[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51220-51221]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72892; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Rule 24.19

August 21, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On July 25, 2014, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rule related to
Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Option Spread Orders. This proposal was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 5, 2014.\3\ The
Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72704 (July 29,
2014), 79 FR 45560 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 24.19 (Multi-Class Broad-
Based Index Option Spread Orders).\4\ This Rule allows Trading Permit
Holders (``TPHs'') to execute Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Option
Spread Orders (``Multi-Class Spread Orders'') that meet certain
qualifying criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Options Spread Order is
generally defined as an order to buy a stated number of contracts of
a broad-based index option or ETF/ETN option derived from a broad-
based index and to sell an equal number, or an equivalent number of
contracts of a different broad-based index option or ETF/ETN option
derived from a broad-based index. See CBOE Rule 24.19(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that currently not all Multi-Class Spread
Orders may be entered electronically due to systems constraints, but
that it is in the process of modifying its electronic order-entry
systems to provide for the electronic entry and validation of all
Multi-Class Spread Orders to the floor of the Exchange. In order for
the Exchange's systems to determine that two separate legs are part of
the same Multi-Class Spread Order (allowing for treatment as a Multi-
Class Spread Order), both legs must be entered together on a single
order

ticket.\5\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 24.19 to
require that Multi-Class Spread Orders be entered on a single order
ticket at time of systemization to be eligible for the procedures and
relief provided for in the Rule.\6\ The Exchange represents that it
will not accept Multi-Class Spread Orders with invalid combinations.\7\
The Exchange also explains that while the proposed rule change allows
for all Multi-Class Spread Orders to be entered electronically, all
Multi-Class Spread Orders will still be executed in open outcry on the
Exchange's trading floor.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45660.
    \6\ See proposed CBOE Rule 24.19(b).
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45560.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 24.19 currently states that a Multi-Class Spread Order
may be represented at the trading station of either Broad-Based Index
Option comprising the order, and also provides that the TPH initiating
the order in the trading crowd must contact an Order Book Official
(``OBO''), Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM''), or appropriate
Exchange staff, as applicable, at the other trading station to have a
notice of such order disseminated to the other trading crowd. CBOE is
proposing to modify the Rule to require that a Multi-Class Spread Order
be represented at the primary trading station,\9\ and require the TPH
representing the order to contact the DPM or Exchange staff \10\ (as
applicable) at the other trading station in order to provide notice of
such order for dissemination to the other trading crowd.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CBOE Rule 24.19(a)(3) defines the ``primary trading
station'' as ``the trading station where a particular Multi-Class
Spread Order is first represented.'' The Exchange states that the
floor broker representing the Multi-Class Spread Order may determine
which trading station should be the primary trading station. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 45560.
    \10\ The Exchange proposes to remove the reference to contacting
an OBO, as the Exchange no longer has OBOs.
    \11\ See proposed CBOE Rule 24.19(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 24.19 requires that notice of a Multi-Class Spread Order
``shall be disseminated by the Recipient who shall verbalize the terms
of the order to the other trading crowd.'' The Exchange proposes to
replace the word ``verbalize'' with the word ``announce,'' as the
Exchange is currently contemplating changes that will allow such notice
to be posted on screens electronically to the other trading crowd
(which could be a more efficient method of posting such order
information).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE represents that no later than 90 days following the effective
date of the proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce to TPHs
via Regulatory Circular the implementation date by which TPHs must be
in compliance with the changes described herein, and that the
implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the
effective date of the proposed rule change, and will be at least 30
days following the release of the abovementioned Regulatory Circular
(in order to give TPHs ample time to come into compliance with the
changes described herein).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed change
to amend CBOE Rule 24.19 is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and 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. The Commission believes that
CBOE's proposal to require that all Multi-Class Spread Orders be
entered on a single order ticket should enhance CBOE's audit trail and
automated surveillance program with regard to these order types,
thereby enhancing the integrity of the market to the benefit of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\16\ which provides that the
Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs
and persons associated with its TPHs with the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The Commission
believes that by enhancing the audit trail with respect to Multi-Class
Spread Orders the Exchange should be better able to ensure that TPHs'
orders submitted as Multi-Class Spread Orders meet the requirements of
CBOE Rule 24.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\17\ for approving the proposed rule change prior
to the 45th day after publication of notice in the Federal Register.
The Commission notes that the substance of this proposal was noticed
for comment as part of changes proposed in a prior CBOE proposed rule
change, which CBOE withdrew.\18\ The prior CBOE proposed rule change
was published for the entire 21 day comment period, and no comments
were received.\19\ In addition, the instant proposed rule change was
published for a 15 day comment period to ensure that the public had an
opportunity to review the proposal in its current form and no comments
were received on the instant filing. The Commission believes that there
has been ample notice provided for the public to comment on this
proposed rule change if they had concerns. Moreover, the Commission
does not believe that this proposed rule change raises any material or
novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists
for approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72495 (June 27,
2014), 79 FR 38080 (July 3, 2014) (Notice of Withdrawal of SR-CBOE-
2014-026).
    \19\ The prior CBOE proposal provided for several changes to
Rule 24.19; this proposal specifically relates to the electronic
entry and validation of Multi-Class Spread Orders. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71872 (April 4, 2014), 79 FR 19940 (April
10, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2014-060) be,
and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20340 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3608-3609]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0915]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event
Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an
Approved Application

