[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21858-21860]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09423]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80594; File No. SR-BX-2017-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4703
(Order Attributes)

May 4, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 21, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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 amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes) to
specify the behavior of Orders with Midpoint Pegging after initial
entry and posting to the Exchange Book when the market is crossed, or
when there is no best bid and/or offer. The Exchange also proposes to
change a reference to cancelling or rejecting orders in Rule 4703.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    BX proposes to amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes) to specify the
behavior of Orders with Midpoint Pegging that are cancelled or rejected
when the market is crossed, or when there is no best bid and/or offer
after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book. BX also proposes
to change a reference to cancelling or rejecting orders in Rule 4703.
    Rule 4703(d) describes the Pegging Order Attribute, including
Midpoint Pegging. Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows an Order to
have its price automatically set with reference to the NBBO. Midpoint
Pegging means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the Inside
Bid and the Inside Offer (the ``Midpoint'').\3\ An Order with Midpoint
Pegging is not displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Thus, if the Inside Bid was $11 and the Inside Offer was
$11.06, an Order with Midpoint Pegging would be priced at $11.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX recently proposed changes to Orders with Midpoint Pegging, which
were approved by the SEC on November 10, 2016.\4\ With this change, if
the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed or if there is no Insider
Bid and Inside Offer, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be
cancelled and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-046).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX now proposes to add language to Rule 4703(d) to specify the
treatment of Orders with Midpoint Pegging after initial entry and
posting to the Exchange Book when the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are
subsequently crossed, or if there is subsequently no Inside Bid and/or
Inside Offer. Specifically, for Orders with Midpoint Pegging entered
through RASH or FIX, if the Order is on the Exchange Book and
subsequently the Inside Bid and Inside Offer become crossed, or if
there is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer, the Order will be removed
from the Exchange Book and will be re-entered at the new midpoint once
there is a valid Inside Bid and Inside Offer that is not crossed.
    As stated in the filing proposing the new Midpoint Pegging
functionality, BX believes that the midpoint of a crossed market, or
where there is no Inside Bid and Inside Offer, is not a clear and
accurate indication of a valid price, and may produce sub-optimal
execution

