[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21397-21399]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8329]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region V

Illinois:
    LaSalle County,                   170400  December 16, 1988,  May 19, 2014..........  May 19, 2014.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               7, 2001, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Mendota, City of, LaSalle         170403  November 2, 1974,   ......*do.............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               4, 1979, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
Indiana:
    French Lick, Town of,             180187  October 21, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     Orange County.                            Emerg; June 1,
                                               2002, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Orange County,                    180480  June 23, 2009,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; April 1,
                                               2011, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Paoli, Town of, Orange            180189  November 14, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    West Baden Springs, Town          180190  May 7, 1976,        ......do..............   Do.
     of, Orange County.                        Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
Minnesota:
    Adrian, City of, Nobles           270318  May 2, 1974,        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 1,
                                               1982, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Nobles County,                    270668  September 19,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     1974, Emerg; June
                                               3, 1986, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Worthington, City of,             270321  May 28, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Nobles County.                            Emerg; June 15,
                                               1984, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
Ohio:
    Meigs County,                     390387  February 9, 1977,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; November
                                               16, 1995, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Middleport, Village of,           390388  August 28, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Meigs County.                             Emerg; September
                                               29, 1978, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Pomeroy, Village of, Meigs        390389  July 24, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 5,
                                               1983, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Racine, Village of, Meigs         390390  March 31, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 15,
                                               1983, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Rutland, Village of, Meigs        390670  September 3, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; November
                                               2, 1990, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Syracuse, Village of,             390391  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Meigs County.                             Emerg; July 5,
                                               1983, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
Wisconsin:
    Beaver Dam, City of, Dodge        550095  May 16, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 3,
                                               1984, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Columbus, City of,                550058  October 7, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Columbia and Dodge                        Emerg; December
     Counties.                                 1, 1981, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Horicon, City of, Dodge           550098  July 7, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 15,
                                               1980, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Hustisford, Village of,           550557  July 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Dodge County.                             Emerg; August 15,
                                               1980, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Kekoskee, Village of,             550101  July 21, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Dodge County.                             Emerg; September
                                               1, 1986, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Lowell, Village of, Dodge         550102  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   January 8, 2013,
                                               Reg; May 19,
                                               2014, Susp.
    Mayville, City of, Dodge          550103  July 21, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 1,
                                               1981, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Neosho, Village of, Dodge         550104  June 9, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 15,
                                               1988, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Theresa, Village of, Dodge        550106  August 21, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1980, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Watertown, City of, Dodge         550107  May 23, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     and Jefferson Counties.                   Emerg; April 1,
                                               1981, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Waupun, City of, Dodge and        550108  January 21, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Fond du Lac Counties.                     Emerg; August 15,
                                               1984, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
           Region VI

Louisiana:
    Blanchard, Town of, Caddo         220315  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                   January 23, 2012,
                                               Reg; May 19,
                                               2014, Susp.
    Caddo Parish,                     220361  November 9, 1979,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               5, 1990, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Greenwood, Town of, Caddo         220292  October 14, 1991,   ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                   Emerg; August 3,
                                               1998, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Ida, Village of, Caddo            220276  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                   February 29,
                                               2012, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Rodessa, Village of, Caddo        220308  November 11, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                   Emerg; August 26,
                                               1977, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.

    Shreveport, City of, Caddo        220036  May 10, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                   Emerg; January
                                               18, 1984, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
          Region VII

Iowa:
    Brooklyn, City of,                190495  May 4, 1976,        ......do..............   Do.
     Poweshiek County.                         Emerg; July 17,
                                               1986, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Malcom, City of, Poweshiek        190498  October 4, 2010,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Montezuma, City of,               190622  October 26, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     Poweshiek County.                         Emerg; June 1,
                                               1988, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Victor, City of, Iowa and         190426  June 14, 1976,      ......do..............   Do.
     Poweshiek Counties.                       Emerg; August 1,
                                               1986, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
Nebraska:
    Douglas County,                   310073  November 15, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January
                                               16, 1981, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
    Omaha, City of, Douglas           315274  November 6, 1970,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 7,
                                               1971, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Valley, City of, Douglas          310078  May 1, 1975,        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 18,
                                               1980, Reg; May
                                               19, 2014, Susp.
    Waterloo, City of, Douglas        310079  February 2, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               14, 1977, Reg;
                                               May 19, 2014,
                                               Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-08660 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27461-27462]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11172]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69519; File No. SR-NSX-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Order
Type Called the ``Auto-Ex Only'' Order and Add New Definitions
Regarding Automatic Execution Mode and Automatic Execution Orders