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the FDA guidance for industry
on ``Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human
Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application.'' This guidance
document provides recommendations on postmarketing serious adverse
event reporting for nonprescription (over-the-counter) human drugs
marketed without an approved application. It provides recommendations
on the minimum data elements that should be included in a serious
adverse event report, the label that should be included with the
report, reporting formats for paper and electronic submissions, and how
and where to submit the reports.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by March 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for
Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved
Application (OMB Control Number 0910-0636)--Extension

    Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers,
packers, and distributors whose name (under section 502(b)(1) (21
U.S.C. 352(b)(1)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act)) appears on the label of a nonprescription drug marketed in the
United States. FDA is requesting public comment on estimates of annual
submissions from these respondents, as required by the Dietary
Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L.
109-462) and described in the guidance. The guidance document discusses
what should be included in a serious adverse drug event report
submitted under section 760(b)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379aa(b)(1)) of the FD&C
Act, including follow-up reports under 760(c)(2) (21 U.S.C.
379aa(c)(2)) of the FD&C Act, and how to submit these reports. The
estimates for the annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens are based
on FDA data on the number of adverse drug experience reports submitted
for nonprescription drug products marketed without an approved
application, including FDA's knowledge about the time needed to prepare
the reports and to maintain records.
    Based on FDA data, we estimate between 10,000 and 15,000 (i.e.,
approximately 12,500) total annual responses from approximately 50
respondents for nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved
application, and we also estimate that each submission will take
approximately 2 hours to prepare and submit.

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports of serious adverse drug events (21 U.S.C. 379aa((b) and                  50              250           12,500                2           25,000
 (c))..............................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Section 760(e) (21 U.S.C. 379aa(e) of the FD&C Act also requires
that responsible persons maintain records of nonprescription adverse
event reports, whether or not the event is serious, for a period of 6
years. The guidance document recommends that respondents maintain
records of efforts to obtain the minimum data elements for a report of
a serious adverse drug event and any follow-up reports. We estimate
that there are approximately 20,000 records per year maintained by
approximately 200 respondents, and that it takes approximately 5 hours
to maintain each record.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                      Average  burden
                              Activity                                  Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping (21 U.S.C. 379aa(e)(1))..............................             200              100           20,000                5          100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Therefore, the estimated annual reporting burden for this
information is 25,000 hours and the estimated annual recordkeeping
burden is 100,000 hours.

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-01111 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 41247-41250]
[DOCID:fr15jy10-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62473; File No. SR-ISE-2010-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change to List and Trade Options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust

