[Federal Register: January 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3133-3135]
[DOCID:fr24ja07-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0689; FRL-8088-7]

Issuance of Experimental Use Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted experimental use permits (EUPs) to the
following pesticide applicants. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this action,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0689. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. EUP

    EPA has issued the following EUPs:

    524-EUP-97. Issuance. Monsanto Co., 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St.
Louis, MO 63167. This EUP allows the use of 165,700 lbs of corn seed
containing the following plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) in the
amounts specified: 0.47 lbs of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105
protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector
PV-ZMIR245) in Event MON 89034 corn, 0.41 lbs of the Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for
its production (vector PV-ZMIR245) in Event MON 89034 corn, and 1.49
lbs of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic
material necessary for its production (vector ZMIR39) in Event MON
88017 corn. This EUP allows the use of this seed on 1,356 acres MON
89034 corn; 363 acres MON 88017 corn; 617 acres MON 89034 x MON 88017
corn; and 461 acres non-Bt corn for 2006-2007, and 3,541 acres MON
89034 corn; 1,298 acres MON 88017 corn; 1,110 acres MON 89034 x MON
88017 corn; and 531 acres non-Bt corn for 2007-2008. Eight trial
protocols will be conducted, including:
     Breeding and observation nursery.
     Inbred seed increase production.
     Line per se hybrid yield and herbicide tolerance trials.
     Insect efficacy trials.
     Product characterization and performance trials.
     Insect resistance management trials.
     Benefit assessment trials.
     Seed treatment trials.
    The program is authorized only in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from June 29, 2005 to June 30,
2008, along with associated activities such as collection of field data
and harvesting and processing of seed after last planting.
    Temporary and permanent exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance have been established for residues of the active ingredients
in or on all corn commodities. One comment from a private citizen was
received in response to the notice of receipt for this permit
application, which was published in the Federal Register on May 26,
2006 (71 FR 30403) (FRL-8066-8). The private citizen indicated that she
does not favor genetically engineered corn and expressed the viewpoint
that the permittee should be required to request permission from
neighbors prior to testing. The commenter also expressed concern about
the mechanics of submitting comments via the http://www.regulations.gov

site for the notice of receipt. The Agency understands the commenter's
concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that genetically
modified crops and food should be banned completely. Nonetheless, under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency
is tasked with reviewing applications for EUPs for any pesticide,
including PIPs, and granting such applications to the extent that the
conditions of FIFRA section 5, and the regulations thereunder, have
been met (subject to such terms and conditions as the Agency determines
are warranted). In this instance, EPA has determined that the relevant
statutory and regulatory conditions have been met. In addition, there
is nothing in FIFRA or in the Agency's regulations enacted thereunder
that compels, and EPA does not otherwise require, a permittee to notify
neighbors prior to testing as suggested. Finally, the Agency
understands some of the adjustments needed to use the new electronic
docketing system. One tip that should help in the future is that when
commenting on notices of receipt, commenters should either choose
``Notices'' or ``All Document Types'' in the ``Document Type'' box. If
``Proposed Rules,'' ``Rules,'' or ``Other'' are selected, ``Notices''
will not be selected in the search.

    67979-EUP-4. Amendment/Extension. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., P.O. Box
12257, 3054 East Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2257.
This EUP allows the use of 50,420 lbs MIR604 and Bt11 corn seed
containing the following PIPs in the amounts specified: A combined
0.0454 lbs of modified Cry3A Bacillus thuringiensis protein and the
genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of pZM26)
in Event MIR604 corn (SYN-IR6[Oslash]4-5) and Bt11 Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary
for its production (plasmid vector pZ01502) in corn. This EUP allows
the use of this seed on 2,300 acres MIR604 modified Cry3A corn, 670
acres Bt11 Cry1Ab corn, 965 acres MIR604 x Bt11 corn, and 2,959 acres
non-Bt corn. Five trial protocols will be conducted, including:
     Breeding and observation.
     Efficacy evaluation.
     Agronomic observation.
     Inbred and hybrid production.
     Regulatory studies.
    The program is authorized only in the States of California,
Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from March 2, 2006
to February 28, 2007, along with associated activities such as
collection of field data and harvesting and processing of seed after
last planting.
    Temporary and permanent exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance have been established for residues of the active ingredients
in or on all corn commodities. Three identical comments from a private
citizen and one comment from a grower association were received in
response to the notice of receipt for this permit application, which
was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4141)
(FRL-7757-7). The private citizen indicated that she does not favor
genetically engineered corn, opposed testing under this EUP except in
fully enclosed greenhouses, and expressed the viewpoint that the
permittee should be required to request permission from neighbors prior
to testing. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and
recognizes that some individuals believe that genetically modified
crops and food should be banned completely. Nonetheless, under FIFRA,
the Agency is tasked with reviewing applications for EUPs for any
pesticide, including PIPs, and granting such applications to the extent
that the conditions of FIFRA section 5, and the regulations thereunder,
have been met (subject to such terms and conditions as the Agency
determines are warranted). In this instance, EPA has determined that
the relevant statutory and regulatory conditions have been met. In
addition, there is nothing in FIFRA or in the Agency's regulations
enacted thereunder that compels, and EPA does not otherwise require, a
permittee to notify neighbors prior to testing as

