacity, as a result of the
proposed project. The total cost is approximately $4,250,000.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory
Administration, ANR Storage Company, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700,
Houston, Texas, 77002-2700, by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax (832) 320-
6685, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: March 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06786 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12771]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0013]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel CALLAIS PROVIDER

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel CALLAIS PROVIDER
as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on January 4,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is 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. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0013 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background And Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issues for
the offshore supply vessel CALLAIS PROVIDER. The horizontal distance
between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 20'-8\5/8\''.
Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the
forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72
COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would
result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck
where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations. The
offset from centerline of the RAM/NUC lights may be 3'. Offsetting the
RAM/NUC lights 2 meters from the centerline as required by Annex I
paragraph 3(c) the 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(c) of the
Inland rules Act would place them in an exposed position beyond the
width of the aft end of the pilothouse.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act as well as the offset of the
RAM/NUC lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph
3(c) of 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(c) of the Inland Rules
Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: 21 Jan 2010.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-5758 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73262-73263]
[DOCID:fr27de07-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2007-0168]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), at Scotts Hill, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved an
additional temporary deviation from the regulations governing the
operation of the Figure Eight Swing Bridge, at AIWW mile 278.1, at
Scotts Hill, NC. From February 1, 2008 at 6 p.m., until February 29,
2008 at 5:30 p.m., this added deviation allows the drawbridge to remain
closed-to-navigation each day from 6 p.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 10 a.m. to
1:30 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., to complete sandblasting and
painting operations. In addition, commercial vessel openings will be
provided at night if at least three hours notice is given by calling
(910) 686-0635 or via marine radio on Channel 13.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on February 1, 2008 to
5:30 p.m. on February 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-
5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Commander (dpb),
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this
temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Figure Eight Swing Bridge has a vertical
clearance in the closed position to vessels of 20 feet, above mean high
water (MHW). Also, the vertical clearance in this location is limited
to 85 feet, above MHW, by the overhead power line.
    On October 2, 2007, we published a notice of temporary deviation
from regulations entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), at

Scotts Hill, NC'' in the Federal Register (72 FR 56013).
    Contractors, on behalf of the Figure Eight Homeowners Association
(the bridge owner), have requested an extension of the abovementioned
temporary deviation with new dates and times to complete sandblasting,
cleaning and painting of the bridge superstructure.
    To finish this operation, the Figure Eight Swing Bridge will be
further maintained in the closed-to-navigation position each day from
February 1, 2008, until February 29, 2008, from 6 p.m. to 9:30 a.m.,
from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. In addition,
commercial vessel openings will be provided at night if at least three
hours notice is given by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or via marine radio on
Channel 13. At all other times, the drawbridge will operate in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.821(a)(3).
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
    We have analyzed this temporary deviation under Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f). The environmental impact that this temporary deviation will
have is minimal because of the drawbridge being closed to vessels to
perform routine repair and maintenance will not result in a change in
functional use, or an impact on a historically significant element or
setting.

    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-24977 Filed 12-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5538-5542]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68699; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