July 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 7, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange.
ISE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to enable the listing and
trading on the Exchange of options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') authorized ISE to list and trade options on the SPDR
Gold Trust,\5\ the iShares COMEX Gold Trust and the iShares Silver
Trust,\6\ the ETFS Gold Trust and the ETFS Silver Trust,\7\ the ETFS
Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum Trust.\8\ Now, the Exchange
proposes to list and trade options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57894 (May 30,
2008), 73 FR 32061 (June 5, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-12).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59055 (December 4,
2008), 73 FR 75148 (December 10, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-58).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61483 (February 3,
2010), 75 FR 6753 (February 10, 2010) (SR-ISE-2009-106).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61983 (April 26,
2010), 75 FR 23314 (May 3, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 502(h), only Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, or
ETFs, that are traded on a national securities exchange and are defined
as an ``NMS'' stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, and that (i)
represent interests in registered investment companies (or series
thereof) organized as open-end management investment companies, unit
investment trusts or similar entities that hold portfolios of
securities and/or financial instruments, including, but not limited to,
stock index futures contracts, options on futures, options on
securities and indices, equity caps, collars and floors, swap
agreements, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and reverse
repurchase agreements (the ``Financial Instruments''), and money market
instruments, including, but not limited to, U.S. government securities
and repurchase agreements (the ``Money Market Instruments'') comprising
or otherwise based on or representing investments in broad-based
indexes or portfolios of securities and/or Financial Instruments and
Money Market Instruments (or that hold securities in one or more other
registered investment companies that themselves hold such portfolios of
securities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments)
or (ii) represent interests in a trust that holds a specified non-U.S.
currency or currencies deposited with the trust when aggregated in some
specified minimum number may be surrendered to the trust by the
beneficial owner to receive the specified non-U.S. currency or
currencies and pays the beneficial owner interest and other
distributions on the deposited non-U.S. currency or currencies, if any,
declared and paid by the trust (``Funds'') or (iii) represent commodity
pool interests principally engaged, directly or indirectly, in holding
and/or managing portfolios or baskets of securities, commodity futures
contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward
contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or non-U.S.
currency (``Commodity Pool ETFs'') or (iv) represent interests in the
SPDR[supreg] Gold Trust, the iShares COMEX Gold Trust, the iShares
Silver Trust, the ETFS Gold Trust, the ETFS Silver Trust, the ETFS
Palladium Trust or the ETFS Platinum Trust or (v) represents an
interest in a registered investment company (``Investment Company'')
organized as an open-end management company or similar entity, that
invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment
Company's investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's
investment objectives and policies, which is issued in a specified
aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified
portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the
next determined net asset value (``NAV''), and when aggregated in the
same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request,
which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of securities and/or
cash with a value equal to the next determined NAV (``Managed Fund
Share'') are eligible as underlying securities for options traded on
the Exchange.\9\ This rule change proposes to expand the types of ETFs
that may be approved for options trading on the Exchange to include the
Sprott Physical Gold Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ISE Rule 502(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apart from allowing the Sprott Physical Gold Trust to be an
underlying for options traded on the Exchange as described above, the
listing standards for ETFs will remain unchanged from those that apply
under current Exchange rules. ETFs on which options may be listed and
traded must still be listed and traded on a national securities
exchange and must satisfy the other listing standards set forth in ISE
Rule 502(h).
    Specifically, in addition to satisfying the aforementioned listing
requirements, ETFs must meet either (1) the criteria and guidelines
under ISE Rules 502(a) and (b) or (2) they must be available for
creation or redemption each business day from or through the issuing
trust, investment company, commodity pool or other entity in cash or in
kind at a price related to net asset value, and the issuer must be
obligated to issue Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in a specified aggregate
number even if some or all of the investment assets and/or cash
required to be deposited have not been received by the issuer, subject
to the condition that the person obligated to deposit the investment
assets has undertaken to deliver them as soon as possible and such
undertaking is secured by the delivery and maintenance of collateral
consisting of cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer, as
provided in the respective prospectus.
    The Exchange states that the current continued listing standards
for options on ETFs will apply to options on the Sprott Physical Gold
Trust. Specifically, under ISE Rule 503(h), options on Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares may be subject to the suspension of opening transactions in
any of the following circumstances: (1) In the case of options covering
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares approved pursuant to Rule 502(h)(A)(i), in
accordance with the terms of subparagraphs (b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of
Rule 503; (2) in the case of options covering Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares approved pursuant to Rule 502(h)(A)(ii), following the initial
twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, there are fewer than 50 record and/or
beneficial

holders of the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares for 30 or more consecutive
trading days; (3) the value of the underlying gold is no longer
calculated or available; or (4) such other event occurs or condition
exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing on the
Exchange inadvisable.
    Additionally, the Sprott Physical Gold Trust shall not be deemed to
meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall
not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the
class covering the Sprott Physical Gold Trust, if the Sprott Physical
Gold Trust ceases to be an ``NMS stock'' as provided for in ISE Rule
503(b)(5) or the Sprott Physical Gold Trust is halted from trading on
its primary market.
    The addition of the Sprott Physical Gold Trust to ISE Rule 502(h)
will not have any effect on the rules pertaining to position and
exercise limits \10\ or margin.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ISE Rules 412 and 414.
    \11\ See ISE Rule 1202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures applicable
to trading in options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust will be similar
to those applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently traded
on the Exchange. Also, the Exchange may obtain information from the New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (``NYMEX'') (a member of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group) related to any financial instrument that is based,
in whole or in part, upon an interest in or performance of gold.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \12\ of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \13\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
in a manner consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that amending its rules
to accommodate the listing and trading of options on the Sprott
Physical Gold Trust will benefit investors by providing them with
valuable risk management tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can list and trade
options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust immediately. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to permit the Exchange
to list and trade options on the Sprott Physical Gold Trust without
delay.\16\ The Commission notes the proposal is substantively identical
to a proposal that was recently approved by the Commission, and does
not raise any new regulatory issues.\17\ For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62463 (July 7,
2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-74. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2010-74 and should be submitted on or before August
5, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17194 Filed 7-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32553-32554]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0792; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANE-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boothbay, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Boothbay, ME, to
accommodate a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) special Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) serving St.
Andrews Hospital Heliport. This action enhances the safety and airspace
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System. Also, geographic coordinates are corrected
under their proper heading.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 28, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Boothbay, ME (78 FR 18929). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to
publication the FAA found that the points of space coordinates were
incorrect. This action makes the correction. Except for editorial
changes and the changes listed above, this rule is the same as
published in the NPRM.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Boothbay, ME, providing the controlled airspace
required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) special standard
instrument approach procedures for St. Andrews Hospital Heliport.
Controlled airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in space
coordinates of the heliport is necessary for the safety and management
of IFR operations at the heliport. Geographic coordinates for the
heliport and point in space are corrected and separately listed.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at St. Andrews Hospital Heliport,
Boothbay, ME.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71 --DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Boothbay, ME [New]

