[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35318]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4517-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4517-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 3, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of West Virginia (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-12486 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 33208]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-69-000.
    Applicants: Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1571-001.
    Applicants: Verso Bucksport LLC.
    Description: Verso Bucksport LLC's Supplement to Market-Based Rate
Application.
    Filed Date: 5/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120515-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1827-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: J053 GIA refile to be effective 5/23/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1828-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: RS 134, Joint Operating Agreement (KCP&L) to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1829-000.
    Applicants: Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 7/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1830-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Campo Verde Solar EP Agreement to be effective 5/19/
2012.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1831-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Schindler 3 E&P Agreement to
be effective 5/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1832-000.
    Applicants: Lucky Corridor, LLC.
    Description: Application of Lucky Corridor, LLC for Authorization
to Sell Transmission Rights and Service at Negotiated Rates.
    Filed Date: 5/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120522-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    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>.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13547 Filed 6-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21083-21085]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61934; File No. SR-BX-2010-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain
Rules To Reflect Changes to Corresponding FINRA Rules

April 16, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 5, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule
change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ 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\ 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 is filing this proposed rule change to delete Rule
3130 and IM-3130, to adopt a new Rule 4000A series, and to amend Rules
9552, 9554, 9557 and 9559 to conform BX's rules to recent changes to
the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
The Exchange will implement the proposed rule change thirty days after
the date of the filing. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    BX proposes certain conforming changes to the rules concerning
members' financial responsibilities and the rules concerning expedited
hearings in light of changes made to the analogous rules of FINRA. BX
based much of its rules on those of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ''). Similarly, many of NASDAQ's rules are based on rules of
FINRA (formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers
(``NASD'')). During 2008, FINRA embarked on an extended process of
moving rules formerly designated as ``NASD Rules'' into a consolidated
FINRA rulebook. In most cases, FINRA has renumbered these rules, and in
some cases has substantively amended them. Accordingly, BX also has
initiated a process of modifying its rulebook to ensure that BX rules
corresponding to FINRA/NASD rules continue to mirror them as closely as
practicable. In some cases, it is not possible for the rule numbers of
BX rules to mirror corresponding FINRA rules, because existing or
planned BX rules make use of those numbers. However, wherever possible,
BX plans to update its rules to reflect changes to corresponding FINRA
rules.
    As part of this rule consolidation process, FINRA recently made
several changes to its financial responsibility rules, which are
largely incorporated by reference in BX's rules.\4\ In addition, FINRA
also recently amended certain rules under its Rule 9000 Series
concerning expedited proceedings, which are closely mirrored in BX's
Rule 9000 Series.\5\ Accordingly, BX is proposing to amend its
analogous rules consistent with the changes made by FINRA, as discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60933 (November 4,
2009), 74 FR 58334 (November 12, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2008-067).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61242 (December 28,
2009), 75 FR 167 (January 4, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2009-076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial Responsibility Rules:
    FINRA's new consolidated financial responsibility rules establish
criteria that promote the permanency of member's capital, requiring the
review and approval of material financial transactions and establishing
criteria intended to identify member firms approaching financial
difficulty and to monitor their financial and operational condition.
FINRA's new financial responsibility rules incorporate many of the
provisions of the prior NASD and NYSE rules, but streamlined and
reorganized the provisions. FINRA also tiered many provisions to apply
only to those firms that clear or carry customer accounts.
    Currently, BX Rule 3130 and IM-3130 incorporate by reference old
NASD Rule 3130 and IM-3130. These rules concerned FINRA's authority to
regulate the activities of members experiencing financial or
operational difficulties. In adopting the new financial responsibility
rules, FINRA eliminated NASD Rule 3130 and IM-3130, and replaced them
with several rules that represented a consolidation of the old NASD and
NYSE rules concerning financial responsibility. As a consequence, BX is
also deleting Rule 3130 and IM-3130, and replacing them with new rules
found under a new Rule 4000A series.\6\ These new BX rules incorporate
by reference the analogous newly-adopted financial responsibility rules
of FINRA found in FINRA Rules 4110, 4120, 4140 and 4521. Consistent
with current BX Rule 3130(b), BX is proposing to make clear in proposed
Rules 4110A, 4120A and 4140A that references to Rule 9557 are to BX's
Rule 9557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA also eliminated NASD Rule 3131 and adopted FINRA Rule
4130 in its place. NASD Rule 3131 concerned the regulation of
members registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15C of the
Exchange Act. BX does not have such a class of membership, and as
such, did not adopt NASD Rule 3131 and is not proposing to adopt, or
incorporate by reference, FINRA Rule 4130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also revised FINRA Rule 9557 (Procedures for Regulating
Activities Under FINRA Rules 4110, 4120 and 4130 Regarding a Member
Experiencing Financial or Operational Difficulties) and FINRA Rule 9559
(Hearing Procedures for Expedited Proceedings Under the Rule 9550
Series). FINRA Rules 9557 and 9559 address service of notice to member
firms that are experiencing financial or operational