suggested. Finally although certain containment provisions were
required per the experimental program, the Agency did not require
testing to be conducted in fully enclosed greenhouses because such a
requirement was not necessary to mitigate risk. In contrast to the
comments from the private citizen, the grower association requested
that the Agency expeditiously grant the EUP and stated their position
that agricultural biotechnology in many cases helps reduce the use of
chemicals, improves profits, and preserves the environment. They also
mentioned the benefit to insect resistance management that the material
being tested under this EUP is intended to bring.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: January 12, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-988 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48577-48583]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19871]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75641; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.15
To Establish Exchange Rules Governing the Give Up of a Clearing Member
by Options Trading Permit Holders and OTP Firms and Conforming Changes
to Rules 6.66 and 6.79

August 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 27, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 6.15 to establish Exchange
rules governing the give up of a Clearing Member by Options Trading
Permit Holders and OTP Firms and proposes conforming changes to Rules
6.66 and 6.79. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.15 to establish Exchange
rules governing the ``give up'' of a Clearing Member \4\ by Options
Trading Permit Holders and OTP Firms (each an ``OTP,'' collectively,
``OTPs''). In addition, the Exchange proposes changes to Rules 6.66 and
6.79 to reflect proposed amendments to Rule 6.15. The Exchange believes
that this proposal to include the give-up process in Exchange rules
would result in the fair and reasonable use of resources by both the
Exchange and OTPs. In addition, the proposed change would align the
Exchange with competing options