May 6, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On January 23, 2013, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``NSX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a new order type called the ``Auto-Ex
Only'' order and to add new definitions regarding automatic execution
(``Auto Ex'') mode and Auto Ex orders. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013.\3\
The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Exchange submitted a response on March 14, 2013.\5\ On
March 19, 2013, the Commission extended the time period for Commission
action.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68807 (Feb. 1,
2013), 78 FR 9094 (Feb. 7, 2013) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Peter J. Driscoll, Investment Professional, dated February 14,
2013 (``Driscoll Letter'') and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director
and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated Mar. 6, 2013 (``SIFMA
Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Christopher Solgan, Senior Regulatory Counsel, NSX, dated Mar.
14, 2013 (``NSX Response'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69183 (Mar. 19,
2013), 78 FR 18377 (Mar. 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to (1) to adopt a new order type called
the ``Auto-Ex Only'' order; and (2) add new definitions for ``Auto-Ex
Mode'' and ``Auto-Ex Order'' to clarify the operation of its existing
Auto-Ex Mode of order interaction.

A. Auto-Ex Only Order Type

    NSX is a price-time priority market with two modes of order
interaction: (1) Auto-Ex Mode and (2) Order Delivery Mode.\7\ The
Exchange's trading system, NSX BLADE[supreg] (``Blade''), matches and
executes like-priced orders, regardless of whether an order was entered
via Auto-Ex Mode or Order Delivery Mode, that are resting on the NSX
Book \8\ in accordance with the process described in NSX Rule
11.13(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (Aug. 31,
2006), 71 FR 52836 (Sept. 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08). The Exchange's
two modes of order interaction are described in NSX Rule 11.13(b).
    \8\ ``NSX Book'' is defined as ``the System's electronic file of
orders.'' See NSX Rule 1.5(N)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, an incoming marketable order would be executed
immediately against contra-side orders entered via Auto-Ex Mode resting
in the NSX Book. However, that same incoming marketable order may
experience a delay if matched against an order resting on the NSX Book
that was entered via Order Delivery Mode.\9\ To provide Users \10\ with
the ability to avoid the delays associated with order delivery service,
the Exchange proposes to implement a new order type--the Auto-Ex Only
order, which would allow Users to submit an immediate-or-cancel
(``IOC'') limit \11\ or market order with ``Auto-Ex Only'' handling
instructions.\12\ Auto-Ex Only orders would be executed solely against
orders with price-time priority entered via Auto-Ex Mode and posted to
the NSX Book. An Auto-Ex Only order would not interact with any orders
resting on the NSX Book entered via Order Delivery Mode and would not
be routed away to another trading center. Like an IOC order, the
unexecuted portion of an Auto-Ex Only order would be cancelled if not
fully matched for execution against Auto-Ex orders with price/time
priority on the NSX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The delays are due to the Exchange sending to and receiving
a response from a User that has satisfied the Exchange's
requirements to participate in order delivery service. See NSX Rule
11.13(b)(2) and the Interpretations and Policies thereto. To be
eligible for order delivery service, Users must demonstrate to
Exchange examiners that the User's system can automatically process
the inbound order and respond immediately.
    \10\ A ``User'' is any ETP Holder or Sponsored Participant who
is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to NSX Rule
11.9. See NSX Rule 1.5(U)(1).
    \11\ An IOC order is a limit order that is to be executed in
whole or in part as soon as such order is received, and the portion
not so executed is to be treated as cancelled. See NSX Rule
11.11(b)(1). An order designated as IOC is not eligible to be routed
away pursuant to NSX Rule 11.15.
    \12\ See Proposed NSX Rule 11.11(c)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, its price/time priority and order
execution rules \13\ would limit an Auto-Ex Only order's ability to
interact with certain undisplayed orders. Specifically, an Auto-Ex Only
order would first execute against displayed orders on the NSX Book. An
Auto-Ex Only order could be precluded from interacting with an
undisplayed order (e.g., a Zero Display Reserve Order \14\) entered via
Auto-Ex Mode if the undisplayed order shares a price point with an
order entered via Order Delivery Mode. Similarly, an order entered via
Order Delivery Mode could also prevent an incoming Auto-Ex Only order
from interacting with the undisplayed portion of a Reserve Order \15\
under circumstances in which the order entered via Order Delivery Mode
has price/time priority. Like displayed orders, the displayed portion
of a Reserve Order will interact against incoming Auto-Ex Only orders
only to the extent that there are no orders entered via Order Delivery
Mode in the NSX Book with price/time priority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NSX Rule 11.14(a) and, with respect to Reserve Orders
(including Zero Display Reserve Orders), NSX Rule 11.14(a)(4).
    \14\ See NSX Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A). A User may enter a Reserve
Order with zero display quantity, in which case the Reserve Order
will be known as a ``Zero Display Reserve Order.''
    \15\ A Reserve Order is defined as a ``limit order with a
portion of the quantity displayed and with a reserve portion of the
quantity that is not displayed.'' See NSX Rule 11.11(c)(2).
    \16\ The Exchange provided several illustrative examples that
provide greater clarity regarding how the proposed Auto-Ex Only
order type will interact with other orders. See Notice, supra note
3, at 9096-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed New Definitions