difficulties and the related hearing procedures. FINRA made a number of
conforming revisions to Rules 9557 and 9559 in light of several of the
new financial responsibility rules. BX Rules 9557 and 9559 mirror the
analogous rules of FINRA in substance, with only minor technical
differences.\7\ As such, BX is proposing to make the same changes Rules
9557 and 9559 as FINRA made to its Rules 9557 and 9559, with minor
technical differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, FINRA Rule 9557(c)(5) references ``FINRA
staff'' whereas proposed BX Rule 9557(c)(5) references instead
``Exchange Regulation staff.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Expedited Proceedings Rules:
    FINRA recently made certain changes to its Rule 9000 series
concerning expedited proceedings. The expedited proceedings rules of
FINRA, and in turn BX, address certain types of misconduct more quickly
than would be possible under the ordinary disciplinary process, while
also affording members numerous procedural protections. In its rule
change, FINRA modified various time requirements regarding expedited
proceedings, added an expedited proceeding for failure to pay
restitution, and harmonized a remedy in an expedited procedure with a
remedy in the FINRA By-Laws. With respect to modifying time
requirements, FINRA amended Rule 9552 to shorten the period before a
suspension automatically turns into an expulsion or bar from six to
three months. In addition, FINRA amended Rule 9559 to shorten the
timeframe within which a hearing must be held from 60 days after a
hearing request to 30 days after the request. As a consequence of
shortening the timeframe for hearings, FINRA also shortened the
timeframes under Rule 9559(h) concerning the pre-hearing exchange of
documents between the parties to the expedited proceeding. FINRA
amended Rule 9554, which contains expedited procedures for failure to
pay FINRA arbitration awards, to also permit FINRA to take expedited
action for failure to comply with a FINRA order of restitution or a
FINRA settlement providing for restitution. FINRA noted that it did not
have explicit authority to take expedited action against firms or
associated persons who fail to pay restitution to a third party
(usually investors who have been harmed), and that its only recourse
was to initiate an ordinary disciplinary action, which can take several
months to conclude. In adding the new expedited procedure, FINRA stated
it believed that firms and associated persons should not be permitted
to continue doing business for prolonged periods when they have failed
to pay restitution to third parties.
    FINRA also eliminated from Rule 9554 the remedy of barring an
individual for failure to pay an arbitration award. FINRA noted that it
had no such authority under its by-laws, and as such that it was
harmonizing the remedy for this misconduct with the remedy provided in
its by-laws. BX is proposing to incorporate all the changes made by
FINRA to its expedited proceedings rules into the analogous BX Rules
9552, 9554, and 9559.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 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 proposed
changes will conform BX rules to recent changes made to corresponding
FINRA rules, to promote application of consistent regulatory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder in
that it effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its guidance on the proposed rules of Self-Regulatory
Organizations (``SROs''),\12\ the Commission concluded that filings
based on the rules of another SRO already approved by the Commission
are eligible for immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6). The
Commission noted that ``a proposed rule change appropriately may be
filed as an immediately effective rule so long as it is based on and
similar to another SRO's rule and each policy issue raised by the
proposed rule (i) has been considered previously by the Commission when
the Commission approved another exchange's rule (that was subject to
notice and comment), and (ii) the rule change resolves such policy
issue in a manner consistent with such prior approval.'' \13\ The
Exchange notes that the changes are virtually identical to changes made
by FINRA approved by the Commission. BX proposes to adopt every change
adopted by FINRA, with only minor changes or omissions based on the
nature of BX or its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58092 (July 3, 2008),
73 FR 40144 (July 11, 2008).
    \13\ Id. at 40149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-028. 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 such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions.
    You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-028
and should be submitted on or before May 13, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9284 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


