[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24474-24475]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09806]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72013; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 404

April 24, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on April 16, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(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 Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 404.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 proposing to amend Interpretation and Policy .08 to
Rule 404 to replace the reference to ``GOOG'' with ``GOOGL''. This
filing is based on the recent filings of several other options
exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71848 (April
2, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-030); 71873 (April 4, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Google recently issued a new class of shares (class C) to its
shareholders in lieu of a cash dividend payment. In addition, the new
class C shares were given the current Google symbol ``GOOG''. As a
result, a new symbol, ``GOOGL'', was issued to class A shares. The
Exchange now proposes to change the symbol for Google referenced in
Rule 404 from ``GOOG'' to ``GOOGL'' to correspond with this recent
change. The change is designed to ensure that there is no confusion
amongst market participants that class A shares of Google will continue
as the underlying security for mini options listed and traded on the
exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \6\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposal to change the Google class A ticker to
its new designation is consistent with the Act because the proposed
change is merely updating the corresponding ticker to allow for
continued mini option trading on Google's class A shares. The proposed
change will allow for continued benefit to investors by providing them
an updated reference to an investment alternative to the standard
option contract.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is a
not a competitive filing but rather is designed to update the new
underlying symbol for Google class A for mini options in order to avoid
potential confusion on the part of market participants.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to [sic] 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to continue to list mini options on
the Google Class A shares following the issuance of a new class of
Google shares (class C). This proposal is substantially similar to
proposals at competing exchanges \10\ and raises no novel issues. For
these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-15 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-MIAX-2014-15. 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 MIAX. 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-MIAX-2014-15 and should be
submitted on or before May 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09806 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


encompass any especially important, sensitive, or limited habitat for
the Sound's fish and shellfish, such as key spawning or nursery habitat
for species of finfish. That said, as explained farther above, EPA has
redrawn the boundary of the ELDS to avoid a rocky area that could
provide particularly good habitat for fish, even though it is not an
area that has received any special designation for such purposes.
    Third, while EPA found that a small number of demersal fish (e.g.,
winter flounder), shellfish (e.g., clams and lobsters), benthic
organisms (e.g., worms), and zooplankton and phytoplankton could be
lost due to the physical effects of disposal (e.g., burial of organisms
on the seafloor by dredged material and entrainment of plankton in the
water column by dredged material upon its release from a disposal
barge), EPA also determined that these minor, temporary adverse effects
would be neither unreasonable nor unacceptable. This determination was
based on EPA's conclusion that the numbers of organisms potentially
affected represent only a minuscule percentage of those in eastern Long
Island Sound, and on DAMOS monitoring that consistently documents the
rapid recovery of the benthic community in an area that has received
dredged material. In addition, any physical effects will be further
limited by the relatively few months in which disposal activities could
be permitted by the environmental window (or time-of-year)
restrictions.
    Fourth, EPA has determined that vessel traffic associated with
dredged material disposal will not have any unreasonable or
unacceptable adverse effects on fishing. As explained above,
environmental window restrictions will limit any disposal to the period
between October 1 and April 30, and often to fewer months depending on
species-specific restrictions for each dredging project, each year.
Moreover, due to the seasonal nature of recreational boating and
commercial shipping, there is generally far less vessel traffic in the
colder-weather months when disposal would occur.
    There currently are no mineral extraction activities or
desalinization facilities in the eastern Long Island Sound region with
which disposal activity could potentially interfere. Energy
transmission pipelines and cables are located near the site, but none
are within the boundaries of the ELDS.
    No finfish aquaculture currently takes place in Long Island Sound,
and the only form of shellfish culture in the area, oyster production,
occurs in nearshore locations far enough away from the ELDS that it
should not be impacted in any manner by this proposed action.
    Finally, the ELDS is not in an area of special scientific
importance; in fact, areas with such characteristics were screened out
very early in the alternatives screening process. Accordingly,
depositing dredged material at the ELDS will not interfere with any of
the activities described in this criterion or other legitimate uses of
Long Island Sound.
    ix. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    EPA's analysis of existing water quality and ecological conditions
at the ELDS in light of available data, trend assessments and baseline
surveys indicates that disposal at the site will not cause unacceptable
or unreasonable adverse environmental effects. Considerations related
to water quality and various ecological factors (e.g., sediment
quality, benthic organisms, fish and shellfish) have already been
discussed above in relation to other site selection criteria, and are
discussed in

