[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26822-26823]
[DOCID:fr12my10-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62036; File No. 4-594]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Minor Rule
Violation Plan for EDGX Exchange, Inc.

May 5, 2010.
    On March 19, 2010, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Exchange'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') a proposed minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'')
pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder.\2\ The proposed MRVP was
published for public comment on March 29, 2010.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves EDGX
Exchange's proposed MRVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61752 (March 22,
2010), 75 FR 15475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGX Exchange's MRVP specifies those uncontested minor rule
violations with sanctions not exceeding $2,500 which would not be
subject to the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) under the Act \4\
requiring that a self-regulatory organization promptly file notice with
the Commission of any final disciplinary action taken with respect to
any person or organization.\5\ In accordance with Rule 19d-1(c)(2), the
Exchange proposed to designate certain rule violations as minor rule
violations, and requested that it be relieved of the reporting
requirements regarding such violations, provided it gives notice of
such violations to the Commission on a quarterly basis. EDGX Exchange
included in its proposed MRVP the policies and procedures currently
included in EDGX Exchange Rule 8.15 (``Imposition of Fines for Minor
Violation(s) of Rules'') and the rule violations included in EDGX
Exchange Rule 8.15.01.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
    \5\ The Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule
19d-1 to allow self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to submit
for Commission approval plans for the abbreviated reporting of minor
disciplinary infractions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 FR 23828 (June 8, 1984). Any disciplinary
action taken by an SRO against any person for violation of a rule of
the SRO which has been designated as a minor rule violation pursuant
to such a plan shall not be considered ``final'' for purposes of
Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the sanction imposed consists of a
fine not exceeding $2,500 and the sanctioned person has not sought
an adjudication, including a hearing, or otherwise exhausted his or
her administrative remedies.
    \6\ On March 12, 2010, the Commission approved EDGX Exchange's
application for registration as a national securities exchange,
including the rules governing the EDGX Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61698, 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010). In the
approval order, the Commission noted that EDGX Exchange Rule 8.15
provides for the imposition of fines for minor rule violations
pursuant to a minor rule violation plan. Accordingly, the Commission
noted that, EDGX Exchange Rule 8.15 provides for the imposition of
fines for minor rule violations pursuant to a minor rule violation
plan. Accordingly, the Commission noted that as a condition to the
operation of EDGX Exchange, the Exchange must file a minor rule
violation plan with the Commission.

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

    Pursuant to the Exchange's proposed MRVP, under Rule 8.15, the
Exchange may impose a fine (not to exceed $2,500) on a member, an
associated person of a member, or a registered or non-registered
employee of a member with respect to any rule listed in Rule 8.15.01.
The Exchange shall serve the person against whom a fine is imposed with
a written statement setting forth the rule or rules allegedly violated,
the act or omission constituting each such violation, the fine imposed,
and the date by which such determination becomes final or by which such
determination must be contested. If the person against whom the fine is
imposed pays the fine, such payment shall be deemed to be a waiver of
such person's right to a disciplinary proceeding and any review of the
matter under Exchange rules. Any person against whom a fine is imposed
may contest the Exchange's determination by filing with the Exchange a
written response, at which point the matter shall become a disciplinary
proceeding.
    Upon approval of the plan, the Exchange will provide the Commission
a quarterly report of actions taken on minor rule violations under the
plan. The quarterly report will include the Exchange's internal file
number for the case, the name of the individual and/or organization,
the nature of the violation, the specific rule provision violated, the
sanction imposed, the number of times the rule violation has occurred,
and the date of disposition.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EDGX Exchange attached a sample form of the quarterly report
with its submission to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed MRVP is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission also believes that the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act \9\ which
require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and
provide appropriate discipline for, violations of the Commission and
Exchange rules. In addition, because the MRVP offers procedural rights
to a person sanctioned under Rule 8.15, the Commission believes that
Rule 8.15 provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and
6(d)(1) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act,\11\ because the MRVP strengthens EDGX Exchange's ability
to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO
in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of
the minor nature of the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposal, the Commission in no way minimizes the
importance of compliance with Exchange rules and all other rules
subject to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 8.15. The Commission
believes that the violation of an SRO's rules, as well as Commission
rules, is a serious matter. However, Rule 8.15 provides a reasonable
means of addressing violations that do not rise to the level of
requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater
flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission expects that
EDGX Exchange will continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence
and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis,
whether a sanction under the MRVP is appropriate, or whether a
violation requires formal disciplinary action.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the
Act,\12\ that the proposed MRVP for EDGX Exchange, File No. 4-594, be,
and hereby is, approved and declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11259 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 631-632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0132]