" Wood, Thomas" < TRWOOD@ stoel. co m>

07/ 22/ 2004 01: 06 PM To: JohnJ Kelly/ R9/ USE cc: Scott Bohning/ R9/ US Guiliano/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Roy Ford/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Paul Cort/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ Subject: Moapa Reservation 11 Point Analysis Gentlemen: We had tentatively scheduled a 2: 00 pm call for this afternoon in case there were additional questions about the 11 Point Analysis. I am happy to chat with everyone, but do not have specific topics the written comments that you shared after our last meeting were very helpful. It may make sense to chat briefly today just to ensure that we all stay in touch, but I anticipate that I will not be a driver for it being a long discussion.

A repeated request has been for maps. Rather than wait until the submittal, I am attaching one map that shows the Reservation in relation to the hydrographic areas. You will note that a portion of the Reservation lies within the Garnet Valley hydrographic area which is a strange U shaped area whose far side also includes Apex Valley. As the map shows, the eastern boundary of that hydrographic area appears to run rather randomly across some flat land as it cuts across the Reservation. As I described on our last call, the Tribe does not believe any of the Reservation should be included in the nonattainment area, regardless of whether the State/ County chooses to employ the hydrographic area boundaries for administrative ease. The Reservation is its own jurisdictional entity and so there is no need on the Tribe's part to pick an arbitrary line when the Reservation boundary will suffice. As you will note, the Reservation boundary borders on the east side of the Arrow Canyon Range and so is much more related to the topography.

If you want a map with higher resolution than the one attached, you can download another map from our extranet site. It is a big file and so it may take a bit of time to download, but I think it might be worth it. I have been unable to email the file even zipped to others in EPA so I am not even going to try. You can access the map by logging onto http:// sriweb. stoel. com/ worksite. It will ask you for a user name and a password. User name is " Agencies" and the password is " EPA". At some point, the site will say you need to download software to be able to get in. If you decline, you won't get in. That only takes a few seconds. Once on the site, choose Moapa and then choose " Download Map." It took some time on my computer to download the map and then twice that time ( a couple of minutes) to re extract itself. Don't give up on it! That map clearly shows the Reservation boundaries ( marked in yellow) in relation to the Arrow Canyon Range and the Dry Lake Range. It does not show public v. private land ownership, but as you head southwest from the Reservation on I 15 towards Las Vegas, everything is public land between the Reservation and the intersection of Route 93 with I 15. As you go further southwest towards Apex, you have private land inholdings. We are working on getting a good map that shows the land ownership between the Reservation and Las Vegas the best we have now ( also attached), is actually a map of Clark County PM10 monitors. Nonetheless, it gets the picture across.

For our call today, the dial in number is ( 888) 235 6114.

The conference code number is 5032949396 I look forward to chatting with you.

Tom Thomas R. Wood Stoel Rives LLP Direct Dial: ( 503) 294 9396 Cell Phone: ( 503) 349 4845 Fax: ( 503) 220 2480


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14965-14968]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0083]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Red Bull Candola, New River, Fort
Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations on
the waters of the New River between the Esplanade Park and slightly
east of the South Andrews Avenue Bascule Bridge in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida for the Red Bull Candola rowing event. The event is

scheduled to take place on April 14, 2012. The temporary special local
regulation is necessary for the safety of the event participants,
participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring
in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. on April 14,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0083 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0083 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Lieutenant Jennifer S. Makowski,
Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-
8724, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary information about the Red Bull Candola until February 3,
2012. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to
publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the event. Any
delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the
public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize
potential danger to Candola participants, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
    The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable
waters of the United States during the Red Bull Candola.