exchanges that have recently adopted rules consistent with this
proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.1(3) defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange OTP
Firm or OTP Holder which has been admitted to membership in the
Options Clearing Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules
of the Options Clearing Corporation.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 72668 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44229 (July 30, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-048) (order
approving proposed rule change relating to the ``give up'' process,
the process by which a Trading Permit Holder ``gives up'' or selects
and indicates the Clearing Trading Permit Holder responsible for the
clearance of an Exchange transaction). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 72325 (June 5, 2014), 79 FR 33614 (June 11, 2014)
(Notice). The Exchange notes that this proposal is a copycat filing,
which is substantially similar in all material respects to the give-
up process approved on CBOE, except as noted herein. See infra n. 13
(regarding rule text in amended Rule 6.15(f) explicitly describing
procedures for Guarantors to reject a trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, to enter transactions on the Exchange, an OTP
must either be a Clearing Member or must have a Clearing Member agree
to accept financial responsibility for all of its transactions.
Specifically, Rule 6.15 provides that every Clearing Member will be
responsible for the clearance of Exchange option transactions of each
OTP that gives up the Clearing Member's name in an Exchange option
transaction, provided the clearing member has authorized such member or
member organization to give up its name with respect to Exchange option
transactions. Similarly, Rule 6.79 provides, in relevant part, that
every Clearing Member will be responsible for the clearance of Exchange
transactions of each OTP that gives up the Clearing Member's name
pursuant to a Letter of Authorization, Letter of Guarantee, or other
authorization given by the Clearing Member to the executing OTP. In
addition, Rule 6.66(a) (Order Identification) provides that for each
transaction in which an OTP participates, the OTP must give up the name
of the Clearing Member through whom the transaction will be cleared.
The Exchange has determined that it would be beneficial to amend Rule
6.15 and specify in detail the give-up process and to modify Rules 6.66
and 6.79, as described below. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes would result in a more comprehensive streamlined give up
process.
Designated Give Ups and Guarantors
    The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 6.15 by replacing the
current rule text \6\ with details regarding the give up procedure for
OTPs executing transactions on the Exchange, and to re-title this rule
``Give Up of a Clearing Member.'' \7\ As amended, Rule 6.15 would
provide that an OTP may only give up a ``Designated Give Up'' or its
``Guarantor,'' as those roles would be defined in the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 6.15 (Responsibility of Clearing OTP Holders and
OTP Firms for Exchange Option Transactions) (``Every OTP Holder and
OTP Firm which is a clearing member of the Options Clearing
Corporation shall be responsible for the clearance of the Exchange
option transactions of such OTP Holder and OTP Firm and of each OTP
Holder and OTP Firm which gives up the name of such clearing member
in an Exchange option transaction, provided the clearing member has
authorized such OTP Holder and OTP Firm to give up its name with
respect to Exchange option transactions.'').
    \7\ As discussed below, proposed paragraph (h) of amended Rule
6.15 addresses and clarifies the financial responsibility of
Clearing Members, and, as such, the Exchange believes the original
rule text is rendered unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, amended Rule 6.15 would introduce and define the term
``Designated Give Up'' as any Clearing Member that an OTP (other than a
Market Maker) \8\ identifies to the Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing
Member the OTP requests the ability to give up. To designate a
``Designated Give Up,'' an OTP must submit written notification to the
Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange
(``Notification Form''). A copy of the proposed Notification Form is
included with this filing in Exhibit 3. Similarly, should an OTP no
longer want the ability to give up a particular Designated Give Up, as
proposed, the OTP would have to submit written notification to the
Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market Maker''
refer to OTPs acting in the capacity of a Market Maker and include
all Exchange Market Maker capacities e.g., Lead Market Makers. As
explained below, Market Makers give up Guarantors that have executed
a Letter of Guarantee on behalf of the Marker Maker, pursuant to
Rule 6.36; Market Makers need not give up Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, as proposed, an OTP may designate any
Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally, there would be
no minimum or maximum number of Designated Give Ups that an OTP must
identify. The Exchange would notify a Clearing Member, in writing and
as soon as practicable, of each OTP that has identified it as a
Designated Give Up. The Exchange, however, would not accept any
instructions, and would not give effect to any previous instructions,
from a Clearing Member not to permit an OTP to designate the Clearing
Member as a Designated Give Up. Further, the Exchange notes that there
is no subjective evaluation of an OTP's list of proposed Designated
Give Ups by the Exchange. Rather, the Exchange proposes to process each
list as submitted and ensure that the Clearing Members identified as
Designated Give Ups are in fact current Clearing Members, as well as
confirm that the Notification Forms are complete (e.g., contain
appropriate signatures) and that the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') numbers listed for each Clearing Member are accurate.
    As amended, Rule 6.15 would also define the term ``Guarantor'' as a
Clearing Member that has issued a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of
Authorization for the executing OTP, pursuant to Rules of the Exchange
\9\ that is in effect at the time of the execution of the applicable
trade. An executing OTP may give up its Guarantor without such
Guarantor being a ``Designated Give Up.'' The Exchange notes that Rule
6.36 provides that a Letter of Guarantee is required to be issued and
filed by each Clearing Member through which a Market Maker clears
transactions. Accordingly, a Market Maker would only be enabled to give
up a Guarantor that had executed a Letter of Guarantee on its behalf
pursuant to Rule 6.36. Thus, Market Makers would not identify any
Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 6.36 (Letters of Guarantee); Rule 6.45 (Letters of
Authorization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, amended Rule 6.15 would provide that an OTP may
give up only (i) the name of a Clearing Member that has previously been
identified and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for
that OTP, if not a Market Maker or (ii) its Guarantor.\10\ This
proposed requirement would be enforced by the Exchange's trading
systems. Specifically, the Exchange has configured its trading systems
to only accept orders from an OTP that identifies a Designated Give Up
or Guarantor for that OTP and would reject any order entered by an OTP
that designates a give up that is not at the time a Designated Give Up
or Guarantor of the OTP.\11\ The Exchange notes that it would notify an
OTP in writing when an identified Designated Give Up becomes
``effective'' (i.e., when a Clearing Member that has been identified by
the OTP as a Designated Give Up has been enabled by the Exchange's
trading systems to be given up). A Guarantor for an OTP, by virtue of
having an effective Letter of Authorization or Letter of Guarantee on
file with the Exchange, would be enabled to be given up for that OTP
without any further action by the OTP. The Exchange notes that this
configuration (i.e., the trading system accepting only orders that
identify a Designated Give Up or Guarantor) is intended to help reduce
``keypunch errors'' and prevent OTPs from mistakenly giving up the name
of a