Public Meeting of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
(RCC) Motor Vehicles Working Group

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was
created on February 4, 2011. After private sector consultations and
bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint Action Plan on
Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. The Joint Action Plan is a
practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the
United States and Canada. In order to

implement the initiatives identified in the Joint Action Plan,
bilateral working groups led by senior officials from regulatory
agencies have developed work plans with concrete objectives,
deliverables and milestones for tangible progress within the RCC's two-
year mandate. This notice announces a public meeting of the RCC Motor
Vehicles Working Group.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on January 14, 2014. The meeting
will start at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m., local time, or
until all registered speakers have been heard.

ADDRESSES: The January 14, 2014 public meeting will be held at the
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building, 11th Floor, 477 Michigan Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan 48226. The meeting site is accessible to individuals
with disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to attend the public
meeting, please contact Lashawn Keeve, NHTSA Office of Rulemaking, by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please contact Ms. Keeve at least ten days
before the meeting date of January 14, 2014. Please provide the
following information: name, affiliation, address, email address, and
telephone number. For other questions regarding the RCC Motor Vehicles
Working Group, in the United States, you may contact Mr. Ezana
Wondimneh, Chief of the NHTSA International Harmonization Division, by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. In Canada you may contact Mr. Merz Rustom,
Director, Motor Vehicle Standards, Research and Development at
Transport Canada, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at
(613) 998-2268, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation
Council (RCC) was created on February 4, 2011. After private sector
consultations and bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint
Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. For more
information on the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation, see
http://www.trade.gov/rcc/rcc-summary.asp. The Joint Action Plan is a
practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the
United States and Canada. In order to implement the initiatives
identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by
senior officials from regulatory agencies have developed work plans
with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible
progress within the RCC's two-year mandate.
    The January 14, 2014 public meeting is being held pursuant to the
RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group Work Plan. For more information on the
Work Plans, see http://www.trade.gov/rcc/documents/Existing-Motor-Vehicle-Safety-Standards.pdf, or http://www.trade.gov/rcc/ for future
Work Plans.
    Public Meeting Procedures. The public meeting provides a forum for
the public to speak about topics within the mandate of the RCC Motor
Vehicles Working Group. In order to comply with the occupancy limits of
the meeting space, attendance is limited to 100 persons, and
preregistration is required. For space reasons, it is asked that you
consider limiting your company's or association's delegation to 3-5
persons. If you would like to attend the public meeting as a speaker or
as an observer, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Depending on
the available space, registration for persons attending the public
hearing as observers may be accepted after that date.
    For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for
approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if
a large number of people wish to make presentations. Once we learn how
many people have registered to speak at the meeting, we will allocate
an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for
necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for
anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation.
    We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other
material to the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible,
we prefer that speakers not use any audio-visual aids or computer
slideshows; however, if you plan to use such aids, you must provide
those materials in advance of the meeting and notify the contact person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    NHTSA and Transport Canada will conduct the meeting informally.
Presenters wishing to provide supplementary information should submit
it to the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
    For security purposes, government-issued photo identification is
required to enter the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building. Non-U.S.
citizens may be required to show passports. To allow sufficient time to
clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that
participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the event,
and that luggage, laptop computers, and personal effects be kept to a
minimum.

David Hines,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2013-31507 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47834]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-897-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: 20120731 Mieco Inc Negotiated Rate to be effective 8/
1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-898-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance with CP12-5-000 to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-899-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Atmos to Liberty Utilities Transaction to be effective
8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-900-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance with CP12-5-000 to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-901-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River T.
    Description: Discount-Type Adjustments for Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-902-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: S-2 Tracker Filing Effective 2012-08-01 to be
effective 8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-903-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans' Tariff Clean-up Filing to be effective 9/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-904-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: 2012-07-31 NC Mieco and CIMA to be effective 8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-905-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: 2012 Pooling, Ford City to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-906-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 9-1-2012 to be
effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-907-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Change in Price Index to be effective 8/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20120731-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/12.

