 Cleaning Machine Type Company Capital Costs ($) Annualized Capital Costs ($/ yr) Annual Solvent Savings ($/ yr) Net Annualized Costs ($/ yr) Emissions ( tons) Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton) Additional Annual Savings ($/ yr) ( a) Net Annualized Costs Considering Additional Savings ($/ yr) Cost Effectiveness ($/ ton)

Greenville Tube $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 145,666 $ 96,434 58.5 $ 1,648.75 $ 48,555 $ 144,989 $ 2,478.91 Lincoln Foodservice $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 63,077 $ 13,846 24.9 $ 556.68 $ 21,026 $ 34,871 $ 1,402.05 $ 1,066,750 $ 91,538 $ 11,181 $ 80,357 33.2 $ 2,421.91 $ 3,727 $ 76,630 $ 2,309.58   $ 11,202    $ 3,734

  $ 4,481    $ 1,494

  $ 6,997    $ 2,332

  $ 17,494    $ 5,831

  $ 17,494    $ 5,831

  $ 20,992    $ 6,997

LE Wilson $ 41,550 $ 3,565 $ 3,499 $ 67 2.2 $ 30.27 $ 1,166 $ 1,100 $ 499.81 $ 490,000 $ 42,047 $ 10,759 $ 31,288 3.3 $ 9,461.50 $ 3,586 $ 27,702 $ 8,377.00   $ 472    $ 157

McDowell Enterprises, Inc. $ 1,066,750 $ 91,538 $ 13,137 $ 78,401 5.3 $ 14,823.86 $ 4,379 $ 74,022 $ 13,995.87 CMW, Inc. $ 490,000 $ 42,047 $ 17,364 $ 24,683 7.0 $ 3,526.34 $ 5,788 $ 18,895 $ 2,699.42 Lighting Services $ 490,000 $ 42,047 $ 17,517 $ 24,530 7.1 $ 3,478.74 $ 5,839 $ 18,691 $ 2,650.67 Nordam Repair Div. $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 10,626 $ 38,606 3.5 $ 10,972.11 $ 3,542 $ 35,064 $ 9,965.47 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 31,743 $ 17,488 6.9 $ 2,517.68 $ 10,581 $ 6,907 $ 994.36 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 75,281 $ 26,049 16.2 $ 1,607.22 $ 25,094 $ 51,143 $ 3,155.48 Oak Rite $ 399,000 $ 34,238 $ 12,099 $ 22,140 4.9 $ 4,545.13 $ 4,033 $ 18,107 $ 3,717.20 South Bend Controls $ 192,500 $ 16,519 $ 15,582 $ 937 5.8 $ 162.06 $ 5,194 $ 4,257 $ 736.47 Art Brass Plating, Inc. $ 399,000 $ 34,238 $ 52,140 $ 17,902 7.2 $ 2,488.56 $ 17,380 $ 35,282 $ 4,904.60 AVERAGE $ 536,013 $ 45,996 $ 26,610 $ 19,386 13.3 $ 1,459.90 $ 8,870 $ 10,516 $ 791.93 Mid States Rubber $ 573,725 $ 49,232 $ 31,808 $ 17,423 16.5 $ 1,053.76 $ 10,603 $ 6,821 $ 412.51 Parkview Metal Products ND ND $ 44,160  19.4

Lincoln Foodservice ND ND $ 148,899  60.9

AVERAGE   $ 20,837  32.3

Victor Equipment   $ 61,426  7.9

Gilpin Iron Works   $ 57,997  21.2

KCL Corp.   $ 4,726  2.1

AVERAGE   $ 31,361  10.4

ND  No data for this size.

Batch Cold Inline Summary of Costs and Cost Effectiveness for a Vacuum to Vacuum Cleaning Machine Applied to High Risk Facilities a  From the case study " Pollution Prevention Technology Profile Closed Loop Vapor Degreasing" by the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association ( NEWMOA) dated December 28,

2001. In the study, two facilities switched from open top cleaners to vacuum to vacuum cleaners. The facilities saw reductions in hazardous waste disposal costs, regulatory compliance costs,

and labor costs equal to about 1/ 3 of the solvent cost savings. In the absence of facility specific costs, it was assumed that for the high risk facilities there would be additional savings ( e. g.,

hazardous waste disposal, compliance, labor) equal to 1/ 3 of the solvent savings.