St. Andrews Hospital Heliport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]51'02'' N., long. 69[deg]38'16'' W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 43[deg]50'40'' N., long. 69[deg]37'32'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat.
43[deg]50'40'' N., long. 69[deg]37'32'' W.) serving St. Andrews
Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 21, 2013.
Jackson Allen,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-12769 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54193-54195]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22013]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87212; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Add Certain Rules to the List of Minor Rule Violations in
Rule 9217, Delete Obsolete Rules, and Increase the Maximum Fine for
Minor Rule Violations

October 3, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 8, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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 (1) add certain rules to the list of minor rule
violations in Rule 9217; (2) delete obsolete rules from Rule 9217; and
(3) increase the maximum fine for minor rule violations to $5,000 in
order to more closely align the Exchange's minor rule plan with that of
its affiliates. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on August 22, 2019.\3\ On September 13, 2019, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order grants approval of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86696 (August 16,
2019), 84 FR 43836.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Clarified that fines
exceeding $2,500 would not be eligible for quarterly reporting under
Commission Rule 19d-1(c) and (2) made technical and conforming
changes. Because the changes in Amendment No. 1 do not materially
alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or
novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice
and comment. Amendment No. 1 replaced and supercedes the original
filing in its entirety and is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2019-44/srnyse201944-6120985-192149.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    Rule 9217 sets forth the list of rules under which a member
organization or covered person may be subject to a fine under a minor
rule violation plan as described in proposed Rule 9216(b). The Exchange
proposes to add the following introductory paragraph to Rule 9217:
``Nothing in this Rule shall require the Exchange to impose a fine for
a violation of any rule under this Minor Rule Plan. If the Exchange
determines that any violation is not minor in nature, the Exchange may,
at its discretion, proceed under the Rule 9000 Series rather than under
this Rule.'' This language is based on NYSE Arca Rule 10.9217(d).
    The Exchange proposes to add the following rules to the list of
rules in Rule 9217 eligible for disposition pursuant to a fine under
Rule 9216(b):

 Rule 7.30 (Authorized Traders)
 Rule 76 (``Crossing'' Orders)
 Rule 103(a)(i) (Registration and Capital Requirements of DMM
Units)
 Rule 1210 (Registration Requirements)
 Rule 3110(a) and (b)(1) (Supervision)