    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
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: August 1, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19619 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25327-25329]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10051]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69441; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Deleting NYSE Rule 476(a)(8),
Which Addresses Wash Sales, in Order To Harmonize the Exchange's Rules
With the Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

April 24, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 10, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which
addresses wash sales, in order to harmonize the Exchange's rules with
the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which
addresses wash sales, in order to harmonize the Exchange's rules with
the rules of FINRA.
Background
    On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a
combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), NYSE, NYSER
and FINRA entered into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce
regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules''). NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'') became a party to the Agreement effective December 15,
2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules''); and 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6,
2009) (order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding
NYSE MKT LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE MKT to
the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE, and NYSE MKT of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of
reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in
order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Current NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) prohibits a member, member
organization, principal executive, approved person, registered or non-
registered employee of a member or member organization, or person
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange from (i) making a
fictitious bid, offer, or transaction, (ii) giving an order for the
purchase or sale of securities the execution of which would involve no
change of beneficial ownership, or (iii) executing such an order with
knowledge of its character. In 2009, the Exchange adopted NYSE Rules
6140(a) and (b), which are substantially the same as FINRA Rules
6140(a) and (b) \6\ and also address wash sale activity. NYSE Rule
6140(a) provides that no member or member organization may execute or
cause to be executed or participate in an account for which there are
executed purchases of any NMS stock as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of
SEC Regulation NMS (``designated security'') at successively higher
prices, or sales of any such security at successively lower prices, for
the purpose of creating or inducing a false, misleading or artificial
appearance of activity in such security or for the purpose of unduly or
improperly influencing the market price for such security or for the
purpose of establishing a price that does not reflect the true state of
the market in such security. NYSE Rule 6140(b) prohibits a member or
member organization, for the purpose of creating or inducing a false or
misleading appearance of activity in a designated security or creating
or inducing a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market
in such security, from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21,
2009), 74 FR 25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Executing any transaction in such security which involves no
change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
    (2) entering any order or orders for the purchase of such security
with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same
size, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such
security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different
parties; or
    (3) entering any order or orders for the sale of any such security
with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same
size, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such
security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different
parties.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which was adopted at a
time when the Exchange was operating in a manual on-Floor trading
environment, has a different scienter standard than NYSE Rule 6140 and
FINRA Rule 6140. These rules provide that a market participant is
prohibited from engaging in wash sales that have the purpose of