prices for members and investors.\6\ Prior to this change, Orders
entered through RASH or FIX would have been nevertheless repriced to
the midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside Offer if the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer subsequently became crossed, or would have been cancelled
if there was subsequently no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer. BX is
proposing to re-enter such Orders at the new midpoint once there is an
Inside Bid and Inside Offer that is not crossed because the new Inside
Bid and Inside Offer is indicative of a valid price. BX is proposing to
re-enter Orders submitted through RASH or FIX because BX typically
assumes a more active role in managing the order flow submitted by
users of these protocols, and this functionality reflects the order
flow management practices of these participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While BX is only proposing to adopt this re-entry functionality for
Orders that are entered through RASH or FIX, the Exchange believes that
it is appropriate to also modify the treatment of Orders with Midpoint
Pegging entered through OUCH or FLITE where the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer subsequently becomes crossed, or there is subsequently no Inside
Bid and/or Inside Offer. Accordingly, BX is proposing to amend Rule
4703(d) to state that if, after an Order with Midpoint Pegging is
entered through OUCH or FLITE, the Inside Bid and Inside Offer changes
so that the Midpoint is lower than (higher than) the price of an Order
to buy (sell), the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed or if there
is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer, the Pegged Order will be
cancelled back to the Participant.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BX is proposing to change the reference in this sentence
from NBBO to Inside Bid and Inside Offer to make this sentence more
consistent with the rest of Rule 4703, which uses the concept of the
Inside Bid and Insider Offer rather than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, BX is proposing to change a reference in Rule 4703 that
describes the cancellation or rejection of an Order. Specifically, Rule
4703(d) currently states that, in the case of an Order with Midpoint
Pegging, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are locked, the Order will
be priced at the locking price, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are
crossed or if there is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer, the Order
will be cancelled or rejected. BX proposes to change references to
cancelling or rejecting an order to ``not accepting'' an Order.
Depending on the context, the reference to rejecting an order may have
one of two meanings.\8\ BX believes that changing references from
rejecting or cancelling an Order to not accepting an Order is
appropriate because the proposed language resolves the ambiguity that
may arise when referring to an order rejection, and is sufficiently
broad to encompass the contexts in which the concept of Order rejection
or cancellation may be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, an Order may be referred to as ``rejected'' if
it is not initially accepted by the customer-facing BX interface.
Alternatively, after an Order has been initially accepted by the
customer-facing interface, and is being transmitted from one BX
interface to another, it may be ``rejected'' if the Order is not
accepted by another part of the BX system for various reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change supplements the recently-approved changes to
Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and the resulting modifications to BX
systems.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-046). BX
initially proposed to implement the new functionality for Orders
with Midpoint Pegging on November 21, 2016. See Equity Trader Alert
#2016-291. However, following testing, BX has decided to delay the
implementation of this new functionality to provide additional time
for systems testing. The new functionality shall be implemented no
later than May 31, 2017. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80046 (February 15, 2017), 82 FR 11385 (February 22, 2017) (SR-BX-
2017-008) (extending the implementation date to no later than March
31, 2017); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80393 (April 6,
2017), 82 FR 17711 (April 12, 2017) (SR-BX-2017-018) (extending the
implementation date to no later than May 31, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed change is consistent with the Act because it
supplements the recently-approved changes to Orders with Midpoint
Pegging and the resulting modifications to BX systems, and reflects the
Exchange's belief that the midpoint of a crossed market, or where there
is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer, is not a clear and accurate
indication of a valid price, and may produce sub-optimal execution
prices for members and investors. The proposal adopts a functionality
for Orders with Midpoint Pegging after initial entry and posting to the
Exchange Book where the Inside Bid and Inside Offer subsequently
becomes crossed, or where there is subsequently no Inside Bid and/or
Inside Offer, that reflects the order flow management practices of the
participants that use those protocols, e.g., re-submitting such Orders
that are entered through RASH or FIX, and cancelling such Orders that
are submitted through OUCH or FLITE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to replace the reference in Rule 4703 to rejecting or
cancelling an order to ``not accepting'' an order is consistent with
the Act because the proposed language encompasses the contexts in which
the concept of order rejection or cancellation may be used and resolves
any ambiguity that may arise when referring to an order rejection.

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 change simply
supplements the recently-approved changes to Orders with Midpoint
Pegging and the resulting modifications to BX systems by adopting a
functionality for Orders with Midpoint Pegging after initial entry and
posting to the Exchange Book where the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
subsequently becomes crossed, or where there is subsequently no Inside
Bid and/or Inside Offer, that reflects the order flow management
practices of the participants that use those protocols. Moreover, the
use of Exchange Order types and attributes is voluntary, and no member
is required to use any specific Order type or attribute or even to use
any Exchange Order type or attribute or any Exchange functionality at
all. If an Exchange member believes for any reason that the proposed
rule change will be detrimental, that perceived detriment can be
avoided by choosing not to enter or interact with the Order type
modified by this proposed rule change. Finally, the proposal will apply
equally to all Orders that meet its criteria.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become

operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange states that the proposal supplements the recently-approved
changes to Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and that it intends to
implement these previously-approved changes shortly (and no later than
May 31, 2017).\15\ Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the
Exchange to implement the previously-approved changes concurrently with
the supplemental changes in this proposal. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See supra note 9.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-021 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-021. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-021 and should be
submitted on or before May 31, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09423 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35688-35689]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369]

Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry Describing
Product-Specific Bioequivalence Recommendations; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific
bioequivalence (BE) recommendations. The recommendations provide
product-specific guidance on the design of BE studies to support
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the Federal Register of
June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33311), FDA announced the availability of a
guidance for industry entitled ``Bioequivalence Recommendations for
Specific Products,'' which explained the process that would be used to
make product-specific BE recommendations available to the public on
FDA's Web site. The BE recommendations identified in this notice were
developed using the process described in that guidance.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on
these draft and revised draft guidances before it begins work on the
final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written
comments on the draft and revised draft product-specific BE
recommendations listed in this notice by August 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the individual
BE guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance recommendations.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft product-specific BE
recommendations to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: K. Geoffrey Wu, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010, FDA announced the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Bioequivalence
Recommendations for Specific Products,'' which explained the process
that would be used to make product-specific BE recommendations
available to the public on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. As
described in that guidance, FDA

adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-
specific BE recommendations and provide a meaningful opportunity for
the public to consider and comment on those recommendations. Under that
process, draft recommendations are posted on FDA's Web site and
announced periodically in the Federal Register. The public is
encouraged to submit comments on those recommendations within 60 days
of their announcement in the Federal Register. FDA considers any
comments received and either publishes final recommendations or
publishes revised draft recommendations for comment. Recommendations
were last announced in the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR
18827). This notice announces draft product-specific recommendations,
either new or revised, that are being posted on FDA's Web site
concurrently with publication of this notice.

II. Drug Products for Which New Draft Product-Specific BE
Recommendations Are Available

    FDA is announcing new draft product-specific BE recommendations for
drug products containing the following active ingredients:

A
    Aliskiren hemifumarate; amlodipine besylate
    Alvimopan
    Azilsartan medoxomil
B
    Bacitracin
    Boceprevir
C
    Cefpodoxime proxetil (multiple reference listed drugs (RLDs))
    Cefprozil (multiple RLDs)
    Cetirizine HCl
    Ciprofloxacin HCl; hydrocortisone
    Clomiphene citrate
D
    Dabigatran etexilate mesylate
    Dexamethasone; tobramycin
    Dinoprostone
    Diphenhydramine; ibuprofen
E
    Erythromycin
F
    Famotidine; ibuprofen
G
    Gabapentin enacarbil
I
    Itraconazole
K
    Ketoconazole
L
    Lacosamide
M
    Malathion
    Morphine sulfate; naltrexone HCl
P
    Podofilox
R
    Rotigotine
    Rufinamide
T
    Tapentadol HCl
    Tetrabenazine
Z
    Zolpidem tartrate

III. Drug Products for Which Revised Draft Product-Specific BE
Recommendations Are Available

    FDA is announcing revised draft product-specific BE recommendations
for drug products containing the following active ingredients:

D
    Dexamethasone; tobramycin (multiple RLDs)
E
    Everolimus
L
    Loteprednol etabonate
    Loteprednol etabonate; tobramycin
S
    Sorafenib tosylate
    For a complete history of previously published Federal Register
notices related to product-specific BE recommendations, please go to
http://www.regulations.gov and enter docket number FDA-2007-D-0369.
    These draft and revised draft guidances are being issued consistent
with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These
guidances represent the Agency's current thinking on product-specific
design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments on any of the
specific BE recommendations posted on FDA's Web site. Identify comments
with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document. The guidances, notices, and received comments may be seen in
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 8, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-14477 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5008]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-861-000]

Solios Power Mid-Atlantic Virtual LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Solios Power Mid-Atlantic Virtual LLC's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 14, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 25, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2115 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11673-11674]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03573]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80060; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-091]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Related to a
Change to the Trading Symbol for P.M.-Settled Options on the Standard &
Poor's 500 Index