detail in the FSEIS and supporting documents. In considering this
criterion, EPA took into account existing water quality and sediment
quality data collected at the disposal sites, including from the
USACE's DAMOS site monitoring program, as well as water quality data
from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection's (CTDEEP) Long Island Sound Water Quality Monitoring
Program. As discussed herein, EPA has determined that placement of
suitable dredged material at the ELDS should not cause any significant
adverse environmental effects to water quality or to ecological
conditions at the disposal sites. EPA and the USACE have prepared a
SMMP for the ELDS to guide future monitoring of site conditions (FSEIS
Appendix I).
    x. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Sites (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
    Monitoring at disposal sites in Long Island Sound over the past 35
years has shown no recruitment of nuisance (invasive, non-native)
species that are attributable to dredged material disposal. There is no
reason to expect this to change, but monitoring will continue to look
for any such impacts. EPA and the USACE will continue to monitor the
ELDS and other EPA-designated sites under their respective SMMPs, which
include a ``management focus'' on ``changes in composition and numbers
of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near the disposal sites''
(Section 6.1.5 of the SMMP, Appendix I of the FSEIS).
    xi. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Sites of Any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
    There are no natural or cultural features of historical importance
located within or in close proximity to the ELDS. There is, however,
one shipwreck located within the ELDS near the southeastern corner the
site, just inside its eastern boundary. As discussed in the FSEIS, a
review of submerged vessel reports in the NOAA and Connecticut State
Historic Preservation Office (CT SHPO) shipwreck databases indicates
that there is one charted shipwreck located within the ELDS, near its
eastern boundary. This wreck also was identified by EPA's side-scan
sonar survey. This shipwreck is not, however, considered to be of
historical importance.
    EPA coordinated with Indian tribes in Connecticut, Rhode Island,
and New York throughout the development of the FSEIS, and the tribes
did not identify any important natural, cultural, spiritual, or
historical features or areas within the ELDS. At the same time, the
Shinnecock Indian Nation commented to EPA that investigations are
underway to determine whether ``submerged paleo cultural landscapes''
might exist that would indicate that the tribe's ancestors lived
farther offshore than currently understood. In this regard, the tribe
expresses concern that dredged material placement at an open-water site
could further bury any evidence of such sites. As discussed above and
in the FSEIS, EPA is currently not aware of any evidence suggesting
that such submerged artifacts may exist at the ELDS. If such evidence
emerges in the future, EPA will further consult with the Shinnecock
Indian Nation about whether any adjustments to the site boundaries,
site management requirements, or site use restrictions would be
appropriate.
    In summary, one shipwreck is located just inside the eastern
boundary of the ELDS, but the wreck is not considered to be of
historical significance. Nevertheless, any impacts to that wreck from
dredged material disposal will be minimized by establishing a 164-foot
(50 m) avoidance buffer surrounding the shipwreck as well as
appropriate site management, which accommodates both the minimum buffer
of 30 m recommended by the CT SHPO, and the 40-50 m minimum buffer
applied by the NY OPRHP.
3. Disposal Site Management (40 CFR 228.3, 228.7, 228.8 and 228.9)
    The ELDS will be subject to specific management requirements to
ensure that unacceptable adverse environmental impacts do not occur.
Examples of these requirements include: (1) Restricting the use of the
sites to the disposal of dredged material that has been determined to
be suitable for ocean disposal following MPRSA and/or CWA requirements
in accordance with the provisions of MPRSA section 106(f), as well as
to material from waters in the vicinity of the disposal sites; (2)
monitoring the disposal sites and their associated reference sites,
which are not used for dredged material disposal, to assess potential
impacts to the marine environment by providing a point of comparison to
an area unaffected by dredged material disposal; and (3) retaining the
right to limit or close these sites to further disposal activity if
monitoring or other information reveals evidence of unacceptable
adverse impacts to the marine environment. As mentioned above, dredged
material disposal will not be allowed when weather and sea conditions
could interfere with safe, effective placement of any dredged material
at a designated site. In addition, although not technically a site
management requirement, disposal activity at the sites will generally
be limited to the period between October 1 and April 30, but often
less, depending on environmental windows, to protect certain species,
as described above.
    EPA and the USACE have managed and monitored dredged material
disposal activities at disposal sites in Long Island Sound since the
early 1980s. Site monitoring has been conducted under the USACE's DAMOS
disposal site monitoring program. In accordance with the requirements
of MPRSA section 102(c) and 40 CFR 228.3, EPA and the USACE have
developed a SMMP for the ELDS, which is incorporated as Appendix I of
the FSEIS. The SMMP describes in detail the specific management and
monitoring requirements for the ELDS.