creating or inducing a false or misleading appearance of activity in a
designated security. The ``purpose'' or scienter requirement in NYSE
Rule 6140 and FINRA Rule 6140 recognizes that in today's markets there
can be certain instances of trading activity that may inadvertently and
unknowingly result in executions with no change in beneficial
ownership, for example trades entered from an off-Floor participant
that experience latency issues over which the participant has little or
no control, and that such conduct should not always be treated as a
wash sale violation if the market participant did not act with purpose.
    On the other hand, NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) prohibits (i) making a
fictitious bid, offer, or transaction, (ii) giving an order for the
purchase or sale of securities the execution of which would involve no
change of beneficial ownership, or (iii) executing such an order with
knowledge of its character. The second prong can be read as having no
scienter requirement.\7\ As such, the example given above involving an
off-Floor market participant's algorithmic orders that inadvertently
execute against themselves due to latency issues could be deemed a
violation of the second prong of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8). The Exchange
believes that such conduct should not be treated as a wash sale
violation in all instances and therefore proposes to eliminate NYSE
Rule 476(a)(8) and instead utilize NYSE Rule 6140 for wash sale
disciplinary actions. The proposed rule change would achieve a greater
level of consistency with FINRA's rules and promote harmonization,
consistency, transparency, and clarity with respect to the Exchange's
rules and thereby facilitate FINRA's enforcement of them.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In at least one case, a hearing panel was divided as to
whether scienter is required in order to find a violation of the
second prong of NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) and adjudged the respondent not
guilty. See In the Matter of X, NYSE Hearing Panel Decision 92-163
(Oct. 23, 1992).
    \8\ The Exchange notes that it can bring disciplinary actions
under NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) for conduct that occurred prior to the
time the rule is deleted. Thus, the proposed rule change would have
no impact on ongoing disciplinary actions involving violations of
NYSE Rule 476(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would not result in any material
diminution of the Exchange's enforcement authority or any material
change in surveillance of potentially violative activity. The Exchange
may still bring a disciplinary action in appropriate cases where a
market participant engages in a significant amount of trades without
change of beneficial ownership, even if such activity does not violate
Rule 6140(b) per se because the participant did not act with
``purpose.'' Such conduct could also give rise to other violations,
such as a failure to supervise under NYSE Rule 342, and the Exchange
has brought at least one such case.\9\ Such conduct could also violate
just and equitable principles of trade or otherwise constitute
unethical activity under NYSE Rule 2010.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See In the Matter of Goldman Sachs & Co., NYSE Hearing Board
Decision 12-3 (Apr. 4, 2012) (between January 2009 and at least
September 2011, member firm violated NYSE Rule 342 in its capacity
as a NYSE Supplemental Liquidity Provider by failing to maintain
supervisory procedures that were reasonably designed to detect and
prevent potentially violative wash trading activity).
    \10\ See Calvin David Fox, 56 S.E.C. 1371, 1376 (2003) (``With
respect to a charge that conduct was inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade, we have held that a self-regulatory
organization need not find that the respondent acted with scienter,
but must find that the respondent acted in bad faith or
unethically.''). NYSE Rule 2110 [sic] is a broad ethical concept
that covers all unethical business-related conduct. See also In the
Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, NYSE
Hearing Board Decision 10-13 (May 14, 2010) (firm violated just and
equitable principles of trade in that it introduced prearranged or
wash sales in the round-lot portion of a partial round lot order);
In the Matter of Robert Cutter Matlock, Jr., NYSE Hearing Board
Decision 06-19 (March 27, 2006) (Exchange need not prove scienter
for violations of just and equitable principles of trade, but rather
is required to show the respondent acted in bad faith or
unethically); In the Matter of Mary Roy Wong, NYSE Hearing Board
Decision 06-187 (February 13, 2007) (Exchange need not prove
scienter for violations of just and equitable principles of trade,
but rather is required to show the respondent acted in bad faith or
unethically).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So that there is no change in the scope of persons subject to
disciplinary action for wash sales, the Exchange proposes to make a
conforming amendment to NYSE Rules 6140(a) and (b) to provide that the
rules apply not only to members and member organizations but also to
principal executives, approved persons, registered or non-registered
employees of a member or member organization or persons otherwise
subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\12\ 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 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change supports the objectives of the
Act by addressing an inconsistency in the scienter requirements between
NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) on the one hand and NYSE Rule 6140 and FINRA Rule
6140 on the other. Eliminating this inconsistency would provide member
firms with better notice of prohibited wash sale activities and promote
transparency and clarity with respect to the Exchange's rules, thereby
facilitating FINRA's enforcement of them. Moreover, the proposed rule
change would not result in any material diminution of the Exchange's
overall enforcement authority or any material change in surveillance of
potentially problematic trading activity. The Exchange may still bring
a disciplinary action in appropriate cases where a market participant
engages in a significant amount of trades without change of beneficial
ownership, even if such activity does not violate Rule 6140(b) per se
because the participant did not act with ``purpose,'' because such
conduct could violate supervision rules, just and equitable principles
of trade, or other Exchange rules prohibiting unethical conduct. As
such, the Exchange's rules would continue to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 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
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather to achieve
greater consistency both within NYSE's rules and between NYSE and FINRA
rules.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 the 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 No. SR-NYSE-2013-29 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 No. SR-NYSE-2013-29. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing 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 No. SR-NYSE-2013-29 and should be
submitted on or before May 21, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10051 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 25, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-11985

__________________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated

(no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Application of Atlas Air, Inc.  filed 9/15/03 for:

XX  Waiver of the dormancy condition applicable to certain of its
U.S.-Brazil all-cargo frequencies.

Atlas seeks a dormancy waiver for four of its ten U.S.-Brazil all-cargo
frequencies through September 30, 2004.  By Notice of Action Taken dated
March 28, 2003, in this docket, the Department granted Atlas a dormancy
waiver for five of its ten U.S.-Brazil frequencies through September 30,
2003.  Atlas now requests a one-year extension through September 30,
2004, of its current waiver of the 90-day dormancy condition applicable
to four of these five U.S.-Brazil all-cargo frequencies.

Atlas states that it is currently using six of its ten frequencies,
including one of the five frequencies for which it had been previously
granted a dormancy waiver.

In support of its waiver request here, Atlas states that it is
continuing to experience adverse market conditions in the U.S.-Brazil
all-cargo market and, furthermore, that it needs additional time to
respond to economic circumstances before it can expand to full operation
of its ten U.S.-Brazil frequencies.  Atlas maintains that it remains
committed to such service expansion when economic conditions improve.

We received no answers to Atlas’ application.

Applicant rep:  Russell E. Pommer,<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT analyst:
Michael D. Bodman<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted. (See below).