    The Exchange proposes to amend NSX Rules 1.5 and 11.11 to include
definitions for Auto-Ex Mode and Auto-Ex orders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to define ``Automatic Execution Mode'' as ``[t]he
mode of order interaction on the Exchange as described in Rule
11.13(b)(1).'' \17\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to define an
``Auto-Ex Order'' as ``[a] limit or market order that is automatically
executed by the System against any marketable contra side order as in
the manner described in Rule 11.13(b)(1).'' \18\ These definitions are
intended to add clarity and provide the ability to internally cross
reference these terms in the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Proposed NSX Rule 1.5(A)(3). Rule 11.13(b)(1) provides
as follows: ``If automatic execution is selected, the System shall
match and execute like-priced orders on an order by order basis only
at the specific instruction of Users.''
    \18\ See Proposed NSX Rule 11.11(c)(11). Rule 11.13(b)(1)
provides as follows: ``If automatic execution is selected, the
System shall match and execute like-priced orders on an order by
order basis only at the specific instruction of Users.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of

Section 6 of the Act \19\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ which requires, among other things,
that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that NSX's proposed new order type will
offer Users the option of interacting with marketable orders on the
NSX's Book without having to incur the delays associated with the order
delivery service. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act as it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and protects investors
and the public interest. The Commission further believes that NSX's
proposed new definitions will provide clarity when referring to the
Auto-Ex Mode of order interaction and the Auto-Ex order type, which
will further the Act's goal of promoting just and equitable principles
of trade.
    The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule
change. Both commenters asserted that the proposed order type raises
concerns under Regulation NMS.\22\ Specifically, one commenter stated
that the proposed Auto-Ex Only order is inconsistent with the
underlying policy goals of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (``Order
Protection Rule'') \23\ by designating that only certain ``protected
quotations'' are in fact protected.\24\ NSX responded to this concern
by explaining that the proposed Auto-Ex Only order would not trade-
through a protected quotation established by an order submitted via
Order Delivery Mode.\25\ According to the Exchange, Blade would reject
any Auto-Ex Only order when there is an order that was entered via
Order Delivery Mode that has price/time priority resting on the NSX
Book. Based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission does not
believe that the Auto-Ex Only order is inconsistent with Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS because an Auto-Ex Only order will not trade-through a
protected quotation in violation of Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See SIFMA Letter and Driscoll Letter, supra note 4.
    \23\ 17 CFR 242.611. Rule 611(a)(1) requires trading centers to,
among other things, establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent
trade-throughs on that trading center of protected quotations in NMS
stocks.
    \24\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \25\ See NSX Response, supra note 5, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, one of the commenters stated that the proposed new
order type is inconsistent with Rule 610(a) of Regulation NMS (``Access
to Quotations Rule''),\26\ which prohibits an exchange from imposing
discriminatory terms that prevent or inhibit any person from obtaining
efficient access to such quotations, by preventing orders submitted
through Order Delivery Mode from interacting with Auto-Ex Only
orders.\27\ NSX responded to this commenter's concern by stating that
the Auto-Ex Only order would not prevent or inhibit any person from
obtaining access to a displayed quotation.\28\ The Exchange further
explained that Users could access a displayed quotation by submitting
an intermarket sweep order or by submitting an Auto-Ex Only order to
gain access to orders in the Exchange's displayed quotations that are
entered using the Auto-Ex Mode.\29\ The Commission does not believe
that the Auto-Ex Only order is inconsistent with the Access to
Quotations Rule because it does not prevent or inhibit a market
participant from gaining access to a displayed quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 242.610(a).
    \27\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2-3.
    \28\ See NSX Response, supra note 5, at 2.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both commenters also noted concerns regarding the complexity of the
U.S. equity market structure, and one commenter stated that the NSX's
proposal would unnecessarily continue the trend of complexity for its
sake, without justification as to how the proposal would serve the
larger investing public.\30\ The same commenter believes that the NSX's
proposal adds to the proliferation of order types, with the potential
to cause investor confusion without serving any identifiable policy
objective other than to allow market participants to bypass quotations
that are otherwise entitled to trade-through protection under
Regulation NMS simply because of the manner in which the quotations