B. National Environmental Policy Act

    As EPA explained in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, 81 FR 24760
(April 27, 2016), EPA disposal site designation evaluations conducted
under the MPRSA have been determined to be ``functionally equivalent''
to NEPA reviews and, as a result, are not subject to NEPA analysis
requirements as a matter of law. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy,
EPA voluntarily uses NEPA procedures when evaluating the potential
designation of ocean dumping sites. See 63 FR 58045 (Notice of Policy
and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental
Policy Act Documents, October 29, 1998).
    EPA is the agency authorized by the MPRSA to designate dredged
material disposal sites and is responsible for the site designation
decision and the NEPA analysis supporting it. As discussed in detail in
the preamble to the Proposed Rule, 81 FR 24761, EPA used a third-party
contracting approach so that funding from the state of Connecticut
could be applied to the support the site designation studies and the
development of the FSEIS. See 40 CFR 1506.5. Because EPA is ultimately
responsible for the FSEIS, the Agency worked closely with the state of
Connecticut to select the contractors and then maintained close
involvement with production of the SEIS and control over its analyses
and conclusions. The U.S. Navy also contributed to the site designation
process by funding

biological and other environmental studies in support of the FSEIS. The
Navy, with extensive input from EPA and CTDEEP, used its contractor
Tetra Tech based on its expertise in biological resources studies and
risk assessment.
    The USACE was a ``cooperating agency'' in the development of the
FSEIS because of its knowledge concerning the region's dredging needs,
its technical expertise in monitoring dredged material disposal sites
and assessing the environmental effects of dredging and dredged
material disposal, its history in the regulation of dredged material
disposal in Long Island Sound and elsewhere, and its ongoing legal role
in regulating dredging, dredged material disposal, and the management
and monitoring of disposal sites. Other cooperating agencies were NMFS,
CTDEEP, CT DOT, New York Department of State (NYSDOS), New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council (RICRMC). To take advantage of
expertise of other entities, and to promote strong inter-agency
communications, EPA also coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; the Mashantucket (Western) Pequot Tribal Nation, Mohegan
Tribe, Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot
Indians (in Connecticut); the Narragansett Indian Tribe (in Rhode
Island); the Shinnecock Indian Nation (in New York); and, as previously
discussed, the CT SHPO and NY OPRHP. Throughout the SEIS development
process, EPA communicated with the cooperating federal and state
agencies and tribes to keep them apprised of progress on the project
and to solicit input.
    Consistent with its voluntary NEPA policy, EPA has undertaken NEPA
analyses as part of its decision-making process for the designation of
the ELDS. EPA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on October
16, 2012, invited other federal and state agencies to participate as
cooperating or coordinating agencies, defined a ``Zone of Siting
Feasibility'' in cooperation with the cooperating agencies, held public
meetings regarding the scope of issues to be addressed by the SEIS, and
published a DSEIS for public review and comment. The DSEIS, entitled,
``Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation
of Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) in Eastern Long Island Sound,
Connecticut and New York,'' assesses and compares the effects of
designating alternative dredged material disposal sites in eastern Long
Island Sound. EPA's SEIS also evaluated various alternative approaches
to managing dredging needs, including the ``no action'' alternative
(i.e., the alternative of not designating any open-water disposal
sites). See 40 CFR 1502.14. The DSEIS was considered supplemental
because it updated and built upon the analyses that were conducted for
the 2005 Long Island Sound Environmental Impact Statement that
supported the designation of the Central and Western Long Island Sound
disposal sites.
    EPA released the DSEIS for a 60-day public comment period on April
27, 2016, and subsequently extended the comment period for 21 days,
until July 18, 2016. EPA held four public hearings during the comment
period: Two (afternoon and evening) on May 24 in Riverhead and
Mattituck, NY, and two on May 25 in Groton, CT. As previously noted,
EPA received extensive public comment, both in support of, and in
opposition to, EPA's proposed action as described in the DSEIS and
proposed rule.
    After considering the public comments received, EPA conducted
additional analysis and has now published an FSEIS in conjunction with,
and as part of the support for, publication of this Final Rule
designating the ELDS. EPA's FSEIS includes additional discussion and
analysis pertaining to EPA's final site designation, including
discussion and analysis supporting EPA's decision to adjust the
boundaries of the ELDS as they were delineated in the Proposed Rule.
Appendix J of the FSEIS includes all the public comments EPA received
on the DSEIS and Proposed Rule, and provides a summary of those
comments and EPA responses to those comments. EPA also has summarized
the more significant comments and EPA's responses to them in Section VI
of the preamble to this Final Rule.