Discussion of Rule

    On April 14, 2012 Red Bull North America is conducting the Red Bull
Candola on the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The regulated
area will encompass certain navigable waters of the New River between
Esplanade Park and slightly east of the South Andrews Avenue Bascule
Bridge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative. The special local regulation
will be in effect from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. on April 14, 2012. Persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring, or remaining within the race area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. Persons and
vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the race area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at
305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel
16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas is granted
by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 12866,
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under
Executive Order 12866.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced
for a total of 4 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be
able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race
area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area
during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels may still
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area if
authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the waters of the
New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that are encompassed within the
special local regulations from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. on April 14, 2012.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction. This rule involves special local regulations issued in
conjunction with a regatta. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the
Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0083 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0083  Special Local Regulations; Red Bull Candola, New
River, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following regulated area is being
established as a special local regulation. All waters of the New River
between the Esplanade Park and slightly east of the South Andrews
Avenue Bascule Bridge encompassed between the following points: Point 1
in position 26[deg]07'09'' N, 80[deg]08'52'' W; and Point 2 in position
26[deg]07'04'' N, 80[deg]08'34'' W. All coordinates are North American
Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local

officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in
the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative
via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 10 a.m. until
2 p.m. on April 14, 2012.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
C.P. Scraba,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2012-6311 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36324-36327]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14756]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67184; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Independence Policy of the Board of
Directors of NYSE Euronext and Creating New Independence Policy for
Boards of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC,
NYSE Regulation, Inc. and NYSE Market, Inc.

June 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 8, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') 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 NYSE MKT. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE MKT proposes to amend the Independence Policy of the Board of
Directors of NYSE Euronext (the ``NYSE Euronext Director Independence
Policy'') and create a new independence policy (the ``Subsidiary
Director Independence Policy'') for the boards of directors of NYSE
MKT, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``the Exchange''), NYSE Market, Inc.
(``NYSE Market'') and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'' and,
together, the ``Regulated Subsidiaries'').\3\ In addition, NYSE MKT
proposes to amend the Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Euronext, the
Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Market, Inc., Third Amended and
Restated Bylaws of NYSE Regulation, Inc., the Third Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement of New York Stock Exchange LLC and the

Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE MKT LLC
(collectively the ``Organizational Documents'') to make certain
conforming changes described below. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') are filing
substantially the same proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule filing is to amend the NYSE Euronext
Director Independence Policy, create the Subsidiary Director
Independence Policy for the boards of directors of the Regulated
Subsidiaries, and make certain conforming changes to the Organizational
Documents, as set forth below.
NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy
    Under the Proposed Rule Change, the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy would be amended to reflect the following changes
(the ``Proposed Amendments''):
    (i) A majority (as opposed to 75%) of the board of directors of
NYSE Euronext (the ``Board'') would be required to be independent;
    (ii) Executive officers of listed companies would no longer be
prohibited from being considered independent for purposes of the Board;
    (iii) The ``additional independence requirements'' at the end of
the current NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy--which provide
that executive officers of foreign private issuers, executive officers
of NYSE Euronext and directors of affiliates of member organizations
must together comprise no more than a minority of the total Board--
would be eliminated;
    (iv) References to certain European regulatory authorities would be
updated, because their names have changed;
    (v) References to NYSE Alternext US LLC and NYSE Amex LLC would
refer instead to NYSE MKT LLC, because of this entity's previous name
changes; and
    (vi) Footnote 2 would be deleted because the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy would not be applicable to the Regulated
Subsidiaries, each of which is proposed to have its own director
independence policy.
    The Commission previously considered and approved these aspects of
the director independence policy in connection with the previously
proposed combination of NYSE Euronext and Deutsche B[ouml]rse AG (the
``Combination'').\4\ Under the rule change approved in connection with
the Combination, Alpha Beta Netherlands Holding N.V. (``Holdco'')--
which was the holding company formed in connection with the Combination
that would have become the parent company of NYSE Euronext--would have
adopted a director independence policy that was substantially similar
to the current NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy, except for
the Proposed Amendments noted above and except for certain references
to the independence standards and criteria in the Dutch Corporate
Governance Code that would be added, given that Holdco was formed under
and subject to the laws of the Netherlands. Upon consummation of the
Combination, the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy would have
ceased to apply. On February 2, 2012, following the European
Commission's decision to prohibit the Combination, NYSE Euronext and
Deutsche B[ouml]rse agreed to terminate the agreement to combine their
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66171 (January
17, 2012) File Nos. SR-EDGA-2011-34; SR-EDGX-2011-33; SR-ISE-2011-
69; SR-NYSE-2011-51; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-78; SR-NYSEArca-2011-72), 77
FR 3297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT explained the reasons for incorporating the Proposed
Amendments in Holdco's director independence policy and believes the
rationale for making these amendments is substantially applicable with
equal force to the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy.
    Summarized below are the principal reasons for the Proposed
Amendments listed in items (i), (ii) and (iii) above. NYSE MKT believes
that the Proposed Amendments listed in items (iv), (v) and (vi) above
are self-explanatory and technical in nature.
Majority Independence Requirement
    NYSE MKT believes that a majority independence standard is
appropriate to ensure that the Board as a whole consists of individuals
with independent, objective perspectives, while at the same time
affording NYSE Euronext sufficient flexibility to include persons with
expertise and qualifications that will contribute meaningfully to the
Board's performance of its oversight function. The importance of
allowing highly qualified individuals to serve on the Board is
underscored by the fact that NYSE Euronext serves as the holding
company for a complex, global business with highly specialized
operations and regulatory functions.
    Although NYSE Euronext has unique responsibilities and functions as
the holding company for several regulated subsidiaries, it is subject
to various corporate governance and regulatory obligations that are
addressed by means of ownership and voting limitations on its
shareholders, commitments to provide access to its books and records
and to submit to the jurisdiction of the Commission, director
qualification requirements and other undertakings.
    NYSE MKT submits that some of these undertakings call for in-depth
industry knowledge and expertise on the Board, such as the requirement
that NYSE Euronext directors take into consideration the effect that
NYSE Euronext's actions would have on the ability of its U.S. regulated
subsidiaries to (i) foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaging in regulating, clearing, settling and processing information
with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, and (ii)
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market in securities and a U.S. national securities market system.
Executives of Listed Companies
    NYSE MKT believes that a per se disqualification of listed company
executives from being deemed independent should not be applicable to
NYSE Euronext. The per se disqualification was initially adopted by the
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. in early 2005 in the context of its
unique circumstances and history and its management structure and board
composition at that time.\5\ NYSE MKT submits that those circumstances
are no longer applicable, and the disqualification of listed company
executives tends to undermine rather