January 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 7, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a new Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary VIX Options Sliding Scale (the ``VIX Options Sliding
Scale''). The VIX Options Sliding Scale allows VIX volatility index
options (``VIX options'') transaction fees for Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (including its Non-Trading Permit Holder affiliates) proprietary
orders to be reduced provided a Clearing Trading Permit Holder
(including its Non-Trading Permit Holder affiliates) reaches certain
proprietary VIX options volume thresholds during a month. The proposed
applicable transaction fees for the different volume tiers on the VIX
Options Sliding Scale are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Transaction
               Tier                      VIX Options          fee per
                                     contracts per month     contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  Contracts 1-250,000.           $0.25
2.................................  Contracts 250,001-              0.15
                                     500,000.
3.................................  Contracts 500,001-              0.10
                                     750,000.
4.................................  Contracts 750,000+..            0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VIX Options Sliding Scale applies to orders bearing the origin
codes ``F'' \3\ and ``L'' \4\. The purpose of the VIX Options Sliding
Scale is to encourage greater Clearing Trading Permit Holder
proprietary trading of VIX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ``F'' origin code is used for OCC clearing member firm
proprietary account orders.
    \4\ The ``L'' origin code is used for orders for the account of
Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates effected for the purpose of
hedging the proprietary over-the-counter trading of the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder or its affiliates to be aggregated with the
trading activity of the Clearing Trading Permit Holder for purposes
of the Multiply-Listed Options Fee Cap and CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading permit Holder proprietary orders;
a ``Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate'' is defined as a 100%
wholly-owned affiliate or subsidiary of a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder that is (i) registered as United States or foreign broker/
dealer and (ii) is not itself a CBOE Trading Permit Holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the adoption of the VIX Options Sliding Scale,
the Exchange proposes to amend footnote 11 to its Fees Schedule.
Footnote 11 provides the details regarding the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Fee Cap in all products except SPX, SRO, VIX or other volatility
indexes, OEX or XEO and the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale for
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders, both of which apply
to Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary orders. Because the VIX
Options Sliding Scale also applies to Clearing Trading Permit Holder
proprietary orders, and because many of the details regarding the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in all products except SPX, SRO,
VIX or other volatility indexes, OEX or XEO and the CBOE Proprietary
Products Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
Orders will also apply to the VIX Options Sliding Scale, the Exchange
proposes to add the details regarding the VIX Options Sliding Scale
into footnote 11.
    First, footnote 11 describes the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee
Cap in all products except SPX, SRO, VIX or other volatility indexes,
OEX or XEO as the ``fee cap'' and the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders as the
``sliding scale''. In order to avoid confusion that could arise due to
the addition of the VIX Options Sliding Scale, the Exchange proposes to
define the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in all products
except SPX, SRO, VIX or other volatility indexes, OEX or XEO as the
``Fee Cap'' and the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale for
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders as the ``Sliding
Scale''. Any references within footnote 11 to the ``fee cap'' will now
be referred to as the ``Fee Cap'' and any references within footnote 11
to the ``sliding scale'' will now be referred to as the ``Sliding
Scale''. The Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary VIX Options
Sliding Scale is also defined within footnote 11 as the ``VIX Options
Sliding Scale'' and any references to the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary VIX Options Sliding Scale within footnote 11 are
referred to as the ``VIX Options Sliding Scale.''
    Like the Fee Cap and the Sliding Scale, the VIX Options Sliding
Scale will apply to (i) Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary
orders (``F'' origin code), and (ii) orders of Non-Trading Permit
Holder Affiliates of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder. A ``Non-Trading
Permit Holder Affiliate'' would be defined for the purposes of the VIX
Options Sliding Scale the same way it is defined for the Fee Cap and
Sliding Scale: A 100% wholly-owned affiliate or subsidiary of a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder that is registered as a United States or
foreign broker-dealer and that is not a CBOE Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH''). As with the Fee Cap and the Sliding Scale, only proprietary
orders of the Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate (currently, the Fees
Schedule reads that such orders have a ``B'' origin code, but such
orders actually have an ``L'' origin code, so the Exchange also
proposes to correct this error) effected for purposes of hedging the
proprietary over-the-counter trading of the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder or its affiliates will be included in calculating the VIX
Options Sliding Scale, and such orders must be marked with a code
approved by the Exchange identifying the orders as eligible for the VIX
Options Sliding Scale. As with the Fee Cap and the Sliding Scale, each
Clearing Trading Permit Holder is responsible for notifying the TPH
Department of all of its affiliations so that fees and contracts of the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder and its affiliates may be aggregated for
purposes of the VIX Options Sliding Scale and is required to certify
the affiliate status of any Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate whose
trading activity it seeks to aggregate. In addition, each Clearing
Trading Permit Holder is required to inform the Exchange immediately of
any event that causes an entity to cease to be an affiliate.
    As with the Fee Cap and the Sliding Scale, the Exchange will
aggregate the