Clearing Member that it does not have the ability to give up a trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As described below, amended Rule 6.15(f) provides that a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor may, under certain circumstances,
reject a trade on which it is given up and another Clearing Member
may agree to accept the subject trade.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptance of a Trade
    The Exchange proposes in paragraph (e) of amended Rule 6.15 that a
Designated Give Up and a Guarantor may, in certain circumstances,
determine not to accept a trade on which its name was given up. If a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor determines not to accept a trade, the
proposed Rule would provide that it may reject the trade in accordance
with the procedures described more fully below under ``Procedures to
Reject a Trade.''
    As proposed, a Designated Give Up may determine to not accept a
trade on which its name was given up so long as it believes in good
faith that it has a valid reason not to accept the trade and follows
the procedures to reject a trade in proposed paragraph (f) of the
amended Rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An example of a valid reason to reject a trade may be that
the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that particular
trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to provide that a Guarantor may opt to
not accept (and thereby reject) a non-Market Maker trade on which its
name was given up, provided that the following steps are completed: (i)
Another Clearing Member agrees to be the give up on the trade; (ii)
that other Clearing Member has notified both the Exchange and executing
OTP in writing of its intent to accept the trade; and (iii) the
procedures in Rule 6.15(f) are followed. In addition, the give up must
be changed to the Clearing Member that has agreed to accept the trade
in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (f) of Rule 6.15. A
Guarantor may not reject a trade given up by a Market Maker.
    The Exchange notes that only a Designated Give Up or Guarantor
whose name was initially given up on a trade is permitted to reject the
trade, subject to the conditions noted above. The Clearing Member or
Guarantor that becomes the give up on a rejected trade may not also
reject the trade.
Procedures To Reject a Trade
    The Exchange proposes to include in amended Rule 6.15 procedures
that must be followed and completed in order for a Designated Give Up
or Guarantor \13\ to reject a trade. Specifically, a Designated Give Up
can only change the give up to (1) another Clearing Member that has
agreed to be the give up on the subject trade (``New Clearing
Member''), provided the New Clearing Member has notified the Exchange
and the executing OTP in writing of its intent to accept the trade in a
form and manner prescribed by the Exchange (``Give-Up Change Form for
Accepting Clearing Member''); \14\ or (2) a Guarantor for the executing
OTP, provided the Designated Give Up has notified the Guarantor in
writing that it is changing the give up on the trade to the
Guarantor.\15\ Further, as proposed, a Guarantor, can only reject a
non-Market Maker trade \16\ for which its name was the initial give up
by an OTP and change the give up to another Clearing Member that has
agreed to be the give up on the subject trade, provided the New
Clearing Member has notified the Exchange and the executing OTP in
writing of its intent to accept the trade (i.e., by filling out a Give-
Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Member). A Guarantor that becomes
the give up on a trade as a result of the Designated Give Up rejecting
the trade is prohibited from not accepting the trade/rejecting the
trade. This prohibition would provide finality to the trade and ensure
that the trade is not repeatedly reassigned from one Clearing Member to
another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.15(f) contains rule
text explicitly describing procedures for Guarantors to reject a
trade that is not contained in the rule text approved in SR-CBOE-
2014-048. See supra n. 5. The Exchange, however, believes that this
additional description serves only to clarify, as opposed to alter,
the procedure approved in SR-CBOE-2014-048.
    \14\ A copy of the proposed Give-Up Change Form for Accepting
Clearing Member is included with this filing in Exhibit 3. Also, as
noted above, a New Clearing Member cannot later reject the trade.
Requiring the New Clearing Member to provide notice to the Exchange
of its intent to accept the trade and prohibiting the New Clearing
Member from later rejecting the trade would provide finality to the
trade and ensure that the trade is not repeatedly reassigned from
one Clearing Member to another.
    \15\ The Guarantor would not need to notify the Exchange of its
intent to accept the trade.
    \16\ A Guarantor of an OTP that is a Market Maker may not reject
a trade for which its name was given up in relation to such Market
Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, a Guarantor may only reject a non-Market Maker trade
for which its name was the initial give up by an OTP, if another
Clearing Member has agreed to be the give up on the trade and has
notified the Exchange and executing OTP in writing of its intent to
accept the trade. If a Guarantor of an OTP decides to reject a trade on
the trade date, it must follow the same procedures to change the give
up as would be followed by a Designated Give Up. The ability to make
any changes, either by the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, to the give
up pursuant to this procedure would end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time.
    Finally, once the give up on a trade has been changed, the
Designated Give Up or Guarantor making the change must immediately
thereafter notify, in writing, the Exchange, the parties to the trade,
and the Clearing Member given up, of the change.
Rejection on Trade Date
    As proposed, a trade may only be rejected on (i) the trade date or
(ii) the business day following the trade date (``T+1'') (except that
transactions in expiring options series on the last trading day prior
to expiration may not be rejected on T+1).
    If, on the trade date, a Designated Give Up decides to reject a
trade, or another Clearing Member agrees to be the give up on a trade
for which a Guarantor's name was given up, the Exchange proposes that
the rejecting Designated Give Up or Guarantor must notify, in writing,
the executing OTP or its designated agent, as soon as possible and
attempt to resolve the disputed give up. This requirement puts the
executing OTP on notice that the give up on the trade may be changed
and provides the executing OTP and Designated Give Up or Guarantor an
opportunity to resolve the dispute. The Exchange notes that a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor may request from the Exchange the
contact information of the executing OTP or its designated agent for
any trade it intends to reject.
    Following notification to the executing OTP on the trade date, a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor may request the ability from the
Exchange to change the give up on the trade, in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange (``Give-Up Change Form''). A copy of the
proposed Give-Up Change Form is included with this filing in Exhibit 3.
Provided that the Exchange is able to process the request prior to the
trade input cutoff time established by the OCC (or the applicable later
time if the Exchange receives and is able to process a request to
extend its time of final trade submission to the OCC) (``Trade Date
Cutoff Time''), the Exchange would provide the Designated Give Up or
Guarantor the ability to make the change to the give up on the trade to
either (1) another Clearing Member or, as applicable, (2) the executing
OTP's Guarantor.
Rejection on T+1
    The Exchange acknowledges that some clearing firms may not
reconcile their trades until after the Trade Date Cutoff Time. A
clearing firm, therefore, may not realize that a valid reason exists to
not accept a particular trade until after the close of the trading day
or until the following morning. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
establish a