C. Coastal Zone Management Act

    Based on the evaluations presented in the FSEIS and supporting
documents, and a review of the federally approved coastal zone programs
and policies of Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island, EPA determined
that designation of the ELDS for open-water dredged material disposal
under the MPRSA will be fully consistent with, or consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with, the enforceable policies of the
approved coastal zone management programs of the three states. EPA
provided a written determination to that effect to the NYSDOS (on July
20, 2016), to CTDEEP (on July 29, 2016), and to the RICRMC (on July 28,
2016), respectively.
    The specific policies of each state's coastal zone management
program are discussed in detail in the determinations noted above, but
in a general sense, there are several broad reasons why designation of
the ELDS is consistent with the applicable, enforceable policies of the
three states' coastal zone programs. First, the designation is not
expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to the marine
environment, coastal resources, or uses of the coastal zone. Indeed,
EPA expects the designation to benefit coastal uses involving
navigation and berthing of vessels by facilitating needed dredging, and
to benefit the environment by limiting any open-water dredged material
disposal to a small number of environmentally appropriate sites
designated by EPA, rather than at a potential proliferation of USACE-
selected sites. Second, designation of the site does not actually
authorize the disposal of any dredged material at the sites. Any
proposal to dispose dredged material from a particular project at a
designated site will be subject to case-specific evaluation and be
allowed only if: (a) The material satisfies the sediment quality
requirements of the MPRSA and the CWA; (b) no practicable alternative
method of management with less adverse environmental impact is
available; and (c) the disposal complies with the site restrictions for
the site. These restrictions are described and discussed in the next
section of the preamble and are designed to reduce or eliminate dredged
material disposal in Long Island Sound. Third, the designated disposal
site will be managed and monitored pursuant to a SMMP and if adverse
impacts are identified, use of the sites will be modified to reduce or
eliminate those impacts. Such modification could further restrict, or
even terminate, use of the sites, if appropriate. See 40 CFR 228.3,
228.11.
    On August 9, 2016, the RICRMC sent EPA a letter concurring with
EPA's CZMA determination for Rhode Island. Similarly, on September 26,
2016, CTDEEP, which administers Connecticut's coastal zone management
program, sent EPA a letter concurring with EPA's CZMA determination for
Connecticut.
    On October 3, 2016, EPA received a letter from the NYSDOS objecting
to EPA's designation of the ELDS on the basis of its view that either
EPA had provided insufficient information to support a CZMA consistency
determination or, based on the information provided, the action was
inconsistent with the enforceable policies of New York's Coastal
Management Program (CMP).

    After giving careful consideration to the issues raised by NYSDOS,
EPA continues to hold the view that designation of the ELDS, as
specified herein, is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of New York's CMP. EPA also believes that the
site use restrictions that have been made applicable to the ELDS
provide enhanced assurance of such consistency.

D. Endangered Species Act

    The ESA requires consultation with NMFS and/or USFWS to adequately
address potential impacts to threatened and endangered species that may
occur at the proposed dredged material disposal site from any proposal
to dispose dredged material. EPA initiated consultations regarding the
proposed ELDS with both the NMFS and USFWS, concurrent with the public
comment period for the DSEIS. This consultation process is fully
documented in the FSEIS. EPA provided the NMFS and USFWS with its
conclusion that the proposed designation of the ELDS was not likely to
adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species,
or designated critical habitat of any such species.
    On August 11, 2016, USFWS sent an email message concurring with
EPA's proposed action, stating that the designation of the ELDS, ``will
have no effect on federally listed species under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and that any effects from activities
associated with the disposal of dredged material at this location will
be consulted individually under section 7 of the ESA,'' and that,
``(f)urther consultation . . . is not necessary unless there is new
information relative to listed species presence or there are changes to
the project.''
    On August 12, 2016, NMFS also concurred with EPA's ``conclusion
that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the ESA-
listed species under our jurisdiction and will have no effect on
critical habitat since the action does not overlap with any proposed/
designation (sic) critical habitat under our jurisdiction,'' and that,
``. . . no further consultation . . . is required.'' Copies of all
consultation and coordination correspondence are provided in Appendices
A-11 of the FSEIS.

E. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

    The MSFCMA requires federal agencies to coordinate with NMFS
regarding any action they authorize, fund, or undertake that may
adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EPA initiated
coordination with NMFS on June 30, 2016, by submitting an EFH
assessment in compliance with the Act. This coordination addressed the
potential for the designation of any of the alternative disposal sites
being evaluated to adversely affect EFH. In a letter dated August 12,
2016, NMFS concurred with EPA's determination that the designation of
the ELDS would not adversely affect EFH. The letter stated, in part,
``We concur with your determination that by excluding the boulder areas
located in the south and northwest corners of the proposed disposal
site, and with the incorporation of your specific management practices
that include a 200-foot buffer zone from the boulder areas, the
proposed designation will result in no more than minimal adverse
impacts to designated EFH.'' The coordination process is fully
documented in the FSEIS.

IX. Restrictions

    As described in the Proposed Rule, EPA is restricting the use of
the ELDS in the same manner that it has restricted use of the CLDS and
WLDS. On July 7, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR
44220) a final rule to amend the 2005 rule that designated the CLDS and
WLDS, to establish new restrictions on the use of those sites to
support the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal in Long
Island Sound. The restrictions include standards and procedures to
promote the development and use of practicable alternatives to open-
water disposal, including establishment of an interagency ``Steering
Committee'' and ``Regional Dredging Team'' that will play important
roles in implementation of the rule. The site use restrictions for the
CLDS are detailed in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) and are incorporated for
the WLDS by the cross-references in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) and
(b)(5)(vi). Similarly, EPA is applying to the ELDS the same
restrictions as are applied to the CLDS and WLDS by including simple
cross-references to those restrictions in the new ELDS regulations at
40 CFR 228.15(b)(4) and (b)(6)(vi).
    The restrictions incorporate standards and procedures for the use
of the Eastern, Central and Western disposal sites consistent with the
recommendations of the Long Island Sound DMMP. The DMMP identifies a
wide range of alternatives to open-water disposal and recommends
standards and procedures to help determine whether and which of these
alternatives should be pursued for particular dredging projects. The
DMMP addresses dredging and dredged material management issues for the
entire Long Island Sound region, including the eastern portion of the
Sound. Therefore, EPA concludes that it makes sense to apply site use
restrictions based on the DMMP to the ELDS as well as to the CLDS and
WLDS. EPA also received public comments in support of applying the site
use restrictions to all Long Island Sound disposal sites.
    The standards included in the restrictions are described in the
Proposed Rule and address the disposition of sandy material, suitable
fine-grained material and unsuitable fine-grained materials. See 81 FR
24764. See also 81 FR 44229 (40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(C)(3)(i)-(iii)).
Also included are expectations of continued federal, state and local
efforts at source reduction (i.e., reducing sediment entering
waterways). EPA did not receive any comments on the standards and has
not modified them in the Final Rule.
    The restrictions augment the recommended procedures in the DMMP,
and in the Proposed Rule, by establishing a Long Island Sound Dredging
Steering Committee (Steering Committee), consisting of high-level
representatives from the states of Connecticut and New York, EPA,
USACE, and, as appropriate other federal and state agencies. Such other
parties could include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which
had a seat on the previous Steering Committee, and the state of Rhode
Island, which had a seat on the previous Long Island Sound Regional
Dredging Team (LIS RDT), and may have more interest now that the LIS
RDT's geographic scope includes eastern Long Island Sound. The Steering
Committee will provide policy-level direction to the Long Island Sound
Regional Dredging Team (RDT). The Steering Committee is charged with:
Establishing a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged
material being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites;
establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives,
including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used
material while reducing the percentage and amount being disposed in
open water, and while recognizing that the amounts of dredged material
generated by the dredging program will naturally fluctuate from year to
year; and develop accurate methods to track the placement of dredged
material, with due consideration for annual fluctuations. The stepped
objectives should