February 17, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 16, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change amending CBOE's rules related to
P.M.-settled options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (``S&P 500
Index''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on January 5, 2017.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79712 (December 29,
2016), 82 FR 1383 (January 5, 2017) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to move P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options expiring
on the third-Friday of the month (``third-Friday''), currently listed
in a separate class and trading under the symbol ``SPXPM'', to the
Hybrid 3.0 S&P 500 Index options class. In connection with the move,
the Exchange proposes changing the trading symbol for these options
from ``SPXPM'' to ``SPXW.''
    The Exchange currently lists A.M.-settled \4\ and P.M.-settled \5\
S&P 500 Index options that have standard third-Friday expirations.
Third-Friday A.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options trade under the symbol
``SPX'' on the Exchange's Hybrid 3.0 platform.\6\ Third-Friday P.M.-
settled S&P 500 Index options trade on the Hybrid Trading System in a
separate options class under the symbol ``SPXPM''.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 24.9(a)(4)(i) (A.M.-settled index options).
    \5\ See Rule 24.9.14 (authorizing the Exchange to list P.M.-
settled S&P 500 options for a specified pilot period).
    \6\ See Rule 8.3(c)(iii).
    \7\ See Rule 8.3(c)(i) (identifying P.M.-settled third-Friday
S&P 500 options as a Tier AA Hybrid Options Class).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Hybrid 3.0 options class also includes nonstandard
P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options trading under the symbol ``SPXW,''
which may expire on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays (other than the third-
Friday-of-the-month) (i.e., nonstandard weekly expirations pursuant to
Rule 24.9(e)), and the last trading day of the month.\8\ Although SPXW
options are included in the Hybrid 3.0 class, they trade on the Hybrid
Trading System.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 24.9(e).
    \9\ See Rule 8.14.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange noted that a gap exists currently in
Friday expirations for SPXW as a user of SPXW options cannot roll an
existing SPXW position that expires on a first or second Friday of a
month into a SPXW position that expires on a third-Friday, because the
latter is part of the separate SPXPM class.\10\ Moving SPXPM into the
SPX class under symbol SPXW will remove this gap and allow market
participants to maintain exposure to SPXW Friday expirations throughout
the month if they so choose. The Exchange also noted that offering
access to all P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options in a single class with
expirations every Friday of the month will provide market participants
with greater flexibility in submitting complex orders using S&P 500
index options.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 1384.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange noted its belief that moving SPXPM into
the SPX options class under the symbol SPXW should not adversely impact
market participants.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange noted that it
expects a smooth transition of the SPXPM series to the SPXW symbol
because SPXPM and SPXW options both trade on the Hybrid Trading System
\13\ and the Exchange's rules and systems treat SPXPM and SPXW the same
in many respects.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Rules 8.3(c)(i) (identifying P.M.-settled third-Friday
S&P Index options as a Tier AA Hybrid Options Class) and 8.14.01
(allowing the Exchange to authorize a group of series of a class for
trading on the Hybrid Trading System).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 1384-85 (discussing areas
where trading parameters for SPXPM and SPXW are the same, such as
the minimum increment for bids and offers, and where they differ,
such as the appointment costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Reports

    SPXPM options currently are approved for listing and trading on a
pilot basis.\15\ The Exchange represents that the pilot will continue
under the same terms that established the pilot.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 24.9.14 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68457 (December 18, 2012), 77 FR 76135 (December 26, 2012) (SR-CBOE-
2012-120).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 1385. As part of the pilot,
the Exchange submits quarterly reports and annual reports that
analyze the market impact and trading patterns of third-Friday P.M.-
settled S&P 500 options. The Exchange will modify the reports to
provide the same data and analysis for third-Friday P.M.-settled S&P
500 Index options trading under symbol SPXW that it currently
submits for third-Friday P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options trading
under symbol SPXPM. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act \17\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\18\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, \19\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that trading P.M.-settled third-Friday
expirations as part of the S&P 500 Index options class under the SPXW
symbol, rather than as a separate class under the SPXPM symbol, will
help remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by providing market participants with access to a single class

of P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options with expirations every Friday of
the month.\20\ The Commission believes that the proposal can thus
benefit investors by providing them with additional trading flexibility
for both simple and complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 1386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange represents that there are minimal differences
in the trading parameters of the two options classes.\21\ Although the
appointment costs for SPXPM and SPX are different, the Exchange
represents that market makers should not be adversely impacted by this
proposal because all market-makers currently appointed in SPXPM also
are appointed in SPX, which confers the right to trade SPXW
options.\22\ The Commission believes that, to the extent the trading
parameters of the two classes are substantively similar, the Exchange's
proposal to move SPXPM options into the SPX options class does not
raise novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 1384-85.
    \22\ See id. at 1385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, SPXPM options currently are listed on a pilot basis. As
part of the pilot, the Exchange has been required to submit to the
Commission quarterly reports and annual reports that analyze the market
impact and trading patterns of third-Friday P.M.-settled S&P 500
options. The Exchange represents that it will continue to provide this
data in exactly the same scope and format.\23\ The Commission believes
that the continued pilot and reports will allow the Exchange and the
Commission to monitor for and assess any potential adverse market
impact caused by these P.M.-settled options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Exchange's representations discussed above, and for
the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposal to
move SPXPM options into the SPX options class is consistent with the
Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\24\, that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2016-091) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03573 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 47827-47828]
[DOCID:fr17se09-76]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60651; File Nos. 10-193 and 10-194]