American Airlines DOD Tinker Wolverine Tube OTVC C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. xls 1 8/ 16/ 2006 Solvent Use and Costs PCE TCE MC 2004 Cost of Solvent per gallon ( a) $ 11.10 $ 12.83 $ 8.86 Density of Solvent ( lbs/ gal) 13.54 12.22 11.07 Solvent kg/ yr lb/ yr Gallons Solvent Cost ($/ yr) Scaling Based on Most Recent Emissions ( c) Base Year for Scaling Adjusted Solvent Use ( Gallons) Adjusted Solvent Cost ($/ yr) Solvent Savings With Vacuum Machine ($/ yr)

Greenville Tube TCE 79,120 174,428 14,274 $ 183,135 0.82 2003 11,705 $ 150,171 $ 145,666 Lincoln Foodservice TCE 24,644 54,330 4,446 $ 57,042 1.14 2003 5,068 $ 65,028 $ 63,077 TCE 4,980 10,979 898 $ 11,527 1 1999 898 $ 11,527 $ 11,181 TCE 4,990 11,000 900 $ 11,549 1 1999 900 $ 11,549 $ 11,202 TCE 1,996 4,400 360 $ 4,620 1 1999 360 $ 4,620 $ 4,481 PCE 3,991 8,799 650 $ 7,213 1 1999 650 $ 7,213 $ 6,997 PCE 9,979 22,000 1,625 $ 18,035 1 1999 1,625 $ 18,035 $ 17,494 PCE 9,979 22,000 1,625 $ 18,035 1 1999 1,625 $ 18,035 $ 17,494 PCE 11,974 26,398 1,950 $ 21,641 1 1999 1,950 $ 21,641 $ 20,992 LE Wilson PCE 1,996 4,400 325 $ 3,607 1 1999 325 $ 3,607 $ 3,499 PCE 8,183 18,040 1,332 $ 14,789 0.75 2003 999 $ 11,092 $ 10,759 PCE 359 791 58 $ 649 0.75 2003 44 $ 487 $ 472 McDowell Enterprises, Inc. TCE 5,851 12,900 1,056 $ 13,544 1 1999 1,056 $ 13,544 $ 13,137 CMW, Inc. TCE 2,268 5,000 409 $ 5,250 3.41 2003 1,395 $ 17,901 $ 17,364 Lighting Services TCE 7,802 17,200 1,408 $ 18,059 1 1999 1,408 $ 18,059 $ 17,517 Nordam Repair Div. TCE 5,991 13,207 1,081 $ 13,866 0.79 2002 854 $ 10,954 $ 10,626 TCE 10,099 22,264 1,822 $ 23,375 1.4 2003 2,551 $ 32,725 $ 31,743 TCE 23,950 52,800 4,321 $ 55,435 1.4 2003 6,049 $ 77,609 $ 75,281 Oak Rite TCE 5,389 11,880 972 $ 12,473 1 1999 972 $ 12,473 $ 12,099 South Bend Controls TCE 6,940 15,300 1,252 $ 16,064 1 1999 1,252 $ 16,064 $ 15,582 Art Brass Plating, Inc. TCE 9,001 19,844 1,624 $ 20,834 2.58 2003 4,190 $ 53,753 $ 52,140 AVERAGE  11,404 25,141 2,018 25,273 1.19  2,185 27,433 26,610 Mid States Rubber PCE 18,144 40,000 2,954 $ 32,792 1 1999 2,954 $ 32,792 $ 31,808 Parkview Metal Products TCE 26,943 59,399 4,861 $ 62,364 0.73 2003 3,548 $ 45,525 $ 44,160 Lincoln Foodservice TCE 58,174 128,250 10,495 $ 134,652 1.14 2003 11,964 $ 153,504 $ 148,899 Victor Equipment TCE 9,281 20,460 1,674 $ 21,481 1 1999 1,674 $ 21,481 $ 20,837 AVERAGE  28,135 62,027 4,996 62,822 1  5,035 63,326 61,426 Gilpin Iron Works TCE 15,195 33,499 2,741 $ 35,171 1.7 2003 4,660 $ 59,791 $ 57,997 KCL Corp. PCE 2,696 5,943 439 $ 4,872 1 1999 439 $ 4,872 $ 4,726 AVERAGE  8,945 19,721 1,590 20,022 1  2,550 32,331 31,361 Open Top Vapor Cleaning Machines 97%