than facilitate NYSE Euronext's efforts to ensure a qualified and
balanced board composition and promote various other important
corporate governance objectives, such as ensuring appropriate expertise
and experience on the Board, as well as representation of the interests
of a diverse range of market constituencies and local European and U.S.
interests. A per se disqualification narrows the pool of potential NYSE
Euronext director candidates and arbitrarily eliminates from
consideration a large number of highly qualified, experienced
individuals who have proven track records as business leaders. Under
the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy, the Board would still
need to assess whether a listed company executive meets the various
independence criteria, including whether he or she has any ``material
relationship'' with NYSE Euronext and its subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-51217 (February
16, 2005) (File No. SR-NYSE-2004-54), 70 FR 9688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, NYSE MKT believes that the objectivity of Board
members is adequately protected by the various other independence
criteria in the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy, such as the
requirement that independent directors may not be or have been within
the last year, and may not have an immediate family member who is or
within the last year was, a member of NYSE MKT, the Exchange or NYSE
Arca. In addition, if and to the extent that a matter concerning a
listed company whose executive is a NYSE Euronext director were ever to
come before the Board for consideration, such director would be
required to be recused from acting on such matter pursuant to the
Board's conflicts of interest policy.
Additional Independence Requirements
    Finally, the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy provides
that the sum of (i) Executive officers of foreign private issuers, (ii)
executive officers of NYSE Euronext and (iii) directors of affiliates
of ``members'' (as defined in Sections 3(a)(A)(3)(ii), 3(a)(A)(3)(iii)
and 3(a)(A)(3)(iv) of the Exchange Act \6\) of NYSE MKT, the Exchange
or NYSE Arca, may not constitute more than a minority of the total
number of directors of NYSE Euronext. The purpose of this requirement
is to ensure that, although executives of listed companies who are
foreign private issuers are not disqualified from serving on the Board,
such executives may not, together with NYSE Euronext executives and
directors of affiliates of members, constitute more than a minority of
the Board. In light of NYSE MKT's proposal to eliminate the
disqualification of listed company executives from the NYSE Euronext
Director Independence Policy, this requirement would serve no purpose
because the exception to such disqualification for foreign private
issuer executives would also be eliminated. NYSE MKT further notes that
under the proposed NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy,
executives of NYSE Euronext and directors of affiliates of exchange
members would not be deemed independent and, accordingly, could not in
any event constitute more than a minority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsidiary Director Independence Policy
    Currently, the independent directors of the Regulated Subsidiaries
must satisfy the requirements of the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy. Under the Proposed Rule Change, each of the
Regulated Subsidiaries would have its own independence policy in the
form of the Subsidiary Director Independence Policy attached as Exhibit
5B to the Proposed Rule Change, in lieu of the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy.
    The Commission previously considered and approved this form of
Subsidiary Director Independence Policy to be adopted by the Regulated
Subsidiaries in connection with the previously proposed Combination
(except that the prior form contained certain references to Holdco that
have been replaced in Exhibit 5B with references to NYSE Euronext).
NYSE MKT explained the reasons for creating the Subsidiary Director
Independence Policy to determine the independence of directors of the
Regulated Subsidiaries, and believes these reasons (as set forth below)
continue to be applicable.
    The Subsidiary Director Independence Policy is substantially
similar to the current NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy,
except for the following changes:
    (i) References to NYSE Euronext would refer instead to the relevant
Regulated Subsidiary;
    (ii) The requirement that at least three-fourths of the directors
must be independent would be deleted, since the organizational
documents of the Regulated Subsidiaries contain the independence and
other qualification requirements for directors;
    (iii) The requirement in the NYSE Euronext Director Independence
Policy that the board consider the special responsibilities of a
director in light of NYSE Euronext's ownership of U.S. regulated
subsidiaries and European regulated entities would be deleted, because
unlike NYSE Euronext, the Regulated Subsidiaries are not holding
companies;
    (iv) The requirement for directors to inform the Chairman of the
Nominating and Governance Committee of certain relationships and
interests would be deleted, since the boards of the Regulated
Subsidiaries do not have a Nominating and Governance Committee, except
that in the Subsidiary Director Independence Policy to be adopted by
NYSE Regulation, this provision would reference the Nominating and
Governance Committee of NYSE Regulation;
    (v) References to NYSE Alternext US LLC and NYSE Amex LLC would
refer instead to NYSE MKT LLC, because of this entity's previous name
changes;
    (vi) Because the NYSE Euronext Director Independence Policy
provides that a director of an affiliate of a ``Member Organization''
cannot qualify as an independent director of these Regulated
Subsidiaries, the conflicting language stating that a director of an
affiliate of a ``Member Organization'' shall not per se fail to be
independent would be deleted;
    (vii) Because language in the NYSE Euronext Director Independence
Policy provides that an executive officer of an issuer whose securities
are listed on a NYSE Exchange cannot qualify as an independent director
of these Regulated Subsidiaries, the conflicting language providing an
exception applicable only to NYSE Euronext directors would be deleted;
and
    (viii) The ``additional independence requirements'' at the end of
the current Independence Policy of NYSE Euronext, which provides that
executive officers of foreign private issuers, executive officers of
NYSE Euronext and directors of affiliates of member organizations must
together comprise no more than a minority of the total board, would be
eliminated. This provision is designed to ensure that although persons
who are directors of an affiliate of a Member Organization or who are
executive officers of a ``foreign private issuer'' listed on a NYSE
Exchange may in some circumstances qualify as independent for purposes
of NYSE Euronext board membership, such persons may not, together with
executive officers of NYSE Euronext, constitute more than a minority of
the total NYSE Euronext directors. Under the proposed Subsidiary
Director Independence Policy, such persons could not be deemed to be
independent directors of the relevant Regulated Subsidiary and,
accordingly, this limitation on the number of such persons who may
serve on the board is unnecessary.