EDGX Exchange, Inc., and EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of
Applications, as Amended, for Registration as National Securities
Exchanges Under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

September 11, 2009.
    On May 7, 2009, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), and EDGA Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGA,'' and, together with EDGX, the

``Exchanges'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') Form 1 applications under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), seeking registration as national securities
exchanges under Section 6 of the Exchange Act.\1\ On July 30, 2009, the
Exchanges each submitted Amendment No. 1 to their Form 1 applications.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
Exchanges' Form 1 applications, as amended. The Commission will take
these comments into consideration in making its determination about
whether to grant the Exchanges' requests to be registered as national
securities exchanges. The Commission will grant the registrations if it
finds that the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder with respect to the Exchanges are satisfied.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 11, 2009, the Commission issued an order
granting EDGX and EDGA exemptive relief, subject to certain
conditions, in connection with the filing of their Form 1
applications. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60650.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges' Form 1 applications, as amended, provide detailed
information on how they propose to satisfy the requirements of the
Exchange Act. In general, the Exchanges, which are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Direct Edge Holdings LLC, will each operate separate
fully automated electronic books for orders to buy or sell securities
with continuous, automated matching functions.\3\ Liquidity on the
Exchanges will be derived from orders to buy and orders to sell
submitted to the Exchanges electronically by their respective members
from remote locations. Neither EDGX nor EDGA will have a trading floor,
nor will they have exchange specialists or market makers. The
Exchanges' Form 1 applications, as amended, are available at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EDGX and EDGA represented that the Step-Up functionality,
set forth in the Form 1 applications, is the same functionality as
Enhanced Liquidity Provider (``ELP'') functionality offered by
Direct Edge ECN LLC (``DECN''). EDGX and EDGA also agreed to amend
the Form 1 applications to comply with any Commission rulemaking in
this area. See Letter from William O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer,
Direct Edge Holdings LLC, DECN, EDGX, and EDGA, to James
Brigagliano, Co-Acting Director, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, dated August 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the Exchanges' Form 1 applications, as amended,
including whether the Exchanges' applications, as amended, are
consistent with the Exchange 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/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number(s) 10-193 (for EDGX) and 10-194 (for EDGA) on the subject
line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number(s) 10-193 (for EDGX) and
10-194 (for EDGA). These file number(s) 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/other.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
Exchanges' Form 1 applications filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the application 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. 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(s) 10-193 (for EDGX) and 10-194
(for EDGA) and should be submitted on or before November 2, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22347 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60405]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23775]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0615; FRL-9916-94-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This revision concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from natural
gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters. We are
proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0615, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rule: Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 247 Natural
Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters. In the
Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-23775 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57829-57830]
[DOCID:fr22se10-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0831]

Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Policy Regarding Access to
Airports From Residential Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; notice of proposed amendment to
sponsor grant assurance 5; and request for public comment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an inadvertent omission in the Privacy
paragraph in the Notice of Proposed Policy Regarding Access to Airports
From Residential Property that was published in the Federal Register on
September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54946).

DATES: Effective September 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall S. Fiertz, telephone: (202)
267-3085; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    On September 9, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration published
a Notice of Proposed Policy in the Federal Register at 75 FR 54946
proposing to amend and clarify FAA policy concerning through-the-fence
access to a Federally obligated airport from an adjacent or nearby
property, when that property is used as a residence and permits
continuation of existing access subject to certain standards. The
Notice also proposed to amend sponsor grant assurance 5, Preserving
Rights and Powers, to prohibit new residential through-the-fence
access. In that Notice, there was an inadvertent omission. Through this
amendment, FAA is correcting the inadvertent omission. In the Privacy
section, FAA inadvertently omitted information relative to the DOT's
Privacy Act Statement.