Solvent Use Reduction from Switching from an Open Top Vapor Cleaning Machine to a Vacuum Cleaning Machine ( b)

Solvent Use for 1999 and the Most Recent Available Year for Active Facilities in the Top 30 Highest Risk Wolverine Tube Most Recent Solvent Use 1999 Solvent Use American Airlines DOD Tinker Halogenated Solvent Costs and Density Reduction In Halogenated Solvent Use Cleaning Machine Type Company b  Case study results as reported in " Pollution Prevention Technology Profile Closed Loop Vapor Degreasing" by the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association ( NEWMOA) dated December 28, 2001. In the study, two cleaning machines saw a reduction in solvent use of 97%, a third saw a reduction in solvent use of 83%. The third machine had a smaller reduction in solvent use due to the heavy soils cleaned by the machine. Therefore, more solvent was being lost to the solid waste stream.

a  Price quote from Univar USA Inc., Charlotte, NC. Univar is a direct distributor for Dow Chemicals Company. January 25, 2005.

c  Assumes that if there was an 15% reduction in solvent emissions the solvent usage was also reduced by 15%.

Inline Cleaning Machine Batch Cold Cleaning Machine C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. xls 2 8/ 16/ 2006 Vacuum to Vacuum Cleaning Machine Capital Costs VALUE BASIS 0.07 OMB 25 Est. eq. life.

0.086 Calculated ft3 m3 Low High Average 0.5 a 0.01416 0.17 $ 25,000 $ 58,100 $ 41,550 $ 3,565 1 0.02832 0.26 $ 50,000 $ 83,000 $ 66,500 $ 5,706 3 0.08496 0.50 $ 75,000 $ 132,800 $ 103,900 $ 8,916 7.5 0.2124 0.87 $ 135,000 $ 250,000 $ 192,500 $ 16,519 40 b 1.1328 2.37 $ 300,000 $ 498,000 $ 399,000 $ 34,238 70 1.9824 3.32 $ 330,000 $ 650,000 $ 490,000 $ 42,047 100 2.832 4.11 $ 400,000 $ 747,450 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 380 10.7616 9.15 $ 850,000 $ 1,283,500 $ 1,066,750 $ 91,538 Cleaning Machine Type Company SAI ( m2) Average Capital Costs ($) Annualized Capital ($/ yr) Greenville Tube 5.2 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 Lincoln Foodservice 4.94 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 6.69 $ 1,066,750 $ 91,538 Unk   Unk   Unk   Unk   Unk   Unk   LE Wilson 0.17 $ 41,550 $ 3,565 3.72 $ 490,000 $ 42,047 Unk   McDowell Enterprises, Inc. 8.55 $ 1,066,750 $ 91,538 CMW, Inc. 1.55 $ 490,000 $ 42,047 Lighting Services 1.32 $ 490,000 $ 42,047 Nordam Repair Div. 5.23 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 4.41 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 4.41 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 Oak Rite 1.67 $ 399,000 $ 34,238 South Bend Controls 0.65 $ 192,500 $ 16,519 Art Brass Plating, Inc. 1.49 $ 399,000 $ 34,238 Average 3.57 $ 536,013 $ 45,996 Mid States Rubber 5.02 $ 573,725 $ 49,232 Parkview Metal Products 22.21 ND ND Lincoln Foodservice 20.81 ND ND Victor Equipment Unk.   Gilpin Iron Works Unk.   KCL Corp. Unk.   Parameters Used for Annualizing Costs d  This was calculated using the relationship established between the solvent air interface of an open top and its cleaning capacity that was established during the development of the NESHAP ( A 92 39, IV B 2). The following equation was developed from the NESHAP analysis: Solvent Air Interface in square meters = 2.2 ( cleaning volume in cubic meters) 0.6 Interest Rate ( percent) Equipment Lifetime ( years)