    NYSE MKT believes that adopting a separate director independence
policy for the Regulated Subsidiaries that is more tailored to their
specific requirements--rather than applying the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy with various carve-outs and exceptions noted
therein for the Regulated Subsidiaries--will add clarity to NYSE MKT's
rules.
Proposed Conforming Modifications to Organizational Documents
    The Organizational Documents would be modified to reflect the
changes indicated in Exhibits 5C through 5G, which are summarized as
follows:
    (i) References in the Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Market,
Inc., the Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Regulation, Inc.,
the Third Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of New York Stock
Exchange LLC and the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
NYSE MKT LLC would be modified to refer to the applicable Subsidiary
Director Independence Policy rather than to the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy;
    (ii) References to NYSE Alternext US LLC and NYSE Amex LLC in such
Organizational Documents would be amended to refer instead to NYSE MKT
LLC, because of this entity's previous name changes; and
    (iii) Section 3.4 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE
Euronext would be modified to provide that a majority (rather than
three-fourths) of the Board members would be required to be
independent.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Euronext believes that this filing is consistent with Section
6(b) \7\ of the Exchange Act in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(1) \8\ in particular, in that it enables NYSE MKT to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply with the provisions of the Exchange
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of NYSE MKT.
The Proposed Rule Change will help to ensure that the boards of
directors of NYSE Euronext and the Regulated Subsidiaries consist of
individuals with independent, objective perspectives, while at the same
time affording them sufficient flexibility to include persons with
expertise and qualifications that will contribute meaningfully to these
boards' performance of their oversight and other functions. For
example, some responsibilities of these boards call for in-depth
industry knowledge and expertise on the Board, such as the requirement
that NYSE Euronext directors take into consideration the effect that
NYSE Euronext's actions would have on the ability of its U.S. regulated
subsidiaries to (i) foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaging in regulating, clearing, settling and processing information
with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, and (ii)
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market in securities and a U.S. national securities market system. NYSE
MKT also believes that adopting a separate director independence policy
for the Regulated Subsidiaries that is more tailored to their specific
requirements--rather than applying the NYSE Euronext Director
Independence Policy with various carve-outs and exceptions noted
therein for the Regulated Subsidiaries--will add clarity to NYSE MKT's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE MKT does not believe that the Proposed Rule Change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    NYSE MKT has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
Proposed Rule Change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-07. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE MKT. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-07 and should
be submitted on or before July 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14756 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41012-41013]
[DOCID:fr19jy06-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0035; FRL-8199-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Survey of Drinking Water
Treatment Facilities; EPA ICR No. 2176.01, OMB Control No. 2040-XXXX