incorporate an adaptive management approach while striving for
continuous improvement.
    The restrictions provide that when tracking progress, the Steering
Committee should recognize that exceptional circumstances may result in
delays meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be
infrequent, irregular and unpredictable. It is expected that each of
the member agencies will commit the necessary resources to support the
Long Island Sound RDT and Steering Committee's work, including the
collection of data necessary to support establishing the baseline and
tracking and reporting on the future disposition of dredged material.
    The restrictions also provide that the Steering Committee may
utilize the RDT, as appropriate, to carry out the tasks assigned to it.
The Steering Committee, with the support of the RDT, will guide a
concerted effort to encourage greater use of beneficial use
alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible
resources and eliminating regulatory barriers as appropriate.
    As described in the Proposed Rule, see 81 FR 24765, the
restrictions establish the Long Island Sound RDT. See also 81 FR 44229-
44230 (40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(E) and (F)). The purpose of the RDT
reflects its role and relationship to the Steering Committee. The
purpose of the RDT is to: (1) Review dredging projects and report to
USACE on its review within 30 days of receipt of project information;
(2) assist the Steering Committee in the tasks described above; (3)
serve as a forum for continuing exploration of new beneficial use
alternatives, matching available beneficial use alternatives with
dredging projects; (4) exploring cost-sharing opportunities and
promoting opportunities for beneficial use of clean, parent marine
sediments (that underlie surficial sediments and are not exposed to
pollution) often generated in the development of Confined Aquatic
Disposal cells; and (5) assist the USACE and EPA in continuing long-
term efforts to monitor dredging impacts in Long Island Sound. The
membership of the RDT will comprise representatives from the states of
Connecticut and New York, EPA, USACE, and, as appropriate, other
federal and state agencies. State participation on the RDT is
voluntary. The geographic scope of the RDT, as well as details for the
structure and process of the RDT, are unchanged from the Proposed Rule.
    Finally, the restrictions provide that if the volume of open-water
disposal of dredged material, as measured in 2026, has not declined or
been maintained over the prior ten years, then any party may petition
EPA to conduct a rulemaking to amend the restrictions of the use of the
sites.

X. Supporting Documents

    1. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2005. Response to Comments on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged
Material Disposal Sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound,
Connecticut and New York. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, Boston, MA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England
District, Concord, MA. April 2005.
    2. EPA Region 1. 2005. Memorandum to the File Responding to the
Letter from the New York Department of State Objecting to EPA's
Federal Consistency Determination for the Dredged Material Disposal
Site Designations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1,
Boston, MA. May 2005.
    3. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2004. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in
Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA. March
2004.
    4. EPA Region 1/USACE NAE. 2004. Regional Implementation Manual
for the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New
England Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1,
Boston, MA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District,
Concord, MA. April 2004.
    5. EPA Region 2/USACE NAN. 1992. Guidance for Performing Tests
on Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. Draft Release. December
1992.
    6. EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal Testing Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA-503/8-91/001. February 1991.
    7. Long Island Sound Study. 2015. Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound Management
Conference. September 2015.
    8. NYSDEC and CTDEP. 2000. A total maximum daily load analysis
to achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in Long
Island Sound. Prepared in conformance with section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act and the Long Island Sound Study. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY and Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. December 2000.
    9. USACE NAE. 2016. Final Long Island Sound Dredged Material
Management Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement--Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New England District. December 2015.
    10. EPA Region 1. 2016. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Site(s)
in Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA. April 2016.
    11. USACE NAE. 2016a. Memorandum from USACE New England District
to EPA Region 1 with updated dredging and disposal capacity needs
for Eastern Long Island Sound. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England District. September 2016.
    12. USACE NAE. 2016b. Memorandum from USACE New England District
to EPA Region 1 with detailed cost estimates for dredged material
disposal at different disposal sites in Long Island Sound. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New England District. September 2016.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action, as defined in
the Executive Order, and therefore was not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because it would not require persons to obtain, maintain,
retain, report or publicly disclose information to or for a federal
agency.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA). The amended restrictions in this rule are only relevant for
dredged material disposal projects subject to the MPRSA. Non-federal
projects involving 25,000 cubic yards or less of material are not
subject to the MPRSA and, instead, are regulated under CWA section 404.
This action will, therefore, have no effect on such projects. ``Small
entities'' under the RFA are most likely to be involved with smaller
projects not covered by the MPRSA. Therefore, EPA does not believe a
substantial number of small entities will be affected by today's rule.
Furthermore, the amendments to the restrictions also will not have
significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities
because they will primarily create requirements to be followed by
regulatory agencies rather than small entities, and will create
requirements