were entered.\31\ The other commenter asserted that the proposed order
type adds another layer of complexity to an already overly complex
market structure.\32\ The Commission believes that the NSX's proposed
Auto-Ex Only order will benefit Users by offering them the option of
interacting with marketable orders on the NSX's Book without having to
incur the delays associated with the order delivery service and will
not cause investor confusion or significantly add to the complexity of
the existing market structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Driscoll Letter, supra note 4, at 1-2 and SIFMA Letter,
supra note 4, at 3.
    \31\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \32\ See Driscoll Letter, supra note 4, at 2. The commenter went
on to question whether the current market structure needs an order
delivery function and whether the current criteria under which order
delivery operates is appropriate. Id. at 2-4. This concern is beyond
the scope of the proposed rule change and the Commission's
consideration of such proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NSX-2013-02) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11172 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81410-81411]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098; FRL-10582-06-OCSPP]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for September 2023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to
publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its
review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new
chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such
statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial
activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs)
submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of
findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from
September 1, 2023, to September 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest status information on
EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Rebecca Edelstein, New Chemical
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email
address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action provides information that is directed to the public in
general.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical
substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA during the reporting
period.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) and make one of several specific findings pertaining to
whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical
substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C).
    TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a
statement of its findings after its review of a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical
substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a
notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new
chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

D. Does this action have any incremental economic impacts or paperwork
burdens?

    No.

II. Statements of Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
    The following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the
TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if
the specific name is claimed as CBI).
     P-22-0057, Polysaccharide, polymer with 2-propenoic acid,
sodium salt (Generic Name).
    To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the ``not
likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding made by EPA under TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C), look up the specific case number at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/chemicals-determined-not-likely.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 16, 2023.
Shari Z. Barash,
Acting Director, New Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-25760 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62466-62467]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-8]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-63049]

Delegation of Authority to the Director of the Division of
Trading and Markets

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending its rules to delegate authority to the Director of the
Division of Trading and Markets (``Division'') to disapprove a proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act''); to temporarily suspend a proposed rule change
of a self-regulatory organization (``SRO''); to notify an SRO that a
proposed rule change does not comply with the rules of the Commission
relating to the required form of a proposed rule change; and to
determine that a proposed rule change is unusually lengthy and complex
or raises novel regulatory issues and to inform the SRO of such
determination. In addition, the Commission is amending its rules to
delegate authority to the Director of the Division (``Director'') to
determine the appropriateness of extending the time periods specified
in Section 19(b) and publish the reasons for such determination as well
as to effect any such extension; to update the references to
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposal and to
provide to the SRO notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration; to find good cause to approve a proposal on an
accelerated basis and to publish the reasons for such determination;
and to extend the period for consideration of a national market system
plan or an amendment to such plan. This delegation is intended to
conserve Commission resources and to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Commission's SRO rule filing process.