    The Exchange also proposes that all of the registration and other
requirements set forth in Rule 345 be eligible for a minor rule fine.
    Rule 7.30 establishes requirements for member organizations
relating to Authorized Traders. The rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule
7.30-E (Authorized Traders), which is eligible for NYSE Arca's Minor
Rule Plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81225 (July 27,
2017), 82 FR 36033, 36035 (August 2, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-35). See
also NYSE Arca Rule 10.12(i)(4) (NYSE Arca Rule 7.30-E); NYSE Arca
Rule 10.9217(f)(4). NYSE Arca Rule 10.12 is NYSE Arca's legacy minor
rule plan and applies only to matters for which a written statement
was served under Rule 10.12 prior to May 27, 2019; thereafter, Rules
10.9216(b) and 10.9217 apply. See generally NYSE Arca Rules 10.0
(preamble) and 10.9001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 76 is substantially similar to NYSE American Rule 934NY(a)(1)
(Crossing) and NYSE Arca Rule 6.47-O(a)(1) (``Crossing'' Orders--OX),
which govern manual crosses on those respective exchanges' options
trading Floors. NYSE American Rule 934NY(a)(1) is eligible for NYSE
American's Minor Rule Plan, and NYSE Arca Rule 6.47-O(a)(1) is eligible
for NYSE Arca's Minor Rule Plan.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE American Rule 9217 (Rule 934NY); NYSE Arca Rules
10.12(h)(3) and 10.9217(e)(3). See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 103(a)(1) provides that no member organization shall act as a
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') unit in any security unless such
member organization is registered as a DMM unit in such security with
the Exchange and unless the Exchange has approved of the member
organization acting as a DMM unit and not withdrawn such approval. The
rule is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(a) (Registration
of Market Makers) and NYSE National Rule 7.20 (Registration of Market
Makers), which similarly require that market makers on those exchanges
be registered in a security and that the registration has not been
suspended or cancelled. Both NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(a) and NYSE National
Rule 7.20 are eligible for minor rule fines.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rules 10.12(i)(5) and 10.9217(f)(5); NYSE
National Rule 10.9217(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Rule 1210, which was adopted in October 2018,\8\ sets
forth the requirements for persons engaged in the investment banking or
securities business of a member organization to be registered with the
Exchange as a representative or principal in each category of
registration appropriate to his or her functions and responsibilities
as specified in Rule 1220. The Exchange proposes to add Rule 1210 to
the list of minor rules in Rule 9217. The Exchange states that having
the ability to issue a minor rule fine for failing to comply with the
registration requirements of Rule 1210 would be consistent with and
complement the Exchange's current ability to issue minor rule fines for
other registration violations (e.g., Rule 345).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84336 (October 2,
2018), 83 FR 50727 (October 9, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3110 is the Exchange's supervision rule. The Exchange proposes
to add subsections (a) and (b)(1) of Rule 3110, governing failure of a
member organization to establish and maintain a supervisory system and
failure to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory
procedures, respectively, to Rule 9217. Failure to supervise
individuals and accounts is currently eligible for minor rule fines in
the rules of the Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Rules 11.18 (Supervision), 10.12(j)(8) and
10.9217(g)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Rule 345 sets forth certain employee registration,
approval and other exchange requirements, including the requirements
pertaining to the registration of a securities lending representative,
Securities Trader or direct supervisor thereof. Currently, the only
violation of Rule 345 that is eligible for a minor rule fine is failure
of a member organization to have individuals responsible and qualified
for the position of Securities Lending Supervisor. The Exchange
proposes that all of registration and other requirements set forth in
Rule 345 be

eligible for a minor rule fine. The proposed change would be consistent
with the practice on the Exchange's affiliates whose comparable rule is
eligible for a minor rule fine.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rules 2.24 (Registration--Employees of
ETP Holders), 10.12(j)(11) and 10.9217(g)(11). See also NYSE
National Rules 2.2 (Obligations of ETP Holders and the Exchange) and
10.9217(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete the following rules from Rule 9217
as they are obsolete:
     Rule 706, which was deleted in 2014.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72916 (August 26,
2014), 79 FR 52094 (September 2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 312(h), which is marked ``Reserved'' in the
Exchange's rules and was deleted in 2010.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61557 (February 22,
2010), 75 FR 9472 (March 2, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-10). NYSE Rule
4110(c)(2), based on the comparable FINRA rule, incorporates Rule
312(h) in part. The Exchange is not proposing to add Rule 4110(c)(2)
to Rule 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 382(a). Rule 382 is also marked ``Reserved'' and was
deleted in 2011.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64888 (July 14,
2011), 76 FR 43368 (July 20, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-33). NYSE Rule
4311, based on the comparable FINRA rule, was based in part on NYSE
Rule 382. The Exchange is not proposing to add Rule 4311 to Rule
9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 791(c), which was also deleted in 2014.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Release No. 72916, supra note 11, at 52094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rules 352(b) and (c). Rule 352 is marked ``Reserved'' and
was deleted in 2009.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61158 (December 11,
2009), 74 FR 67942 (December 21, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-123). Rule 352
was replaced by Rule 2150. Violations of Rule 2150(b) and (c) are
currently eligible for a minor rule fine under Rule 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 392, which is also marked ``Reserved'' and was
deleted in 2009.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21,
2009), 74 FR 25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 410A, which was deleted in 2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68678 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (January 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02) (Notice); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045 (March 5, 2013), 78
FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02) (Approval Order). Rule
410A was replaced by Rule 8211. Both rules were initially retained
in Rule 9217, but there is no longer any reason to retain Rule 410A
in Rule 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 445(4), which is marked ``Reserved'' and was deleted
in 2009.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61273 (December 31,
2009), 75 FR 1091 (January 8, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2009-134).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in Rule
9217. Rule 9217 refers to Rule 3010(a). The correct reference should be
to Rule 3110(a), the Exchange's supervision rule, which was added to
Rule 9217 in 2014.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73554 (November 6,
2014), 79 FR 67508 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eligible Fine Amounts
    The maximum fine for minor rule violations under Rule 9216(b) is
currently $2,500. The maximum fine under the Exchange's legacy minor
rule plan set forth in Rule 476A previously was $5,000. In adopting its
current disciplinary rules in 2013, the Exchange stated that it was
appropriate to lower the maximum fine amount to achieve harmony with
the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'').\20\ The Exchange's affiliates NYSE American, NYSE National
and NYSE Arca, however, have since harmonized their disciplinary rules
with the Exchange and adopted or retained a $5,000 maximum fine for
minor rule violations.\21\ The Exchange accordingly proposes to adopt
the same maximum fine amount in order to harmonize the maximum fine
level with its affiliated exchanges. The Exchange also proposes to
adopt the same 24-month rolling period to calculate second and
subsequent fines as that used by its affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Release No. 68678, supra note 17, at 5226.
    \21\ For instance, the maximum fine for minor rule violations
under NYSE Arca's legacy Minor Rule Plan set forth in Rule 10.12 is
$5,000. NYSE Arca retained the $5,000 maximum when it adopted its
new disciplinary rules. See NYSE Arca Rule 10.9217(a). See also NYSE
American Rule 9217 and NYSE National Rule 10.9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes to add the
following fine chart contained in Rule 476A, the Exchange's legacy rule
governing the imposition of minor rule fines, to Rule 9217: \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ When the Exchange adopted Rule 9217 as part of its adoption
of FINRA's disciplinary rules, the Exchange retained the list of
rules set forth in Rule 476A. See Release No. 69045, supra note 17,
at 15396. The Exchange did not retain the chart in Rule 476A
because, as noted above, the maximum fine under Rule 476A previously
was $5,000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Fine Amount                          Individual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Time Fined........................................          $1,000
Second Time Fined \**\..................................           2,500
Subsequent Fines \**\...................................           5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Fine Amount                            Member
                                                            Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Time Fined........................................          $2,500
Subsequent Fines \**\...................................           5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Within a ``rolling'' 24-month period.