Capital Recovery Factor ( CRF) PARAMETER Annualized Capital Costs ($/ yr) 2005 Installed Capital Costs ( c ) 2005 Installed Capital Costs for Vacuum to Vacuum Cleaning Machines c  Based on Costs from Tiyoda Serec Corporation and Baron Blakeslee. b  Two 20 ft3 chambers. a  Lab size machine. Equivalent SAI Area ( m2) ( d) Cleaning Capacity OTVC Inline Batch Cold Capital and Annualized Capital Costs for Vacuum Cleaning Machines Applied to the Highest Risk Facilities American Airlines DOD Tinker Wolverine Tube C:\ dmautop\ temp\ DCTM_ ARP. xls 3 8/ 16/ 2006


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19934]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08003]

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

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 204-2; OMB Control No. 3235-0278, SEC File No. 270-215.

    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.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 204-2'' (17
CFR 275.204-2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80b-1). Rule 204-2 requires SEC-registered investment advisers to
maintain copies of certain books and records relating to their advisory
business. The collection of information under rule 204-2 is necessary
for the Commission staff to use in its examination and oversight
program. This collection of information is mandatory. The respondents
to the collection of information are investment advisers registered
with the Commission. As of December 2, 2013, there were 10,946 SEC
registered advisers. Responses provided to the Commission in the
context of its examination and oversight program are generally kept
confidential. The records that an adviser must keep in accordance with
rule 204-2 must generally be retained for not less than five years.
    The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirements
of the rule imposes a total burden of approximately 181.45 hours for an
adviser. Based on our experience, the Commission staff estimates a
total annual burden of 1,986,152 hours for the collection of this
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08003 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23226-23228]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0242]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the
Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Minneapolis, MN, during a fireworks display on July 23, 2016. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River or a designated representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0242 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of
Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
UMR Upper Mississippi River

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 18, 2016, Marketing Minneapolis notified the Coast Guard
that they will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. until
11 p.m. on July 23, 2016, for the official civic celebration of the
City of Minneapolis. The sponsor has indicated the intent to host this
event and related fireworks display annually. The Coast Guard will work
with the sponsor for future occurrences and may propose to add this
safety zone to the list of permanently recurring safety zones for
future years to eliminate the need for a separate rulemaking each year.
For this year, on July 23, the fireworks are to be launch from the
Third Avenue Highway Bridge over the Mississippi River. Hazards from
fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would
be a safety concern for anyone between miles 853.2 and 854.2 as the
fireworks being shot from the southern side of the Third Avenue Highway
Bridge toward the south. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure
the safety of vessels and the navigable waters between miles 853.2 and
854.2 before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11
p.m. on July 23, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
between miles 853.2 and 854.2 on the Upper Mississippi River in
Minneapolis, MN. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 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 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. During the
evening vessel traffic is normally low in this area. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast via VHF-
FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels
to seek permission to enter the 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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A. above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting less than 2 hours that would prohibit entry within one
mile of the fireworks display. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 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.T08-0242 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.08-0242  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between miles
853.2 and 854.2; Minneapolis, MN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2, from surface
to bottom, Minneapolis, MN.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the enforcement
of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016.
    (e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any
changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: April 14, 2016.
M.L. Malloy,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi.
[FR Doc. 2016-09097 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4796-4799]
[DOCID:fr27ja09-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59261; File No. SR-BX-2009-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Deferring
Operation of Its Listing Standards for Primary Listings and
Consolidating Into a Single Rule Certain Requirements for Products
Traded on the Exchange Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

January 15, 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 January 8, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule
change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Section
19(b)(3)(A) 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.SC. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes (i) to suspend the operation of the
Exchange's newly adopted listing standards with respect to primary
listings on the Exchange until such time as the Exchange adopts listing
fees, and (ii) to adopt rules reflecting the requirements for trading
products on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges
(``UTP'') that have been established in various new product proposals
previously approved by the Commission. The Exchange proposes to make
the change operative on January 12, 2009.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/
Trader.aspx?id=Boston_Stock_Exchange.