Correction

    In the Notice published on September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54946) FR Doc.
2010-22095, on page 54947 in column 1,under the heading SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document, remove the first paragraph and in
its place add the following paragraph to read as follows:

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change,
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the

individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2010.
Randall Fiertz,
Director, Airport Compliance and Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-23728 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 46112-46113]
[DOCID:fr16au07-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 17a-1; SEC File No. 270-244; OMB Control No. 3235-
0208.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 17a-1 (17 CFR 240.17a-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et. seq.) requires that all national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board keep
on file for a period of five years, two years in an accessible place,
all documents that they make or receive respecting their self-
regulatory activities, and that such documents be available for
examination by the Commission.
    The Commission staff estimates that the average number of hours
necessary for compliance with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 50
hours per year. There

are 22 entities required to comply with the rule: 10 National
securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, 10 registered
clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. In
addition, 3 national securities exchanges notice-registered pursuant to
Section 6(g) of the Act are required to preserve records of
determinations made under Rule 3a55-1, which the Commission staff
estimates will take 1 hour per exchange, for a total of 3 hours.
Accordingly, the Commission staff estimates that the total number of
hours necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 1,103
hours. The average cost per hour is $50. Therefore, the total cost of
compliance for the respondents is $55,150.
    Rule 17a-1 does not assure confidentiality for the records
maintained pursuant to the rule. The records required by Rule 17a-1 are
available only for examination by the Commission staff, state
securities authorities and the self-regulatory organizations. Subject
to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, and
the Commission's rules thereunder (17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the
Commission does not generally publish or make available information
contained in any reports, summaries, analyses, letters, or memoranda
arising out of, in anticipation of, or in connection with an
examination or inspection of the books and records of any person or any
other investigation. Please note that an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: August 8, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16163 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1566]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-12; SEC File No. 270-330; OMB Control No. 3235-0372.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     Rule 15c2-12 Disclosure requirements for municipal
securities
    Rule 15c2-12 (17 CFR 240.15c2-12), under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et. seq.), requires underwriters of municipal
securities: (1) To obtain and review a copy of an official statement
deemed final by an issuer of the securities, except for the omission of
specified information; (2) in non-competitively bid offerings, to make
available, upon request, the most recent preliminary official
statement, if any; (3) to contract with the issuer of the securities,
or its agent, to receive, within specified time periods, sufficient
copies of the issuer's final official statement to comply both with
this rule and any rules of the MSRB; (4) to provide, for a specified
period of time, copies of the final official statement to any potential
customer upon request; (5) before purchasing or selling municipal
securities in connection with an offering, to reasonably determine that
the issuer or other specified person has undertaken, in a written
agreement or contract, for the benefit of holders of such municipal
securities, to provide certain information about the issue or issuer on
a continuing basis to a nationally recognized municipal securities
information repository; and (6) to review the information the issuer of
the municipal security has undertaken to provide prior to recommending
a transaction in the municipal security.
    These disclosure and recordkeeping requirements will ensure that
investors have adequate access to official disclosure documents that
contain details about the value and risks of particular municipal
securities at the time of issuance while the existence of compulsory
repositories will ensure that investors have continued access to terms
and provisions relating to certain static features of those municipal
securities. The provisions of Rule 15c2-12 regarding an issuer's
continuing disclosure requirements assist investors by ensuring that
information about an issue or issuer remains available after the
issuance.
    Municipal offerings of less than $1 million are exempt from the
rule, as are offerings of municipal securities issued in large
denominations that are sold to no more than 35 sophisticated investors,
have short-term maturities, or have short-term tender or put features.
It is estimated that approximately 12,000 brokers, dealers, municipal
securities dealers, issuers of municipal securities, and nationally
recognized municipal securities information repositories will spend a
total of 123,850 hours per year complying with Rule 15c2-12.
    There is no specific retention period applied by Rule 15c2-12 for
the recordkeeping requirement contained in Rule 15c2-12. The retention
period is determined by private agreement between a nationally
recognized municipal securities information repository and the issuer.
    The recordkeeping requirement is mandatory to ensure that investors
have access to information about the issuer and particular issues of
municipal securities. This rule does not involve the collection of
confidential information. Please note that an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    General Comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be
directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    January 3, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-302 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34297-34299]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0577]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Traverse City Ironman Triathlon, Traverse City,
Michigan