    As noted, rather than the 12-month rolling period in Rule 476A, the
Exchange proposes a 24-month ``rolling'' period from the date of the
violation in order to harmonize with its affiliates.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.9217 (violations applied in a rolling
24-month period); NYSE American Rule 9217 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to add clarity to the Exchange's rules, the Exchange also
proposes to add a paragraph immediately before the proposed chart based
on NYSE Arca Rule 10.9217(h) that sets forth how the beginning and end
of the 24-month rolling period is to be determined. Except for
references that reflect the Exchange's membership and use of the phrase
``minor rule violation plan letter'' rather than ``Notice of Minor Rule
Plan Fine,'' the paragraph is substantially the same as NYSE Arca Rule
10.9217(h).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As discussed above, the Exchange is not required to impose
a fine for a violation under its Minor Rule Plan. Instead, the
Exchange may, at its discretion, bring formal disciplinary action
against a member or associated person that has violated its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to further harmonize the Exchange's rules with those if
its affiliates, and because a fine of $5,000 would exceed the maximum
amount in Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act for a minor rule plan,\25\ the
Exchange proposes to change the titles of Rules 9216 and 9217.
Specifically, the phrase ``Plan Pursuant to SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(2)''
would be replaced with ``Procedure for Imposition of Fines for Minor
Violation(s) of Rules'' in the title of Rule 9216. The same phrase in
Rule 9217 would be replaced with ``Rule 9216(b).'' The titles of both
rules would thereby be the same as the titles of NYSE Arca Rules
10.9216 and 10.9217 and NYSE National Rules 10.9216 and 10.9217,
respectively. The Exchange proposes to make similar conforming changes
to Rule 9216(b)(1) by removing references to ``SEA Rule 19d-1(c)(2)''
and the maximum fine level of $2,500, and by adding language specifying
that the Exchange may impose a fine in accordance with the fine amounts
and fine levels set forth in Rule 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2). The Exchange recognizes that fines
exceeding $2,500 would not be eligible for quarterly reporting under
Commission Rule 19d-1(c). Fines that do not exceed $2,500 would
continue to be reported quarterly in compliance with Commission Rule
19d-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\26\ In particular, the

Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange 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. The Commission further believes that
the proposed amendments to Rule 9217 are consistent with Section
6(b)(6) of the Act,\28\ which provides that members and persons
associated with members shall be appropriately disciplined for
violation of the provisions of the rules of the exchange, by expulsion,
suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and operations, fine,
censure, being suspended or barred from being associated with a member,
or any other fitting sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that Rule 9216(b) is an effective way to
discipline a member for a minor violation of a rule. The Commission
finds that the Exchange's proposal to add rules to Rule 9217 is
consistent with the Act because it may help the Exchange's ability to
carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities in cases where
full disciplinary proceedings may not be warranted. The Commission also
believes that the Exchange's proposal to delete obsolete rules is also
consistent with the Act because it will clarify the Exchange's rule
book. Finally, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed
fine schedule is appropriate. The Commission notes that the proposed
fine schedule aligns with the fine schedules of the Exchange's
affiliates.
    In approving the propose rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with the Exchange's rules and
all other rules subject to fines under Rule 9216(b). The Commission
believes that a violation of any self regulatory organzation's rules,
as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, Rule 9216(b)
provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that may not
rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while
providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The
Commission expects that the Exchange will 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 Rule
9216(b) or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2019-044), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22013 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12721-12722]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-98-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 18, 2011, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103 Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed in
Docket No. CP11-98-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to abandon in place three horizontal
compressor units at its Sunray Compressor Station and associated piping
located in Moore County, Texas, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director,