(i.e., the standards and procedures) intended to help ensure
satisfaction of the existing regulatory requirement (see 40 CFR 227.16)
that practicable alternatives to the ocean dumping of dredged material
be utilized.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Through
the Steering Committee and RDT process, however, this action will
provide a vehicle for facilitating the interaction and communication of
interested federal and state agencies concerned with regulating dredged
material disposal in Long Island Sound.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the proposed restrictions will not have
substantial direct effects on Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes. EPA coordinated with all Indian Tribal Governments in the
vicinity of the proposed action and consulted with the Shinnecock
Tribal Nation in making this determination.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA concludes that this action will not have a disproportionate
adverse human health or environmental effect on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations.

11. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

    Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to
``expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to
ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.''
EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine
protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new
marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to
protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the
marine environment, which means, ``those areas of coastal and ocean
waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged
lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction,
consistent with international law.''
    The EPA expects that this Final Rule will afford additional
protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and organisms that
inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA and the
ocean dumping regulations, the rule is designed to promote the
reduction or elimination of open-water disposal of dredged material in
Long Island Sound, and, at the same time, to ensure that any such
disposal that occurs will be conducted in an environmentally sound
manner.

12. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and
the Great Lakes

    Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19,
2010) requires, among other things, EPA and certain other agencies ``.
. . to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law [to] . . .
take such action as necessary to implement the policy set forth in
section 2 of this order and the stewardship principles and national
priority objectives as set forth in the Final Recommendations and
subsequent guidance from the Council.'' The policies in section 2 of
Executive Order 13547 include, among other things, the following: ``. .
. it is the policy of the United States to: (i) Protect, maintain, and
restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; [and] (ii) improve the resiliency
of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and
economies . . . .'' As with Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected
Areas), the overall purpose of the Executive Order is to promote
protection of ocean and coastal environmental resources.
    The EPA expects that this Final Rule will afford additional
protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and the organisms that
inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA and the
ocean dumping regulations, the rule is designed to promote the
reduction or elimination of open-water disposal of dredged material in
Long Island Sound even as it facilitates necessary dredging.

13. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective 30 days after date of publication.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: November 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1--New England.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi)
introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  228.15   Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) Restrictions: The designation in this paragraph (b)(4) sets
forth conditions for the use of the Central Long Island Sound (CLDS),
Western Long Island Sound (WLDS) and Eastern Long Island Sound (ELDS)
Dredged Material Disposal Sites. These conditions apply to all disposal
subject to the MPRSA, namely, all federal projects and nonfederal
projects greater than 25,000 cubic yards. All references to
``permittees'' shall be deemed to include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material
disposal from a USACE dredging project. The conditions for this
designation are as follows:
* * * * *
    (6) Eastern Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ELDS).
    (i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD83) 41[deg]15.81' N.,
72[deg]05.23' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N., 72[deg]05.23' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N.,
72[deg]07.22' W.; 41[deg]15.97' N., 72[deg]07.22' W.; 41[deg]15.81' N.,
72[deg]06.58' W.
    (ii) Size: A 1 x 1.5 nautical mile irregularly-shaped polygon, with
an area of 1.3 square nautical miles (nmi\2\) due to the exclusion of
bedrock areas. North-central bedrock area corner coordinates (NAD83)
are: 41[deg]16.34' N., 72[deg]05.89' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N.,
72[deg]05.89' W.; 41[deg]16.81' N., 72[deg]06.44' W.; 41[deg]16.22' N.,
72[deg]06.11' W.
    (iii) Depth: Ranges from 59 to 100 feet (18 m to 30 m).
    (iv) Primary use: Dredged material disposal.
    (v) Period of use: Continuing use.
    (vi) Restrictions: See paragraphs (b)(4)(vi)(A) through (N) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-27546 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 11793-11794]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59566; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Fee Caps on Equity Option Transaction Charges on Dividend, Merger and
Short Stock Interest Strategies