fees and trading activity of separate Clearing Trading Permit Holders
for the purposes of the VIX Options Sliding Scale if there is at least
75% common ownership between the Clearing Trading Permit Holders as
reflected on each Clearing Trading Permit Holder's Form BD, Schedule A.
As with the Fee Cap and the Sliding Scale, a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder's fees and contracts executed pursuant to a CMTA agreement
(i.e., executed by another clearing firm and then transferred to the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder's account at the OCC) are aggregated
with the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's non-CMTA fees and contracts
for purposes of the VIX Options Sliding Scale.
    For calculating a Clearing Trading Permit Holder's total
proprietary product transaction fees, CBOE will use the following
methodology: If using the VIX Options Sliding Scale plus the Sliding
Scale (minus VIX options volume) results in lower total Clearing
Trading Permit Holder proprietary transaction fees than just using the
Sliding Scale, CBOE will apply the new VIX Options Sliding Scale plus
the Sliding Scale, and deduct the VIX options volume from the Sliding
Scale. If using the VIX options Sliding Scale plus the Sliding Scale
(minus VIX options volume) results in higher total Clearing Trading
Permit Holder proprietary transaction fees than just using the Sliding
Scale, CBOE will apply only the Sliding Scale. The purpose of this
methodology is to provide a Clearing Trading Permit Holder with the
most beneficial fee arrangement (the lowest fees) without double-
counting VIX options volume.
    For example, consider a situation in which, in a month, a Clearing
Trading Permit Holder has qualifying proprietary multiply-listed
options volume of 450,000 contracts, qualifying proprietary VIX options
volume of 850,000 contracts, and qualifying volume of other proprietary
products of 500,000 contracts (totaling 1,350,000 contracts of
proprietary products). Under the Sliding Scale, because the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder has executed greater than (or equal to) 375,000
contracts of multiply-listed options volume but less than 1,500,000
such contracts, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder will be assessed an
$0.18-per-contract fee on the first 750,000 proprietary products
contracts (totaling $135,000), a $0.05-per-contract fee on the next
250,000 proprietary products contracts (totaling $12,500), and a $0.02-
per-contract fee on the remaining 350,000 proprietary products
(totaling $7,000). Therefore, under the Sliding Scale, the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder's proprietary transaction fees would be $154,500
($135,000 + $12,500 + $7,000).
    We would then determine the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's fees
using the VIX Options Sliding Scale plus the Sliding Scale (minus VIX
options volume). Under the VIX Options Sliding Scale, because the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder executed 850,000 VIX contracts, the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder would be assessed a $0.25-per-contract
fee for contracts 1-250,000 (totaling $62,500), a $0.15-per-contract
fee for contracts 250,001-500,000 (totaling $37,500), a $0.10-per-
contract fee for contracts 500,001-750,000 (totaling $25,000), and a
$0.05-per-contract fee for contracts 750,001-850,000 ($5,000).
Therefore, under the VIX Options Sliding Scale, the Clearing Trading
Permit Holder's proprietary transaction fees are $130,000 ($62,500 +
$37,500 + $25,000 + $5,000). To this we would add the Clearing Trading
Permit Holder's proprietary fees using the Sliding Scale (subtracting
out the VIX options volume). Under the Sliding Scale, because the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder has executed greater than (or equal to)
375,000 contracts of multiply-listed options volume but less than
1,500,000 such contracts, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder will be
assessed an $0.18-per-contract fee on the 500,000 non-VIX options
proprietary product contracts, which comes out to $90,000. If we add
the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's fees under the VIX Options Sliding
Scale ($130,000) to fees using the Sliding Scale (minus VIX options
volume) ($90,000), the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's total
proprietary fees come out to $220,000. Because this amount is greater
than the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's fees using just the Sliding
Scale (including the VIX options volume) of $154,500, the Exchange
would just apply the Sliding Scale to determine the Clearing Trading
Permit Holder's proprietary fees, and assess the lower fee of $154,500.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which provides that
Exchange rules may provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adoption of the VIX Options Sliding Scale is reasonable because
it will allow Clearing Trading Permit Holders who engage in VIX options
trading the opportunity to pay lower fees for such transactions.
Similarly, aggregating the fees and trading activity of separate
Clearing Trading Permit Holders for the purposes of the VIX Options
Sliding Scale if there is at least 75% common ownership between the
Clearing Trading Permit Holders and aggregating a Clearing Trading
Permit Holder's fees and contracts executed pursuant to a CMTA
agreement with the Clearing Trading Permit Holder's non-CMTA fees and
contracts for the purpose of the VIX Options Sliding Scale is
reasonable because this will allow more Clearing Trading Permit Holders
to qualify for the lowered fees at the higher volume tiers in the VIX
Options Sliding Scale.
    The proposed methodology to be used in calculating a Clearing
Trading Permit Holder's total proprietary product transaction fees is
reasonable because it provides Clearing Trading Permit Holders who
engage in VIX options trading with a second way to maximize their
ability to limit their proprietary products transaction fees.
Subtracting VIX options volume from the Sliding Scale when taking into
account the VIX Options Sliding Scale to calculate proprietary product
transaction fees is reasonable because it would be illogical (and not
financially viable) to count VIX options volume twice (once in the VIX
Options Sliding Scale and once in the Sliding Scale) to allow a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder to qualify for a lowered fee rate when
the VIX options transactions (and volume such transactions created)
only occurred once and fees were therefore only assessed on such
transactions once.