Certificates and External Affairs, Northern Natural Gas Company, P.O.
Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>
(telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to
Dari R. Dornan, Senior Counsel, Northern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box
3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>
(telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: March 22, 2011.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5206 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9231]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14189-000; 14198-000]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL; FFP Project 56, LLC; Notice
Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to
be located on the Kentucky River, in Henry County and Owen County,
Kentucky. The applications were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL
for Project No. 14189-000 and FFP Project 56, LLC for Project No.
14198-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of
the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to
determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this
notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications
as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority
established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant,
among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the
first-filed application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3629 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 4254]
[DOCID:fr30ja07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

January 23, 2007.

Ewington Energy Systems LLC.......  Docket No. EG07-1-000
Cisco Wind Energy LLC.............  Docket No. EG07-2-000
Plains End II, LLC................  Docket No. EG07-3-000
RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.........  Docket No. EG07-4-000
Holland Energy, LLC...............  Docket No. EG07-5-000
Caithness Long Island, LLC........  Docket No. EG07-6-000
BTEC New Albany LLC...............  Docket No. EG07-7-000
BTEC Southaven LLC................  Docket No. EG07-8-000
Uskmouth Power Limited............  Docket No. FC07-1-000
Apiacas Energia S.A...............  Docket No. FC07-2-000
    Braco Norte Energia S.A.
    Quatiara Energia S.A.
    Vale Energetica S.A.
    Cuiab[aacute] Energia S.A.
    Primavera Energia S.A.
    VP Energia S.A.
    Isamu Ikeda Energia S.A.
    Sociebe Energia S.A.
    Alvorada Energia S.A.
    Enel Brasil
     Participa[ccedil][otilde]es,
     Ltda.
Tynagh Energy Limited.............  Docket No. FC07-3-000

    Take notice that during the month of December 2006, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1364 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR, PESTICIDES & TOXICS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 60 Forsyth St., S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Fax Number: 404/ 562 9095 Electronic Transmission MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 1999 SUBJ: Initial EPA Comments on Santee Cooper's Cross Power Station FROM: Scott Miller, Environmental Engineer Operating Source Section, ARTB TO: Mr. Matt Wike South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control cc: Mr. Robert Brown, Permit Manager South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Below are initial comments from EPA Region 4 on the above referenced source. Our comments are divided into two categories: 1) Significant Comments and 2) General Comments. Significant comments are defined as those comments that would trigger an objection under 40 CFR Part 70. Given that we have several significant comments on this permit, which was originally submitted as a draft/ proposed permit, EPA no longer considers the permit eligible for parallel review. Please contact me at your convenience in order that we may seek to resolve these issues prior to your submittal of a proposed permit for this source. You may reach me at ( 404) 562 9120. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Significant Comments 1. The periodic monitoring for particulate matter from the electric utility boilers is inadequate. The only monitoring is an annual stack test. This monitoring is not frequent enough since the sources can not in good faith certify compliance with the particulate matter standard for all times during the year. EPA understands that the utility companies desire to have the same monitoring requirements in their title V permits in South Carolina as they do in North Carolina. It should be noted that although the North Carolina electric utility permits were initially issued with this annual test requirement, these same North Carolina permits have been rescinded, and EPA has informed North Carolina that the monitoring requirements must be changed. EPA maintains that once a year monitoring is not adequate, and EPA does not plan on approving this level of monitoring in any state in Region 4. One approach that the State may want to consider is the use of continuous opacity monitoring data to show compliance with the particulate emission standard. The condition given below is one acceptable way for the State to implement periodic monitoring at the utilities to show compliance with the relevant particulate emission rate:

" Pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 035, Section 7( 1)( c), to meet the periodic monitoring requirement for particulate, the permittee shall use a continuous opacity monitor ( COM). Excluding the startup, shutdown, and once per hour exemption periods, if any six minute average opacity value exceeds the opacity standard, the permittee shall, as appropriate, initiate an inspection of the control equipment and/ or the COM system and make the necessary repairs. If five ( 5) percent or greater of COM data ( excluding startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods, data averaged over six minute period) recorded in a calendar quarter show excursions above the opacity standard, the permittee shall perform a stack test in the following calendar quarter to demonstrate compliance with the particulate standard while operating at representative conditions. The permittee shall submit a compliance test protocol as required by condition Section G( a)( 20) of this permit before conducting the test. The Division may waive this testing requirement upon a demonstration that the cause( s) of the excursions has been corrected, or may require stack tests at any time pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 045, Performance tests."