March 12, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 24, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' 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 the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent the pilot program for the
$1,000 and $25,000 fee caps on equity option transaction charges on
dividend,\3\ merger,\4\ and short stock interest \5\ strategies
(``Pilot'') \6\. This Pilot previously included $1,000 and $25,000 fee
caps on transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger and
short stock interest strategies as well as a license fee of $0.05 per
contract side imposed on dividend and short stock interest strategies.
The comparison charges as well as a license fee of $0.05 per contract
side were subsequently eliminated.\7\ Other than requesting to make the
Pilot permanent, no other changes to the Exchange's current dividend,
merger and short stock interest strategy program are being proposed at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``dividend strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a dividend
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money
options of the same class, executed prior to the date on which the
underlying stock goes ex-dividend. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54174 (July 19, 2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006) (SR-
Phlx-2006-40).
    \4\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``merger strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a merger
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options of
the same class and expiration date, executed prior to the date on
which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective
form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. Id.
    \5\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``short stock interest strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a
short stock interest arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class. Id.
    \6\ The current fee caps are in effect as a pilot program that
is scheduled to expire on March 1, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57420 (March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12790 (March 10, 2008) (SR-
Phlx-2008-16).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59243 (January 13,
2009), 74 FR 4272, (January 23, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2008-86) (eliminating
the comparison charge); 58772 (October 10, 2008), 73 FR 63037
(October 22, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-72) (eliminating reference to the $
0.05 per contract side license fee for dividend strategies and short
stock interest strategies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
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
    Currently, the Exchange imposes a fee cap on equity option
transaction charges on dividend, merger and short stock interest
strategies executed on the same trading day in the same options class.
Specifically, Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') and specialist net
equity option

transaction charges are capped at $1,000 for dividend, merger and short
stock interest strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
options class.\8\ In addition, there is a $25,000 per member
organization fee cap on equity option transaction charges incurred in
one month for dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies
combined. The purpose of making the Pilot permanent for the fee caps on
equity option transaction charges on dividend, merger and short stock
interest strategies is to continue to attract additional liquidity to
the Exchange and to remain competitive with other options exchanges in
connection with these types of options strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Pilot also included fee caps on comparison charges
on dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies, however the
comparison charges were eliminated by a previous rule filing.\9\
Additionally, the Pilot also included a license fee of $0.05 per
contract side imposed on dividend and short stock interest strategies,
which was also eliminated by a previous rule filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See footnote 7.
    \10\ See footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
its proposal to make the Pilot permanent is beneficial to its members
by providing additional trading opportunities at an efficient cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Ccomments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-18. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-
Phlx-2009-18 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5930 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10196-10197]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-87-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

February 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 21, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed in Docket No. CP07-87-000, a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act to
increase the horsepower of its Knox Compressor Station, located in
Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, 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_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, National Fuel proposes to increase the horsepower of
its Knox Compressor Station from 1,920 horsepower to 1,968 horsepower.
National Fuel states that it would uprate compressor units 3 and 4 from
360 horsepower to 384 horsepower, by increasing the maximum speed of
the existing units from 400 RPM to 440 RPM. National Fuel indicates
that this work would consist of mechanical, engine, and ignition
modifications and related engine and control panel tuning. National
Fuel estimates the cost of construction to be $75,000. National Fuel's
filing states that this project would create additional capacity from
Knox Compressor Station to Overbeck, Pennsylvania on its Line G-M97.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to David
W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call at (716) 857-
7949.
    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 Natural Gas Act (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.
    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 Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3972 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3959]
[DOCID:fr25ja10-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight
Guidance and Control

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance
and Control meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance and
Control.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 23-25, 2010. February 23rd-
24th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and February 25th from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Tucson
Airport, 6575 South Country Club Road, Tucson, Arizona, USA 85706, Tel.
+1-520-741-0505, Fax: +1-520-741-0510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance
and Control meeting. The agenda will include:

 Welcome/Agenda Overview
 MOPS General Status
 MOPS Part 23 inputs status
 MOPS Part 25/27 inputs status
 Breakout into individual MOPS sections WGs
 All-hands to Merge the MOPS sections WGs
 Report out from each MOPS WG: status, schedule, issues
 Establish Dates, Location, Agenda for Next Meeting, Other
Business

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 15, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-1287 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P