DATES: Effective Date: October 12, 2010

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Holley III, Assistant
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Kristie Diemer, Special Counsel, at (202)
551-5613, and Arisa Tinaves, Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act \1\ amended Section 19 of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), so that there are new deadlines by which the
Commission must publish and act upon proposed rule changes submitted by
SROs. In recognition of the amendments to Section 19, the Commission is
amending its rules governing delegations of authority to the Director
of the Division. The amendments to Rule 30-3 (17 CFR 200.30-3)
authorize the Director of the Division: (1) To disapprove an SRO
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), provided that, with respect to a particular
proposed rule change, if two (2) or more Commissioners object in
writing to the Director within five (5) business days of being notified
by the Director that the Division intends to exercise its authority to
disapprove that particular proposed rule change, then the delegation of
authority to approve or disapprove that proposal is withdrawn and the
Director shall either present a recommendation to the Commission or
institute pursuant to delegated authority proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved; \2\ (2)
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), and
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to institute
proceedings to determine whether a proposed rule change of a SRO should
be disapproved and to provide to the SRO notice of the grounds for
disapproval under consideration, and, in addition, if the Commission
has not taken action on a proposal for which delegated authority has
been withdrawn under subparagraph (12) prior to the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in Section 19(b)(2), 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2), to require the Director to institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved; (3)
pursuant to new Section 19(b)(10) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(10), to (a) notify an SRO that a proposed rule change does not
comply with the rules of the Commission relating to the required form
of a proposed rule change, and (b) determine that a proposed rule
change is unusually lengthy and complex or raises novel regulatory
issues and to inform the SRO of such determination; (4) pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A), to
extend for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of publication
of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change the period during
which the Commission must by order disapprove the proposed rule change;
(5) pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(A), to determine the appropriateness of extending the period
during which the Commission must by order approve or disapprove a
proposed rule change or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposal and publish the reasons for such determination;
(6) pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(B), to extend for a period not exceeding 240 days from the
date of publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change
the period during which the Commission must conclude proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposal and to determine whether
such longer period is appropriate and publish the reasons for such
determination; (7) to temporarily suspend an SRO's proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C); (8) to update the references to proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove a proposal and to provide to the SRO notice of
the grounds for disapproval under consideration; \3\ and (9) to find
good cause to approve a proposal on an accelerated basis and to publish
the reasons for such determination. In addition, the Commission is
amending Rule 30-3(a)(42) to authorize the Director, pursuant to rule
608(b), 17 CFR 242.608(b), to extend for a period

not exceeding 180 days from the date of publication of notice of the
filing of a proposed national market system plan or an amendment to an
effective national market system plan the time for Commission
consideration of such plan or amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \2\ Section 19(b)(2)(C), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C), provides the
standards for Commission approval and disapproval of a proposed rule
change. Under this paragraph, the Commission shall approve a
proposed rule change if it finds that such proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules
and regulations issued thereunder that are applicable to the self-
regulatory organization, and the Commission shall disapprove a
proposal if it does not make such finding. Additionally, this
paragraph provides that the Commission may not approve a proposed
rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of publication
unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes
the reason for the finding.
    \3\ Section 19(b)(3)(C) provides that if the Commission
temporarily suspends the change in the rules of a SRO, it shall
``institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.'' The
Commission is amending Rule 30-3(a)(57), which presently delegates
authority to the Director of the Division to institute such
proceedings, to clarify its applicability to all references to such
proceedings contained in amended Sections 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(3) of
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission is amending Rule 30-3(a)(12) to remove
obsolete references to a former compliance deadline that is now
inconsistent with the amendments to Section 19 of the Exchange Act
since the former provision included a 15 business day deadline that is
incompatible with the new 15 calendar day deadline to send the notice
to the Federal Register for publication from the date on which the SRO
publishes the notice of the filing contained in revised Section
19(b)(2)(E).
    This delegation is intended to conserve Commission resources and
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission's process
for handling proposed rule changes submitted by SROs. The Commission
anticipates that the delegation of authority will help facilitate
timely compliance with the amendments to Section 19 of the Exchange Act
and the new statutory deadlines prescribed therein. Nevertheless, the
Division may submit matters to the Commission for its consideration, as
it deems appropriate.
    The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), that these amendments relate
solely to agency organization, procedures, or practices, and do not
relate to a substantive rule. Accordingly, notice, opportunity for
public comment, and publication of the amendments prior to their
effective date are unnecessary and these changes are effective on
October 12, 2010.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies).