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
    On August 29, 2008, the Exchange was acquired by The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. At the time of this acquisition, the Exchange was not
operating a venue for listing or trading cash equities. Pursuant to SR-
BSE-2008-48, the Exchange has adopted a new rulebook with rules
governing membership, the regulatory obligations of members, listing,
and equity trading.\5\ The new rules, which are designated as the
``Equity Rules,'' include rules that permit issuers of various types of
securities to establish primary listings on the Exchange. However, the
Exchange has determined that market conditions do not currently warrant
offering the Exchange as a listing venue.

Accordingly, although the listing standards will remain in the
Exchange's rulebook, the Exchange is proposing new Equity Rule 4401,
which provides that the provisions of the Equity Rule 4000 Series that
permit the listing of securities will not be operative until the
Exchange files a proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(2) under the
Act to adopt listing fees for the Exchange and such proposed rule
change is approved by the Commission. The rule is similar in effect to
Rule 14.1(a) of the BATS Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23,
2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to
reflect certain requirements for trading products on the Exchange
pursuant to UTP that have been established in various new product
proposals previously approved by the Commission. The Exchange is
amending Equity Rule 4420 to provide that it may extend UTP to any
security that is an NMS Stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation
NMS) that is listed on another national securities exchange. Any such
security will be subject to all of the Exchange's trading rules
applicable to NMS Stocks, unless otherwise noted, including the
provisions of Equity Rules 4120, 4420, 4630, and new Rule 4421
described below. The Exchange will file with the Commission a Form 19b-
4(e) with respect to any such security that is a ``new derivative
securities product'' as defined in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act \6\
(defined as a ``UTP Derivative Security''). In addition, any new
derivative securities product traded on the Exchange will be subject to
the criteria described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Equity Rule 4421(a)(2) provides that the Exchange will
distribute an information circular prior to the commencement of trading
in a UTP Derivative Security, which generally will include the same
information as the information circular provided by the listing
exchange, including: (1) The special risks of trading the UTP
Derivative Security; (2) the Rules of the Exchange that will apply to
the UTP Derivative Security, including Equity Rule 2310, the Exchange's
suitability rule; (3) information about the dissemination of the value
of the underlying assets or indexes; and (4) the applicable trading
hours for the UTP Derivative Security and risks of trading during the
Exchange's pre-market session (8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and post-market
session (4 p.m. to 7 p.m.) due to the lack of calculation or
dissemination of the underlying index value, the intraday indicative
value, or a similar value.
    Proposed Equity Rule 4421(a)(3)(A) reminds Members \7\ that they
are subject to the prospectus delivery requirements under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ``Securities Act''), unless a
UTP Derivative Security is the subject of an order by the Commission
exempting the product from certain prospectus delivery requirements
under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``1940
Act'') and the product is not otherwise subject to prospectus delivery
requirements under the Securities Act. The Exchange will inform its
Members of the application of these provisions to a particular UTP
Derivative Security governed by the 1940 Act by means of an information
circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Member is any registered broker-dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is amending Equity Rule 4120(b) to more fully address
trading halts in UTP Derivative Securities traded on the Exchange
pursuant to UTP. As currently in effect, Rule 4120(b) provides for
trading halts of ``Derivative Securities Products,'' which are defined
as a series of Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares,
Managed Fund Shares, Trust Issued Receipts, Commodity-Related
Securities, or securities representing interests in unit investment
trusts or investment companies. Although this definition covers a wide
range of products that would be considered UTP Derivative Securities,
for the avoidance of doubt, the Exchange is explicitly amending the
definition to include all UTP Derivative Securities. The current rule
also contains a definition of ``Required Value'' and provides for
trading halts in certain circumstances where a Required Value is not
being disseminated. Currently, ``Required Value'' is defined to mean
``(i) the value of any index or any commodity-related value underlying
a Derivative Security Product and (ii) the indicative optimized
portfolio value, intraday indicative value, or other comparable
estimate of the value of a share of a Derivative Securities Product
updated regularly during the trading day.'' The Exchange proposes to
amend the definition to also include ``(iii) a net asset value in the
case of a Derivative Securities Product for which a net asset value is
disseminated, and (iv) a `disclosed portfolio' in the case of a
Derivative Securities Product that is a series of managed fund shares
or actively managed exchange-traded funds for which a disclosed
portfolio is disseminated.''
    Thus, as amended, the rule provides that the Exchange, upon
notification by the listing market of a halt due to a temporary
interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of a Required
Value for a Derivative Securities Product, will immediately halt
trading in that product on the Exchange. If the Required Value
continues not to be calculated or widely disseminated at the
commencement of trading on the Exchange on the next business day, the
Exchange shall not commence trading of the product on that day. If an
interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Required
Value continues, the Exchange may resume trading in the Derivative
Securities Product only if calculation and wide dissemination of the
Required Value resumes or trading in such product resumes on the
listing market.
    The Exchange is also amending Equity Rule 4630, which governs the
activities of registered market makers in Commodity-Related Securities.
A ``Commodity-Related Security'' is defined to mean a security that is
issued by a trust, partnership, commodity pool or similar entity that
invests, directly or through another entity, in any combination of
commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward
contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives, or the value
of which is determined by the value of commodities, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or
other related derivatives. A ``commodity'' is defined in Section
1(a)(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act, a definition that includes
currencies. As amended, the rule provides that a registered market
maker in a Commodity-Related Security is prohibited from acting or
registering as a market maker in any commodities, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or
other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security.
The rule further provides that a member acting as a registered market
maker in a Commodity-Related Security must file with the Exchange's
Regulation Department in a manner prescribed by such Department and
keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in
commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward
contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives underlying
such Commodity-Related Security, in which the market maker holds an
interest, over which it may exercise investment discretion, or in which
it shares in the profits and losses. No market maker shall trade in, or