The above action was effective when taken: September 25, 2003, through
September 30, 2004.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		 Office of International Aviation

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

________________________________________________________________________
____________

Remarks:  We acted on this application prior to the expiration date for
answers with the consent of all parties served.

We find that grant of Atlas’ request, in the particular circumstances
presented, is in the public interest.  However, we are putting Atlas on
notice that there should be no expectation that an additional request
will similarly be granted.  As is our policy in considering dormancy
waiver requests, we reserve the right to reexamine whether grant of this
waiver continues to be in the public interest.  Any future request to
extend the dormancy waiver for the frequencies at issue here will have
to be considered in light of the specific arguments offered and
responses thereto, and in the context of the circumstances present at
that time, including whether another carrier seeks to use the
frequencies at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

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

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

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

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Atlas’ waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through
September 30, 2004.   As to any frequency with which Atlas does not
begin service by that date, its allocation with respect to that
frequency will expire automatically.

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21354-21355]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0306]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Administrative
Detention and Banned Medical Devices

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 11,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0114.
Also include the FDA 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: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Administrative Detention and Banned Medical Devices--21 CFR
800.55(g)(1) and (g)(2), 800.55(k), 895.21(d), and 895.22; OMB Control
Number 0910-0114--Extension

    FDA has the statutory authority under section 304(g) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 334(g)) to
detain during established inspections devices that are believed to be
adulterated or misbranded. Section 800.55 (21 CFR 800.55), on
administrative detention, includes among other things, certain
reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirements. Under Sec.
800.55(g), an applicant of a detention order must show documentation of
ownership if devices are detained at a place other than that of the
appellant. Under Sec.  800.55(k), the owner or other responsible person
must supply records about how the devices may have become adulterated
or misbranded, in addition to records of distribution of the detained
devices. These recordkeeping requirements for administrative detentions
permit FDA to trace devices for which the detention period expired
before a seizure is accomplished or injunctive relief is obtained.
    FDA also has the statutory authority under section 516 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360f) to ban devices that present substantial deception
or an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury. Section
895.21 (21 CFR 895.21), on banned devices, contains certain reporting
requirements. Section 895.21(d) describes the procedures for banning a
device when the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner)
decides to initiate such a proceeding. Under 21 CFR 895.22, a
manufacturer, distributor, or importer of a device may be required to
submit to FDA all relevant and available data and information to enable
the Commissioner to determine whether the device presents substantial
deception, unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury, or
unreasonable, direct, and substantial danger to the health of
individuals.
    During the past several years, there has been an average of less
than one new administrative detention action per

year. Each administrative detention will have varying amounts of data
and information that must be maintained. FDA's estimate of the burden
under the administrative detention provision is based on FDA's
discussion with one of the firms whose devices had been detained.
    In the Federal Register of October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63232), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total  annual    burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
800.55(g).......................               1               1               1              25              25
895.21(d)(8) and 895.22(a)......              26               1              26              16             416
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of      records per    Total  annual    burden per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
800.55(k).......................               1               1               1              20              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: April 5, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08161 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50933]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2021-0003]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; FedEx
Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0275
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi L. Hunt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Timothy R. Adams,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0275.
    Petitioner: FedEx Corporation.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  121.463(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: FedEx Corporation requests an
amendment to Exemption No. 11904B to allow a single line oriented
flight training (LOFT) event to be used to satisfy the annual
operational familiarization requirements in Sec.  121.463(c), provided
a full flight simulator is used for the event.

[FR Doc. 2021-19698 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53685-53686]
[DOCID:fr17se08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0039]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sulfadiazine/Pyrimethamine
Suspension

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Animal Health Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The
supplemental NADA provides for a revised human food safety warning on
labeling for an oral suspension of sulfadiazine and pyrimethamine used
for the treatment of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM).

DATES: This rule is effective September 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Animal Health Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1805 Oak
Ridge Circle, suite 101, St. Joseph, MO 64506, filed a supplement to
NADA 141-240 for use of REBALANCE (sulfadiazine/pyrimethamine)
Antiprotozoal Oral Suspension for the treatment of EPM caused by
Sarcocystis neurona. The supplement provides for a revised human food
safety warning on labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of
August 27, 2008, and 21 CFR 520.2215 is amended to reflect the
approval.
    Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of
additional safety or effectiveness data or

information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not
required.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In 520.2215, revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  520.2215  Sulfadiazine/pyrimethamine suspension.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Limitations. Do not use in horses intended for human
consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order
of a licensed veterinarian.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
William T. Flynn,
Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-21625 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68702-68704]
[DOCID:fr09no10-11]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 242