Text of Amendment

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 200, subpart A, continues to read in
part as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 77d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w,
78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 200.30-3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(12) and (a)(31);
0
b. In paragraph (a)(42), at the end remove the period and in its place
add ``, and pursuant to 17 CFR 242.608(b) to extend for a period not
exceeding 180 days from the date of publication of notice of filing of
a national market system plan or an amendment to an effective national
market system plan the time for Commission consideration of the
national market system plan or the amendment to an effective national
market system plan and to determine whether such longer period is
appropriate and publish the reasons for such determination.'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(57); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(58).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  200.30-3  Delegation of authority to Director of Division of
Trading and Markets.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (12) Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b), and
Rule 19b-4 (Sec.  240.19b-4) of this chapter, to publish notices of
proposed rule changes filed by self-regulatory organizations and to
approve such proposed rule changes, and to find good cause to approve a
proposed rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of publication
of such proposed rule change and to publish the reasons for such
finding. Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b), and
Rule 19b-4 (Sec.  240.19b-4) of this chapter, to disapprove a proposed
rule change, provided that, with respect to a particular proposed rule
change, if two (2) or more Commissioners object in writing to the
Director within five (5) business days of being notified by the
Director that the Division intends to exercise its authority to
disapprove that particular proposed rule change, then the delegation of
authority to approve or disapprove that proposal is withdrawn, and the
Director shall either present a recommendation to the Commission or
institute pursuant to delegated authority proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. In addition,
pursuant to section 19(b)(10) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(10), to
notify a self-regulatory organization that a proposed rule change does
not comply with the rules of the Commission relating to the required
form of a proposed rule change, and to determine that a proposed rule
change is unusually lengthy and complex or raises novel regulatory
issues and to inform the self-regulatory organization of such
determination.
* * * * *
    (31) Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(A), to extend for a period not exceeding 90 days from the
date of publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), the
period during which the Commission must by order approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change or institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be disapproved and to determine whether
such longer period is appropriate and publish the reasons for such
determination.
* * * * *
    (57) Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2),
and section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to institute
proceedings to determine whether a proposed rule change of a self-
regulatory organization should be disapproved and to provide to the
self-regulatory organization notice of the grounds for disapproval
under consideration. If the Commission has not taken action on a
proposed rule change for which delegated authority has been withdrawn
under paragraph (a)(12) of this section prior to the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2), then the Director shall institute pursuant to
delegated authority proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved. In addition, pursuant to section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B), to extend for a period
not exceeding 240 days from the date of publication of notice of the
filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), the period during which the Commission must
issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change and
to determine whether such longer period is appropriate and publish the
reasons for such determination.
    (58) Pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C), to temporarily suspend a change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 6, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25642 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 19221-19222]
[DOCID:fr17ap07-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55606; File No. SR-BSE-2006-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Relating to
the Boston Options Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan

April 10, 2007.
    On March 6, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Chapter X of the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') Rules, BOX's minor rule violation plan (``BOX MRVP''). The
Exchange filed Amendments No. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change on
June 28, 2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. The proposed rule
change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 7, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no comments regarding the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendments No. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55373 (February 28,
2007), 72 FR 10276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed to make the following actions subject to the
BOX MRVP:
     contrary exercise advice infractions (in violation of BOX
Rule Chapter VII, Section 1(c), (d), (f), and (g));
     locked and crossed market infringements (in violation of
BOX Rule Chapter XII, Section 4);
     Market Maker assigned activity violations (in violation of
BOX Rule Chapter VI, Section 4(e));
     Market Maker's failure to respond to a request for a quote
within the designated time limit (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter VI,
Section 6(b)(ii)-(iii)); and
     trade-through violations (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter
XII, Section 3(a)).
    The sanctions imposed would include the application of a fine for
each violation and an increased fine amount for repeat violations. In
the instance of a trade-through violation, the rule proposal would also
allow BOX Regulation to require the Options Participant \4\ to disgorge
any gains from transactions in violation of the trade-through rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BOX Rule Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40) for definition of
``Options Participants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission further believes that
the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the
Act,\7\ which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance
with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission
and Exchange rules. In addition, because BSE Rule Chapter