procedure for a Designated Give Up or Guarantor of an OTP that is not a
Market Maker to reject a trade on the following trade day
(``T+1'').\17\ The Exchange notes that a separate procedure must be
established for T+1 changes because to effectively change the give up
on a trade on T+1 an offsetting reversal must occur--as opposed to
merely identifying a different Clearing Member on the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange proposes that no changes to the give up on
trades in expiring options series that take place on the last
trading day prior to their expiration may take place on T+1. Rather,
a Designated Give Up or Guarantor may only reject these transactions
on the trade date until the Trade Date Cutoff Time in accordance
with the trade date procedures described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with amended Rule 6.15(f), a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor \18\ that wishes to reject a trade on T+1 would have to
notify the executing OTP, in writing, to try to attempt and resolve the
dispute. In addition, a Designated Give Up or Guarantor may contact the
Exchange and request the ability to reject the trade on T+1. Provided
that the Exchange is receives the request prior to 12:00 p.m. (ET) on
T+1 (``T+1 Cutoff Time''), the Exchange would provide the Designated
Give Up or Guarantor the ability to enter trade records into the
Exchange's systems that would effect a transfer of the trade to another
Clearing Member. As noted above, if a New Clearing Member agrees to the
give up on a trade, it would be required to inform the Exchange of its
acceptance via the Give-Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Members.
A Guarantor that becomes the new give up on T+1 would not need to
notify the Exchange of its intent to accept the trade, nor would it
need to submit any notification or form. The Designated Give Up
however, would be required to provide written notice to the Guarantor
that it will be making this change on T+1. The Exchange notes that the
ability for either a Designated Give Up or Guarantor to make these
changes would end at the T+1 Cutoff Time and would provide finality and
certainty as to which Clearing Member will be the give up on the
subject trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange again notes that, as proposed, only a
Guarantor whose name was initially given up is permitted to reject a
trade (i.e., a Guarantor cannot reject a trade on T+1 for which it
has become the give up as a result of a Designated Give Up not
accepting the trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, once any change to the give up has been made, the
Designated Give Up or Guarantor making the change would be required to
immediately thereafter notify, in writing, the Exchange, the parties to
the trade and the Clearing Member given up, of the change.
    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to allow OTPs that are
not Market Makers to identify any Clearing Member as a Designated Give
Up. The Exchange's proposal does not permit a Clearing Member to
provide the Exchange instructions to prohibit a particular OTP from
giving up the Clearing Member's name. This limitation prevents the
Exchange from being placed in the position of arbiter among a Clearing
Member, an OTP and a customer. The Exchange recognizes, however, that
OTPs should not be given the ability to give up any Clearing Member
without also providing a method of recourse to those Clearing Members
which, for the prescribed reasons discussed above,\19\ should not be
obligated to clear certain trades for which they are given up.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to provide Designated Give Ups
and Guarantors the ability to reject a trade, provided each has a good
faith basis for doing so. Ultimately, however, the trade must clear
with a clearing firm and there must be finality to the trade. The
Exchange believes that the executing OTP's Guarantor, absent a Clearing
Member that agrees to accept the trade, should become the give up on
any trade which a Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance
with these proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue
of having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization, has
already accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions
made by the executing OTP. The Exchange, however, does not want to
prevent a Clearing Member that agrees to accept the trade from being
able to do so, and accordingly, the Exchange also provides that a New
Clearing Member may become the give up on a trade in accordance with
the procedure discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra n. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Give Up Changes
    The Exchange proposes to modify the text of Rule 6.66(a), related
to the give up requirement for OTPs, to simply cross reference amended
Rule 6.15 given the detailed give up process proposed by the Exchange
in that Rule.
    The Exchange also proposes in paragraph (g) of amended Rule 6.15
three scenarios in which a give up on a transaction may be changed
without Exchange involvement. First, if an executing OTP has the
ability through an Exchange system to do so, it could change the give
up on a trade to another Designated Give Up or its Guarantor. The
Exchange notes that OTPs often make these changes when, for example,
there is a keypunch error (i.e., an error that involves the erroneous
entry of an intended clearing firm's OCC clearing number). The ability
of the executing OTP to make any such change would end at the Trade
Date Cutoff Time.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ After that time, the OTP would no longer have the ability
to make this type of change, as the trade will have been submitted
to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the modified rule would provide that, if a Designated Give Up
has the ability to do so, it may change the give up on a transaction
for which it was given up to (i) another Clearing Member affiliated
with the Designated Give Up or (ii) a Clearing Member for which the
Designated Give Up is a back office agent. The ability to make such a
change would end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time. The procedures to
reject a trade, as set forth in proposed subparagraph (f) of Rule 6.15
and described above, would not apply in these instances. The Exchange
notes that often Clearing Members themselves have the ability to change
a give up on a trade for which it was given up to another Clearing
Member affiliate or Clearing Member for which the Designated Give Up is
a back office agent. Therefore, Exchange involvement in these instances
is not necessary.
    In addition, the proposed rule provides that if both a Designated
Give Up or Guarantor and a Clearing Member have the ability through an
Exchange system to do so, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor and
Clearing Member may each enter trade records into the Exchange's
systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-
expired option series from that Designated Give Up to that Clearing
Member. Likewise, if a Guarantor of an OTP trade (that is not a Market
Maker trade) and a Clearing Member have the ability through an Exchange
system to do so, the Guarantor and Clearing Member may each enter trade
records into the Exchange's systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer
of the trade in a non-expired option series from that Guarantor to that
Clearing Member. The Designated Give Up or Guarantor could not make any
such change after the T+1 Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that a
Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) must notify, in writing, the Exchange
and all the parties to the trade, of any such change made pursuant to
this provision. This notification alerts the parties and the Exchange
that a change to the give up has been made. Finally, the Designated
Give Up (or Guarantor) would be responsible for monitoring the trade
and ensuring that the other Clearing Member has entered its side of the
transaction timely and correctly. If