The Region's comments on this approach are attached to this letter.

Another similar approach accepted by the Region for facilities that do not generally operate near the allowable particulate emission rate is as follows:

E6. The particulate emissions from this fuel burning installation shall not exceed 0.105 pounds per million Btu of heat input as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 6. 02( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations ( TAPCR).

Compliance Method: Monitoring of this fuelburning source for compliance with the applicable particulate emissions limitations shall be conducted by stack testing in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 17. This testing shall be performed on a biennial basis and a particulate source test report shall be filed with the Technical Secretary within 60 days after completion of the testing. The source test shall be conducted in accordance with specifications for source sampling given in Chapter 1200 3 12 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. The continuous in stack opacity monitor( s) shall be fully operational prior to and during this compliance testing. The opacity data generated during this compliance testing shall be incorporated into the test report.

Ten ( 10) days prior to conducting the source test, the permittee shall provide notice of such test to the Technical Secretary to afford him the opportunity to have an observer present.

Should atmospheric sulfates ever become an issue, the Division will reassess the applicability of the test procedure as it relates to this issue. This is per the October 25, 1977 letter to Dr. Peter A. Krenkel, P. E. Compliance with condition E8 of the permit shall be used as an indicator to determine whether compliance with this condition should be confirmed with a Method 17 test. Within sixty ( 60) days of an exceedance of the de minimis criteria specified in condition E8, the facility will conduct a Method 17 test.

TAPCR 1200 3 9. 02( 11)( e) 1.( iii)

E8. The visible emissions from each stack of this fuel burning installation shall not exceed twenty ( 20) percent opacity except for one  six ( 6) minute period per one ( 1) hour of not more than forty ( 40) percent opacity as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 5. 01( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations.

Compliance Method: Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 1200 3 5. 03( 5) of the Regulations, compliance with the applicable visible emissions standards shall be determined from data generated by the opacity monitoring system, provided the quality assurance and operational availability requirements set forth in this permit are met.

Consistent with the provisions of Rule 1200 3 20. 06 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations, no notice of violation shall be automatically issued for periods of visible emissions from this fuel burning installation that are in excess of the applicable visible emission standard so long as the total amount of time that the fuel burning installation is exceeding the applicable visible emission standard ( excluding periods of permitted startup, permitted shutdown, or malfunction and periods when the fuel burning installation is not operating) is not in excess of two ( 2) percent of the total amount of time in a calendar quarter. This exemption is applicable provided that good operational and maintenance practices are utilized for both the fuel burning equipment and the associated air pollution control equipment, the required ninety five ( 95) percent operational availability of the opacity monitoring system is maintained, and that no more than one exceedance of greater than twenty four ( 24) hours duration occurs per calendar year.

Written responses to the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with the applicable visible emission standard. For purposes of annual certification of compliance with the applicable visible emissions condition, the acceptance, by the Division, of the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall be the basis of said certification.

TAPCR 1200 3 20. 06 2. In Table 6.1 Monitoring and Reporting, the facility is required to make one annual visible emissions inspection to demonstrate compliance with 20% and 40% opacity regulations for emission unit 03 ( the coal handling system). The Region believes that more frequent periodic monitoring is necessary to determine the compliance status of the coal handling system with applicable opacity standards. One acceptable approach to periodic monitoring for the facility in determining compliance with the opacity standard:

The facility shall do a qualitative emissions evaluation on a daily basis for those emission sources controlled by a control device ( i. e. baghouse). Should the observer see visible emissions, the emissions observer must perform an EPA Method 9 reading and log the results of such a reading. For emission units that are uncontrolled, the facility will conduct an annual EPA Method 9 reading to determine compliance with the applicable opacity standard.

Construction Permit 0420 0030 CB Permit condition II. A for SO2 allows the facility to avoid PSD requirements for a BACT analysis when the facility combusts petroleum coke by accepting a calendar year limit on heat input. This limit does not create a practicably enforceable limit to keep SO2 emissions below the significance level for PSD. At a minimum, the facility should include an enforceable limit for SO2 emissions on a lb/ mmBTU with a 30 day rolling average limit. In preliminary discussions between our agencies, the Department indicated that the facility would be willing to accept the current .26 lb/ mmBTU limit on a 30 day rolling average.