XVIII provides procedural rights to contest the fine imposed pursuant
to the BOX MRVP and permits disciplinary proceedings on the matter, the
Commission believes that BOX Rule Chapter X, as amended by this
proposal, provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and
6(d)(1) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act \9\ which governs minor rule violation plans. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change would strengthen the
Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where full
disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of
the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with BOX rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the BOX MRVP. The
Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory
organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter.
However, the BOX MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule
violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal
disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in
handling certain violations. The Commission expects that BSE would
continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a
determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a
fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a
violation under the BOX MRVP or whether a violation requires formal
disciplinary action under BSE Rule Chapter XXX.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\10\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\11\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-BSE-2006-11), as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and
hereby is, approved and declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7225 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 5, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-97-3179

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   US Airways, Inc.   filed   12/17/2004 to:

XX  Renew exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in
the Netherlands and beyond.  US Airways also requests the right to
integrate this authority with its other existing certificate and
exemption authority.

No answers were filed to this application.

Applicant rep:  Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Linda Senese
(202) 366-2367

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   January 5, 2005,  through
January 5, 2007

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the Netherlands.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of this route integration authority should be construed as conferring
upon US Airways’ rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or
beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited
unless US Airways notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a
market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary
carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be
authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by
any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
US Airways’ authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being

(See Reverse Side)

2

used by US Airways, the holding of such authority by route integration
will not be considered as providing any preference for US Airways in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The authority granted to serve beyond points is limited to countries
with which the United States has signed open-skies agreements and/or
countries for which US Airways holds authority to serve under
certificates and exemptions issued by the Department, and for which it
holds route integration authority by virtue of either the present action
or other action of the Department.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

Attachment

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, including, but not limited to 49 CFR
Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign
airport, contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI)
to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the
Transportation Security Administration has determined that security is
adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										05/2004