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection.
The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the
information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 18,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0035, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket (Mail Code
4101T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Office of Water
(Mail Code 4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38675), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received several comments during the
comment period from trade associations, utilities, state agencies, and
private citizens, which are addressed in this ICR. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0035, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains

copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Survey of Drinking Water Treatment Facilities.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2176.01, OMB Control No. 2040-XXXX.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: In its 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (September
2, 2004; 69 FR 53705), which EPA published under Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 304(m), EPA identified the ``drinking water treatment point
source category'' as a candidate for rulemaking. EPA is collecting
information from drinking water treatment facilities to develop
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards necessary to control the
discharge of toxic and non-conventional pollutants into surface waters
of the United States and to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
    In order to inform the rulemaking process, EPA is conducting
several data collection activities. The technical survey announced in
this Federal Register notice would provide EPA with preliminary
technical data needed to quantify any adverse environmental impacts of
the discharges of residuals and metals from drinking water treatment
facilities and to obtain information about finished water production
and current residuals generation and management techniques.
    The technical survey is composed of a questionnaire. The
questionnaire would allow EPA to collect information from facilities
that serve populations greater than 10,000. EPA would use data from the
questionnaire to better classify drinking water treatment facilities by
treatment practices, residuals characteristics, and residuals
management methods. EPA expects to collect additional information from
some of the recipients of the questionnaire announced today through a
follow-up detailed questionnaire.
    If approved, the survey will be administered under authority of
section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318. As a result, all recipients of
the questionnaire would be required to complete and return the
questionnaire to EPA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.7
hours per unique response to the questionnaire. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: The respondents affected by this
information collection request are drinking water treatment plants that
generated residuals in 2005. More specifically, the recipients of the
questionnaire would be drinking water treatment utilities serving
populations in excess of 10,000.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 618.
    Frequency of Response: This is a one-time information collection.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,143.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $145,544, includes $6,732 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: Because this is a request for a new ICR,
there is no change in the number of hours in the total estimated burden
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

    Dated: July 11, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-11432 Filed 7-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P