    Applying the VIX Options Sliding Scale to Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (and their affiliates, in the manner described above)
proprietary orders only is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Clearing Trading Permit Holders take on a number of obligations
and responsibilities (such as membership with the Options Clearing
Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and financial obligations
that other market participants are not required to undertake. Further,
the VIX Options Sliding Scale is designed to encourage increased
Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary VIX options volume, which
provides increased VIX options volume and greater trading opportunities
for all market participants. Similarly, applying lower fee rates for
Clearing Trading Permit Holders who hit the higher VIX options contract
volume tiers on the VIX Options Sliding Scale is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to encourage increased
Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary VIX options volume, which
provides increased VIX options volume and greater trading opportunities
for all Clearing Trading Permit Holders, including those who are not
able to reach the higher-volume tiers. Indeed, this increased VIX
options volume and greater trading opportunities may provide such
Clearing Trading Permit Holders to reach the higher tiers (and pay the
lower fees such tiers entail). Moreover, the Exchange already offers
other fee-lowering programs (such as the Fee Cap and Sliding Scale)
which entail lower fees for Clearing Trading Permit Holders (and their
affiliates, in the manner described above) and are limited to Clearing
Trading Permit Holders (and their affiliates, in the manner described
above).
    Applying the VIX Options Sliding Scale to VIX options and not to
other products is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange has expended considerable time and resources in developing VIX
options. The VIX Options Sliding Scale is designed to encourage greater
VIX options trading, which, along with bringing greater VIX options
trading opportunities to all market participants, will bring in more
fees to the Exchange, and such fees can be used to recoup the
Exchange's costs and expenditures from developing VIX options.
    The Exchange proposes to define the Fee Cap, Sliding Scale, and VIX
Options Sliding Scale in footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule in order to
avoid any potential confusion by investors reading the Fees Schedule.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to correct, in footnote 11, the
erroneous reference to the origin code for proprietary orders of the
Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate effected for purposes of hedging
the proprietary over-the-counter trading of the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder or its affiliates (changing such reference from the origin code
``B'' to the correct origin code for such orders, ``L'') in order to
avoid any potential confusion by investors reading the Fees Schedule.
This avoidance of confusion removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protects investors and the public interest.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
adoption of the proposed VIX Options Sliding Scale will not impose any
unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because, while it applies
only to Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary orders, Clearing
Trading Permit Holders take on a number of obligations and
responsibilities (such as membership with the Options Clearing
Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and financial obligations
that other market participants are not required to undertake. Further,
the VIX Options Sliding Scale is designed to encourage increased
Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary VIX options volume, which
provides increased VIX options volume and greater trading opportunities
for all market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes that any
potential effects on intramarket competition that the adoption of the
proposed VIX Options Sliding Scale may cause are therefore justifiable.
Moreover, the Exchange already offers other fee-lowering programs (such
as the Fee Cap and Sliding Scale) which entail lower fees for Clearing
Trading Permit Holders (and their affiliates, in the manner described
above) and are limited to Clearing Trading Permit Holders (and their
affiliates, in the manner described above). The Exchange does not
believe that the adoption of the proposed VIX Options Sliding Scale
will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because
VIX options is a proprietary product that is traded solely on CBOE.

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 \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01493 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71398-71399]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-1999-5102]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on October 21, 2022,
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver
of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR 213.233, Track inspections. The
relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-1999-5102.
    Specifically, SEPTA requests an extension of its existing waiver
for a reduced frequency of the required visual track inspections for
FRA Class 3 and 4 track carrying passenger traffic and constructed with
continuous welded rail. SEPTA proposes to continue conducting one
visual track inspection per week, instead of the two visual inspections
per week that are required by Sec.  213.233(c), and to supplement its
visual inspections with Track Geometry Measurement System-equipped
vehicle inspections over the affected main tracks and sidings four
times per year. In support of its petition, SEPTA states that the
current inspection program on tracks included in the relief ``has
continued to successfully monitor track conditions and provide the
pertinent information necessary to identify and

correct deteriorating conditions before they become problems.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by January 23, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-25321 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P