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie zone. This rule will provide a
temporary safety zone to protect 2,400 participating swimmers in the
Traverse City Ironman Triathlon. Entry of vessels into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Sault Sainte Marie.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:15 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. on
August 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being

available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0577 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO Robert Gruschow Waterways Management, Coast Guard
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the
final details of the requested safety zone with sufficient time for a
comment period to run before the start of the event. Thus, delaying
this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be
impracticable and contrary to public interest because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect the 2,400 participants from the
boating public. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone by August 25, 2019.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is
needed to protect the 2,400 swimmers participating in this event on
August 25, 2019.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Sault Sainte
Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards exist while 2,400
participants associated with the Traverse City Ironman Triathlon, swim
in a highly congested area of boating traffic between 6:15 a.m. through
9:45 a.m. on August 25, 2019. This rule is needed to protect the 2,400
participates of the Traverse City Ironman Triathlon event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    On August 25, 2019, Traverse City, Michigan will be hosting an
Ironman Triathlon event. The swim course will be in the Southern West
Arm of Grand Traverse Bay beginning at the swim coral located west of
City Marina and finishing at Clinch Park Beach.
    The City of Traverse City will not allow vessels to enter or leave
the City's marina which is located inside the safety zone from 6:15
a.m. through 9:45 a.m. on August 25, 2019. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources has approved the closure of the marina during the
event. This action is only for the temporary safety zone. The Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that there are potential
hazards associated with this marine event and a temporary safety zone
of 500 yards is needed around the following area, beginning point of
044[deg]46.104 N 085[deg]37.772 W, to the first turn at point
44[deg]46.15.7 N 085[deg]37.48 W to the second turn at point
44[deg]46.70 N 085[deg]36.59 W to the finishing point of 044[deg]45.947
N 085[deg]37.160 W. This rule is needed to protect the 2,400
participants in the navigable waters in the area of the swim course of
the Traverse City Ironman Triathlon.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the city of
Traverse City's plan in coordination with the state's Department of
Natural Resources to close the marina located within the swim course
for the duration of the swim event. The Coast Guard's regulatory action
will have no impact since state and local authorities are already
closing the marina, prior to the establishment of our safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 3 and \1/2\ hours
that will prohibit any vessel entry within 500 yards of the swim event
of the Ironman Triathlon. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L [60] a in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0577 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0577   Safety Zone; Traverse City Ironman Triathlon,
Traverse City, MI.

    (a) Location. The temporary safety zone will encompass all U.S.
navigable waters of the Southern West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay 500
yards around the following area, beginning at the swim coral located
west of City Marina and finishing at Clinch Park Beach, encompassing
the following area, beginning point of 044[deg]46.104 N 085[deg]37.772
W, to the first turn at point 44[deg]46.15.7 N 085[deg]37.48 W to the
second turn at point 44[deg]46.70 N 085[deg]36.59 W to the finishing
point of 044[deg]45.947 N 085[deg]37.160 W.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. The regulation in this
section is effective and will be enforced from 6:15 a.m. through 9:45
a.m. on August 25, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this
temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his or her on-scene representative.
    (2) This temporary safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic,
except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte
Marie or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sault Sainte Marie is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative
of the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie will be aboard a Coast
Guard vessel.
    (4) Vessel Operators desiring to enter or operate within the
temporary safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sault
Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do
so. The Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (906) 635-
3319. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
temporary safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by
the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his or her on-scene
representative.

    Dated: July 15, 2019.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2019-15321 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P