exercise investment discretion with respect to, such underlying
commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward
contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives, in an account
in which a market maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading
activities, or has an interest in the profits or losses thereof, that
has not been reported as required by the Rule.
    In addition, a member acting as a registered market maker in a
Commodity-Related Security is obligated to establish adequate
information barriers when such market maker engages in communications
to other departments within the same firm or the firm's affiliates that
involve trading in commodities, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security. The member
acting as a registered market maker in a Commodity-Related Security
shall make available to the Exchange's Regulation Department such
books, records or other information pertaining to transactions by such
entity or registered or non-registered employee affiliated with such
entity for its or their own accounts for trading commodities, futures
contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity
swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related
Security, as may be requested by the Regulation Department. Finally, in
connection with trading a Commodity-Related Security or commodities,
futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts,
commodity swaps, or other related derivatives underlying a Commodity-
Related Security, the member acting as a market maker in a Commodity-
Related Security shall not use any material nonpublic information
received from any person associated with the member or employee of such
person regarding trading by such person or employee in the commodities,
futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts,
commodity swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such
Commodity-Related Security.
    The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures for UTP
Derivative Securities traded on the Exchange will be similar to the
procedures used for equity securities traded on the Exchange and will
incorporate and rely upon existing Exchange surveillance procedures.
The Exchange will closely monitor activity in UTP Derivative Securities
traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP to deter any potential improper
trading activity. The proposed rule change also provides that the
Exchange will enter into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement
(``CSSA'') with a market trading components of the index or portfolio
on which the UTP Derivative Security is based to the same extent as the
listing exchange's rules require the listing market to enter into a
CSSA with such market.
    Finally, the Exchange is amending provisions of Equity Rule 4120
and 4630 that stipulate that the Exchange will file separate proposals
under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for each issue of Managed Fund Shares
or Commodity-Based Securities that it trades on a UTP basis. Because
the new rules being adopted by the Exchange consolidate the
requirements for trading such securities that have been established in
new product proposals previously approved by the Commission, separate
proposals under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act are no longer required for
trading these securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
providing for the trading of securities, including UTP Derivative
Securities, on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, subject to consistent and
reasonable standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change 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 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 \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, 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 text of the proposed rule change, at least
five days prior to the filing of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional
competition in the trading of UTP Derivative Securities, subject to
consistent and reasonable standards. Waiver of the waiting period will
also allow prompt clarification of the status of the Exchange as a
listing venue by specifying that the Exchange's listing standards shall
not be operative for primary listings until the Exchange adopts listing
fees. The proposed rule change is modeled closely after similar rules
of other national securities exchanges \12\ and does not raise any
novel or significant regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., NSX Rule 15.9 and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57448 (March 6, 2008), 73 FR 13597 (March 13, 2008) (SR-
NSX-2008-05); ISE Rule 2101 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
57387 (February 27, 2008), 73 FR 11965 (March 5, 2008) (SR-ISE-2007-
99); BATS Rule 14.1 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58623
(September 23, 2008), 73 FR 57169 (October 1, 2008) (SR-BATS-2008-
004).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the 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 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-001 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-BX-2009-001. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-001 and
should be submitted on or before February 17, 2009.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1671 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8089-8091]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1531]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 2, 2015, the Federal Emergency Mangement Agency
(FEMA) published in the Federal Register a notice that contained an
erroneous table. This notice provides a correction to that table, to be
used in lieu of the information published at 80 FR 53172-53173. The
table provided here lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations, base flood depths, Special Flood
Hazard Area boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway

(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by FEMA for
the communities, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community numbers are shown in the table below and must be
used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the communities that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard
determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for the communities are available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository addresses listed in the table below. Additionally, the
current effective FIRM and FIS report for the communities are
accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for the communities in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository addresses where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the communities are required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the communities
must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The communities may at any time
enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood
hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for the communities are available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository addresses listed in the table below. Additionally, the
current effective FIRM and FIS report for the communities are
accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

Correction

    In the notice published at 80 FR 53172-53173, the table contained
inaccurate information for the associated effective date of
modification featured in the table. In this notice, FEMA is publishing
a table containing the accurate information to address this prior
error. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that
previously published.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: January 22, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Online location
       State and county         Location and case      Chief executive       Community map    of Letter of Map       Effective date of        Community
                                       No.          officer of community       repository         Revision              modification             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas:
    Tarrant...................  City of Bedford    The Honorable Jim       Public Works       http://           Oct. 20, 2015..............       480585
                                 (14-06-4249P).     Griffin, Mayor, City    Office, 1813       www.msc.fema.go
                                                    of Bedford, City        Reliance           v/lomc.
                                                    Hall, 2000 Forest       Parkway,
                                                    Ridge Drive, Bedford,   Bedford, TX
                                                    TX 76021.               76021.
    Tarrant...................  City of            The Honorable David     Public Works       http://           Oct. 20, 2015..............       480590
                                 Colleyville (14-   Kelly, Mayor, City of   Office 100 Main    www.msc.fema.go
                                 06-4249P).         Colleyville, City       Street,            v/lomc.
                                                    Hall, 100 Main          Colleyville, TX
                                                    Street, Colleyville,    76034.
                                                    TX 76034.
    Tarrant...................  City of Euless     The Honorable Linda     Planning and       http://           Oct. 20, 2015..............       480593
                                 (14-06-4249P).     Martin, Mayor, City     Engineering        www.msc.fema.go
                                                    of Euless, City Hall,   Building, 201      v/lomc.
                                                    201 North Ector         North Ector
                                                    Drive, Euless, TX       Drive, Euless,
                                                    76039.                  TX 76039.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-03230 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6934-6935]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59320; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue Policy of
Prohibiting Transfer Agents From Charging Fees for Issuing Stock
Certificates