either a Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) or Clearing Member cannot
themselves enter trade records into the Exchange's systems to effect a
transfer of the trade from one to the other, the Designated Give Up (or
Guarantor) may request the ability from the Exchange to enter both
sides of the transaction in accordance with amended Rule 6.15 and
pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraph (f)(3) of that
Rule.
Responsibility
    The Exchange proposes in paragraph (h) of amended Rule 6.15 to
state that a Clearing Member would be financially responsible for all
trades for which it is the give up at the Applicable Cutoff Time (for
purposes of the proposed rule, the ``Applicable Cutoff Time'' shall
refer to the T+1 Cutoff Time for non-expiring option series and to the
Trade Date Cutoff Time for expiring option series). The Exchange notes,
however, that nothing in the proposed rule shall preclude a different
party from being responsible for the trade outside of the Rules of the
Exchange pursuant to OCC Rules, any agreement between the applicable
parties, other applicable rules and regulations, arbitration, court
proceedings or otherwise.\21\ Moreover, in processing a request to
provide a Designated Give Up the ability to change a give up on a
trade, the Exchange would not consider or validate whether the
Designated Give Up has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in
relation to having a good faith belief that it has a valid reason not
to accept a trade or having notified the executing OTP and attempting
to resolve the disputed give up prior to changing the give up. Rather,
upon request, the Exchange would always provide a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor the ability to change the give up or to reject a trade
pursuant to the proposed Rule so long as the Designated Give Up or
Guarantor, and New Clearing Member, if applicable, have provided a
completed set of give up Change Forms within the prescribed time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 6.15 (``Nothing herein
will be deemed to preclude the clearance of Exchange transactions by
a non-OTP Holder or non-OTP Firm pursuant to the By-Laws of the
Options Clearing Corporation so long as a Clearing Member who is a
OTP Holder or OTP Firm is also designated as having responsibility
under these Rules for the clearance and comparison of such
transactions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that given the inherent time constraints in
making a change to a give up on a transaction, the Exchange would not
be able to adequately consider the above-mentioned requirements and
make a determination within the prescribed period of time. Rather, the
Exchange would examine trades for which a give up was changed pursuant
to subparagraphs (e) and (f) after the fact to ensure compliance with
the requirements set forth in amended Rule 6.15. Particularly, the
Exchange notes that the give up Change Forms that Designated Give Ups,
Guarantors and New Clearing Members must submit, would help to ensure
that the Exchange obtains, in a uniform format, the information that it
needs to monitor and regulate this Rule and these give up changes in
particular. This information, for example, would better allow the
Exchange to determine whether the Designated Give Up had a valid reason
to reject the trade, as well as assist the Exchange in cross checking
and confirming that what the Designated Give Up or Guarantor said it
was going to do is what it actually did (e.g., check that the New
Clearing Member identified in the give up Change Form was the Clearing
Member that actually was identified on the trade as the give up).
Additionally, the proposed Rule does not preclude these factors from
being considered in a different forum (e.g., court or arbitration), nor
does it preclude any Clearing Member that violates any provision of
amended Rule 6.15 from being subject to discipline in accordance with
Exchange rules.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate language in Rule 6.79
that addresses the financial responsibility of transactions clearing
through Clearing Members. Under the proposal, financial responsibility
would be addressed and clarified in amended Rule 6.15, and as such, the
Exchange believes this language in Rule 6.79 is unnecessary.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the two references
to ``clearing member'' in this rule to signify the defined term,
which the Exchange believes would add clarity and consistency to
Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation of the
proposed rule change via Trader Update, to be published no later than
thirty (30) days following the effectiveness of this proposal. The
implementation date will be no sooner than fourteen (14) day and no
later than thirty (30) days following publication of the Trader Update.
This additional time would afford the Exchange and OTPs the time to
submit and process the forms required under the proposed rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\24\ in particular, in that it is 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 facilitation transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \25\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, detailing in the rules how OTPs would give up Clearing
Members and how Clearing Members may ``reject'' a trade provides
transparency and operational certainty. The Exchange believes
additional transparency removes a potential impediment to, and would
contribute to perfecting, the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, would protect investors and
the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange notes that amended Rule
6.15 requires OTPs to adhere to a standardized process to ensure a
seamless administration of the Rule. For example, all notifications
relating to a change in give up must be made in writing. The Exchange
believes that these requirements will aid the Exchange's efforts to
monitor and regulate OTPs and Clearing Members as they relate to
amended Rule 6.15 and changes in give ups, thereby protecting investors
and the public interest.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed give up rule
strikes the right balance between the various views and interests of
market participants. For example, although the rule allows OTPs that
are not Market Makers to identify any Clearing Member as a Designated
Give Up, it also provides that OTPs would receive notice of any OTP
that has designated it as a Designated Give Up and provides for a
procedure for a Clearing Member to ``reject'' a trade in accordance
with the Rules, both on the trade date and T+1.
    The Exchange recognizes that OTPs should not be given the ability
to give up any Clearing Members without also providing a method of
recourse to those Clearing Members which, for the prescribed reasons
discussed above, should not be obligated to clear certain