1. Amount from Stocks EPA is allowing up to 1,283,214 kilograms of methyl bromide from inventories stockpiled before the phaseout date of January 1, 2005 to be sold for approved critical uses. In evaluating the issue of what amount of the critical use level for 2005 should be met from stocks, EPA considered comments received and the following statements in Decision Ex I/ 3. Decision Ex I/ 3( 1) permits a level of production and consumption equal to 30% of the 1991 baseline and establishes an agreed critical use level equal to 35% of the 1991 baseline. With regard to drawdown from existing inventory, Decision Ex I/ 3( 2) states: " That a Party with a critical use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of production and consumption for critical uses is to make up any such difference between those levels by using quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available." The availability of stocks is also addressed in Decision Ex I/ 3( 5), which states: " That each Party which has an agreed critical use should ensure that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/ 6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing the use of methyl bromide and that such procedures take into account available stocks." Additional references to Decision IX/ 6 appear in preambular language (" Mindful that exemptions must fully comply with decision IX/ 6 . . . ", " Mindful also that decision IX/ 6 permits the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses only if it is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide.") In acting in accordance with Decision Ex. I/ 3, EPA must look to Paragraph ( 3) of that Decision, which states that a Party " shall prohibit" the use of stocks when the usage of stocks combined with production and consumption exceeds the total level of critical uses agreed to by the Parties, and with Paragraph ( 2), which states that a Party with a use exemption exceeding allowable production and consumption " is to make up" any such difference by using stocks recognized to be available. Additionally, Paragraph ( 5) of Decision Ex. I/ 3 states that Parties should ensure that Decision IX/ 6' s criteria are applied, and Decision IX/ 6 states that production and consumption should not be permitted where stocks are recognized to be available. Taking into account the desire to act in accordance with the language of Decision Ex. I/ 3' s first three Paragraphs, and the fact that the fifth Paragraph and Decision IX/ 6 are hortatory, EPA concludes that the appropriate level of stocks utilization is set forth in Decision Ex. I/ 3( 1), which establishes a critical use level of 35% but permits production and consumption of only 30%. Paragraph ( 1) of Decision Ex. I/ 3, read in conjunction with paragraph ( 2) of the same Decision, specifies the amount of the critical use level for 2005 that should be met from stocks. Paragraph ( 1) establishes a critical use level of 35% of baseline but permits production and consumption of only 30%. Paragraph ( 2) explains that the difference is to made up by using available stocks. In other words, the amount of the United States' 2005 critical use level that should be met from stocks is 1,283,214 kilograms, i. e., an amount equivalent to 5% of baseline. EPA's conclusion accords with both the preambular language quoted above ( which explains why the Decision permits a level of production and consumption that is less than the critical use level) as well as Paragraph ( 5) of Decision Ex. I/ 3. That Paragraph requests each Party with an agreed critical use to take into account available stocks when authorizing the use of methyl bromide. Given the language in Paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2) of Decision Ex. I/ 3, EPA interprets Paragraph ( 5)' s language as meaning that the U. S. should not authorize critical use exemptions without including provisions addressing drawdown from stocks for critical uses. EPA is acting consistently with Paragraph ( 5) by establishing requirements governing the sale of pre phaseout inventories for approved critical uses. In section V. F of today's rulemaking, EPA describes the mechanism by which the Agency is allowing stocks of methyl bromide to be sold for approved critical uses. In addition, EPA is taking into account stocks through the trading provisions outlined in section __ of today's rulemaking, which allow critical use allowances to be converted into critical stock allowances. EPA had proposed to undertake an independent analysis of the amount to come from stocks and to adjust the authorized level of new production and consumption for critical uses by the amount of " available" stocks determined through this analysis. The information EPA used to quantify this approach The methodology proposed for this analysis was elaborated in the NPRM and also in a Technical Support Document that can be obtained from the rulemaking docket. EPA also sought comment on an alternative approach: " For the 2005 calendar year, the Agency could make a determination that the amount of methyl bromide available from existing stocks is simply based on the difference between the limit on methyl bromide for critical uses ( 8,942 metric tons) and the limit on new production and import ( 7,659 metric tons) in the Decision Ex. I/ 3." 69 FR 52375. This is essentially the approach adopted in today's final rule. EPA is clarifying, however, the appropriate level of stock drawdown for critical uses is set out in that Decision Ex. I/ 3 specifies the amount of the critical use level to be met from stocks. EPA received 10 comments on the methodology proposed in the NPRM for determining available stocks. Five comments in favor of the methodology and nine comments suggesting refinements to the methodology. However, since EPA is not using the methodology to determine available stocks for the 2005 control period, the Agency is not responding to the details of the comments in today's rulemaking. One commenter stated that EPA should use a " mathematical" approach, under which the amount from stocks would equal the different between the limit on methyl bromide for critical uses and the limit on new production and import. EPA believes that the approach adopted in this final rule is consistent with these commenters' recommendation. Two commenters stated that all stocks must be used before any new production is permitted and that all stocks other than those for export to developing countries should be considered " available" for critical uses. One commenter refers to Decision IX/ 6, paragraph ( 1)( b), in which the Parties agreed: " That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if: . . .( ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide." EPA does not believe that this is an accurate characterization of Decision IX/ 6 as it relates to Decision Ex. I/ 3. Paragraph 2 of Decision Ex. I/ 3 states that a Party " is to make up" the difference between an agreed use level and production and consumption " from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available." Moreover, Decision IX/ 6 asks Parties to permit production and consumption where " methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked and recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide." Both of these statements contemplate the possibility that available stocks could be less than existing stocks. Moreover, the United States and other countries have interpreted identical decisional language in the essential use exemption context not to require the use of all existing stocks, and Decision Ex. I/ 3' s consideration of stocks is consistent with this interpretation. In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assumption that all stocks that are not specifically designated for export to developing countries are available for critical uses. For example, there may be stocks in the U. S. produced specifically for quarantine and pre shipment uses or stocks held on behalf of another entity for a non critical use during their transition to alternatives. In addition, the U. S. is a global supplier of methyl bromide and existing inventories may be tagged for critical uses in other developed countries.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30932]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2077-000]

Bulb Energy US Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bulb Energy US Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 24, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12203 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 42064]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-48-001.
    Applicants: Spire Storage Salt Plains LLC.
    Description: Amendment Filing: Salt Plains revised SOC June 2023 to
be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20230622-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/23

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: June 23, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13837 Filed 6-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P