January 30, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On October 30, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-NYSE-2008-112 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the
proposal was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2008.\2\
The Commission received two comment letters.\3\ For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59106 (December 16,
2008), 73 FR 79531.
    \3\ Letters from Charles V. Rossi, President, The Securities
Transfer Association, Inc. (January 16, 2009); and Martin J. McHale,
Jr., President, U.S. Equity Services, Computershare (January 20,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    As a part of the securities industry moving towards eliminating the
use of physical certificates (i.e., dematerialization) by encouraging
investors to hold securities positions in book-entry form either in
street name at a broker-dealer or through the Direct Registration
System (``DRS''), the NYSE is discontinuing its long-standing,
unwritten policy of prohibiting NYSE listed companies from charging for
the issuance of stock certificates. DRS allows investors to have
securities directly registered in book-entry form on the records of the
issuer or its transfer agent without having a certificate issued.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DRS allows securities positions to be electronically
transferred to a broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction
without the risk and delay associated with the use of paper
certificates. Since March 31, 2008, Section 501.00 of NYSE's Listed
Company Manual has required that all securities listed on the NYSE
must be eligible for participation in DRS. Approximately 2,428 NYSE
listed securities currently participate in DRS. Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 58398 (August 20, 2008), 73 FR 51546 (September 3,
2008) [File No. SR-NYSE-2008-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter to the NYSE, the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''), which is one of the leaders in the
movement towards dematerialization, requested that the NYSE discontinue
its prohibition of issuers or their transfer agents charging fees in
connection with the issuance of securities certificates (``SIFMA
Letter'').\5\ SIFMA noted that almost 75% of physical certificates
deposited by broker-dealers and bank custodians at The Depository Trust
Company (``DTC''), a registered clearing agency that is the primary
custodian of securities traded in the United States, were issued within
the last six months. SIFMA stated its beliefs that these recent
deposits indicate that DTC participants (i.e., broker-dealers and
banks) are providing physical certificates to their customers only to
have the securities moved back into street name in a short period of
time. In SIFMA's view, this activity results in unnecessary expense and
in the risk that the certificates may be lost, destroyed, or stolen.
SIFMA stated that it had recently conducted a survey that showed that
more than 1.2 million certificates each year need to be replaced
because of loss, destruction, or theft at an approximate cost to the
transfer agents of $65 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter to Stephen Walsh, Vice President, NYSE Euronext, from
Lawrence Morillo, SIFMA Operations Legal & Regulatory Sub-Committee
Chair. (August 26, 2008).
    \6\ ``Securities Industry Immobilization & Dematerialization
Implementation Guide--The Phase-Out of the Stock Certificate''
(SIFMA, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE believes that securityholders derive no apparent benefit from
continuing to hold their securities in certificated form rather than in
uncertificated form in street name or through DRS and that the
inability of the issuers or their transfer agents to charge for the
issuance of securities certificates imposes a considerable cost on
issuers and transfer agents. Therefore, NYSE is discontinuing its
prohibition of issuers or their transfer agents charging fees for the
issuance of new certificates. Allowing transfer agents to charge for
the issuance of certificates should not only shift the cost of the
issuance of certificates from the issuers and transfer agents to the
requesting securityholders but should also have the added effect of
encouraging more securityholders to hold their securities in street
name or through DRS, which should further the dematerialization
movement. NYSE listed companies that want their investors to continue
to have access to the free issuance of new certificates will be able to
ensure the continuation of such practice through their contractual
arrangements with their transfer agents.

    NYSE believes that the rule change will help make the securities
markets more safe and efficient by encouraging the dematerialization of
securities and by correctly placing the cost of the use of certificates
on those investors requesting certificates. NYSE also believes that the
rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because holding a securities position in street name or
through DRS provides investors with the ability to hold their
securities in a safe and cost-effective manner without incurring the
costs associated with the issuance and processing of securities
certificates.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters,\7\ both in support of
the proposed rule change. Computershare, a registered transfer agent,
and The Securities Transfer Association, an industry association
representing transfer agents, stated that the rule change was an
important step toward the goal of dematerialization by decreasing the
use of certificates in the marketplace and encouraging investors to
hold shares in DRS, thereby reducing the risk and unnecessary expense
for both issuers and shareholders of issuing and holding certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\8\ The Commission's approval
of the rule change should remove impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system in
that it encourages the dematerialization of securities, which should
improve the process of transferring securities in the public markets.
The rule change is also consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because investors can avoid the fees for the
issuance of certificates by holding their securities in street name or
through DRS which are safer and more cost effective alternatives to
holding securities in certificated form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission believes
that the rule change is consistent with NYSE's obligation under Section
6 of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2008-112) be and hereby
is approved.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2853 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P