trades for which they are given up. The Exchange believes that
providing Designated Give Ups the ability to reject a trade within a
reasonable amount of time is consistent with the Act as, pursuant to
the proposed rule, the Designated Give Ups may only do so if they have
a valid reason and because ultimately, the trade can always be assigned
to the Guarantor of the executing OTP if a New Clearing Firm is not
willing to step in and accept the trade. A trade must clear with a
clearing firm and there must be finality to the trade. Absent a New
Clearing Member that agrees to accept the trade, the Exchange believes
that the executing OTP's Guarantor should become the give up on any
trade that a Designated Give Up determines to reject, in accordance
with the proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of
having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization, has
already accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions
made by the executing OTP. Therefore, Rule 6.15, as modified, is
reasonable and provides certainty that a Clearing Member will always be
responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the public
interest.
    The Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.15 does not preclude a
different party than the party given up from being responsible for the
trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange, pursuant to OCC Rules, any
agreement between the applicable parties, other applicable rules and
regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise. The Exchange
acknowledges that it would not consider whether the Designated Give Up
has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in relation to having a
good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or
having notified the executing OTP and attempting to resolve the
disputed give up prior to changing the give up, due to inherent time
restrictions. However, the Exchange believes investor and public
interest are still protected as the Exchange will still examine trades
for which a give up was changed pursuant to subparagraphs (e) and (f)
of amended Rule 6.15 after the fact to ensure compliance with the
requirements set forth in the Rule. As noted above, the implementation
of a standardized process and the requirement that certain notices be
in writing would assist monitoring any give up changes and enforcing
amended Rule 6.15.
    Further, the Exchange notes that the Rule does not preclude these
factors from being considered in a different forum (e.g., court or
arbitration) nor does it preclude any OTP or Clearing Member that
violates any provision of amended Rule 6.15 from being subject to
discipline by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that making non-substantive,
technical corrections to the rule text (i.e., capitalizing the defined
term ``clearing member'') would add clarity and consistency to Exchange
rules to the benefit of investors and the general public.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change would impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly
situated OTPs. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed
changes make the Exchange more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become OTPs
on the Exchange to take advantage of the trading opportunities. In
addition, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is pro-competitive and would allow the Exchange to compete more
effectively with other options exchanges that have already adopted
changes to their give up process that are substantially identical to
the changes proposed by this filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra n. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the 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, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \29\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\30\ the Commission
may 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 so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposal is substantially
similar to that of another exchange that has been approved by the
Commission.\31\ Waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the
Exchange to implement the proposed rule change, which is designed to
bring greater operational certainty and efficiency to the give up
process, in accordance with the implementation schedule outlined above.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ See supra n. 5.
    \32\ 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \33\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2015-65 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-NYSEArca-2015-65. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-NYSEArca-2015-65 and should
be submitted on or before September 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19871 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6179-6181]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1125]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate;
Chauvin, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on all
navigable waters within a 750 foot radius around the center of the
Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. This safety zone is
necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from
potential damage and safety hazards associated with repair work on the
Boudreaux Canal Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou.
During the periods of enforcement, entry into and transiting or
anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City or other
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from February 5,
2016 until February 27, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 6, 2016 until February 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1125 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Vanessa Taylor, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Morgan City 800 David Dr.,
Morgan City, LA 70380; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
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 repair work on the Boudreaux Canal
Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou needs to be
completed before marine traffic increases during the extremely high
traffic periods of the upcoming shrimping season. The Coast Guard
received notice of the need for this repair December 16, 2015. Repair
work pushed to any later date will unnecessarily create major traffic
delays. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone by January 6, 2016.We are issuing this rule,
and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making it 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 immediate action is needed to
provide additional safety measure during the repair work so that it may
be completed before the high traffic periods during the upcoming
shrimping season.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231.
    The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary
safety zone to provide protection for persons and property from the
hazards associated with the repairs. This includes commercial and
recreational vessels that may be in the area during the repair, removal
and re-installation of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from January 6, 2016 through
January 15, 2016 and from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016.
The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 750 foot
radius around coordinate 29[deg]23.117 N., 90[deg]37.038 W. which is
located in center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates. This safety zone
is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
in these navigable waters while the inspection, repair, removal, and
re-installation of flood gates occurs. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,

it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and traffic during the time-of-year of the safety
zone. The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the
Waterway in Chauvin, LA during two scheduled time periods. First,
during 10 days from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016; and
second during 9 days from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016.
This is a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low.
Additionally, vessel traffic will be allowed to transit from January
16, 2016 through February 17, 2016, mid-way through the repair
timeline. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 informing waterway users of the
safety zone and any changes in the schedule. Finally, the rule allows
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 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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
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 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 less than 20 days that will
prohibit entry within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29[deg]23.117
N., 90[deg]37.038 W., which is located in the center of the Boudreaux
Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a 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 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (waters), 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: 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.T08-1121 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1121  Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal
Floodgate; Chauvin, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29[deg]23.117 N.,
90[deg]37.038 W., which is located in the center of the Boudreaux Canal
Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City in the enforcement of the safety
zones.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
33 CFR part 165, subpart C, you may not enter the safety zones
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 Marine
Safety Unit Morgan City at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zones must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from January 6,
2016 through January 15, 2016, and from February 18, 2016 through
February 27, 2016.
    (e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to
mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zones as
well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: January 5, 2016.
D.G. McClellan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Morgan City, Louisiana.
[FR Doc. 2016-02281 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21994-21995]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9961-33]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Artic Slope
Mission Services, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, Artic Slope Mission
Services, LLC (ASMS) of Beltsville, MD, to access information which has
been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or
determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on or about March 20,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Scott M. Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8257; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-W-17-011, order number 0046,
contractor Artic Slope Mission Services (ASMS) of 7000 Muirkirk Meadows
Drive, Suite 100, Beltsville, MD is assisting the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in managing the Non-Confidential Business
Information Center (NCIC). They will also provide current and
historical reports on all TSCA non-CBI submissions received in
compliance with TSCA; organize, distribute and prepare records for
permanent storage; and handle all docket-related records for OPPT, in
accordance with the TSCA Security Manual.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number EP-W-17-011, order number 0046, ASMS required
access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform
successfully the duties specified under the contract. ASMS personnel
were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of
TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided ASMS access to these
CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI
under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters in accordance
with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until February
14, 2022. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue
for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    ASMS personnel were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and
were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are
permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
Pamela S. Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017-09556 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 EPA ICR No. 0575.16; OMB Control No. 2070-0004

                                 ATTACHMENT 1                                                            Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8(d)                                                                        15 U.S.C. 2607(d) U.S. Code

Sec. 2607. Reporting and retention of information

 * * *

(d) Health and safety studies

    The Administrator shall promulgate rules under which the Administrator shall require any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce or who proposes to manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce any chemical substance or mixture (or with respect to paragraph (2), any person who has possession of a study) to submit to the Administrator--       (1) lists of health and safety studies (A) conducted or initiated by or for such person with respect to such substance or mixture at any time, (B) known to such person, or (C) reasonably ascertainable by such person, except that the Administrator may exclude certain types or categories of studies from the requirements of this subsection if the Administrator finds that submission of lists of such studies are unnecessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter; and (2) copies of any study contained on a list submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) or otherwise known by such person.