[Release No. 34-63247; File No. S7-08-09]
RIN 3235-AK35

Regulation SHO

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; extension of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is extending for a limited period of time the
compliance date for the amendments to Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) of
Regulation SHO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''). Rule 201 adopts a short sale-related circuit breaker that, if
triggered, will impose a restriction on the prices at which securities
may be sold short (``short sale price test restriction''). The
amendments to Rule 200(g) provide that a broker-dealer may mark certain
qualifying short sale orders ``short exempt.'' The Commission is
extending the compliance date for the amendments to Rule 201 and Rule
200(g) to give certain exchanges additional time to modify their
current procedures for conducting single-priced opening, reopening, and
closing transactions for covered securities that have triggered Rule
201's circuit breaker in a manner that is consistent with the goals and
requirements of Rule 201. Further, the extended compliance period will
give industry participants additional time for programming and testing
for compliance with the requirements of the Rule.

DATES: The effective date for Rule 201 (17 CFR 242.201) and Rule 200(g)
(17 CFR 242.200(g)) remains March 10, 2010. The compliance date for
both Rules has been extended from November 10, 2010 to February 28,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josephine Tao, Assistant Director, or
Angela Moudy, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading and Markets, at
(202) 551-5720, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-6628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2010, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 201
and Rule 200(g) of Regulation

SHO.\1\ Rule 201 requires that a trading center establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent the execution or display of a short sale order of a covered
security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national
best bid if the price of that covered security decreases by 10% or more
from its closing price as determined by the listing market for the
covered security as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior
day.\2\ In addition, the Rule requires that the trading center
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to impose this short sale price test restriction
for the remainder of the day and the following day when a national best
bid for the covered security is calculated and disseminated on a
current and continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an
effective national market system plan.\3\ The amendments to Rule 200(g)
provide that broker-dealers may mark certain short sale orders ``short
exempt.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 61595 (Feb. 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232
(Mar. 10, 2010) (``Rule 201 Adopting Release'').
    \2\ See 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(i).
    \3\ See 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(ii).
    \4\ See 17 CFR 242.200(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff has been working with the markets and their
participants since Rule 201 was adopted to resolve operational issues
relating to implementation of the Rule. As part of these efforts, we
have become aware that certain exchanges require additional time to
address their procedures for conducting single-priced opening,
reopening, and closing transactions (``single-priced transactions'')
for covered securities that have triggered the Rule's circuit breaker.
Specifically, we have been advised that certain exchanges may encounter
difficulties in applying Rule 201, which uses the national best bid as
a reference point, to their single-priced transactions. These
transactions involve the queuing and ultimate execution of multiple
orders at a single price, and the single equilibrium price determined
through this process is based on orders on the exchange, without any
reference to the national best bid at the time of execution. Due to
potential operational concerns, we are providing additional time for
exchanges that currently conduct single-priced transactions through a
formalized and transparent process to address this issue in a manner
that would be consistent with the requirements and goals of Rule 201's
short sale price test restriction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A significant percentage of total trading volume can be
executed in single-priced transactions. For example, one exchange
executes approximately 25% of its total trading volume in its
opening and closing transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we believe that an extended compliance period may
benefit industry participants by providing more time for programming
and testing for compliance with the Rule's requirements. We have been
informed that there have been some delays in the programming process,
due in part to certain information, which was necessary to effectively
program for compliance with Rule 201, being provided by various
parties, including exchanges and data vendors, on dates that were later
than originally anticipated. As a result, we have been informed that
there may be an increased risk of technical or market problems if full
implementation of Rule 201 is required by November 10, 2010.
    As a result of these considerations, and in order to avoid any
potential adverse effects on the markets from implementation of Rule
201 under the circumstances, we have determined to extend the
compliance date to February 28, 2011 because we understand that this
would provide the exchanges and other industry participants with
sufficient time to resolve the issues surrounding implementation of
Rule 201.

II. Conclusion

    For the reasons cited above, the Commission, for good cause, finds
that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the extension of the
compliance date set forth herein are impractical, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.\6\ The Commission notes that the
compliance date is a few days away, and that a limited extension of the
compliance date will facilitate the orderly implementation of Rule 201.
In light of this time constraint, full notice and comment could not be
completed prior to the November 10, 2010 compliance date. All industry
participants will receive additional time to comply with Rule 201 and
Rule 200(g) beyond the compliance date originally set forth in the Rule
201 Adopting Release. Further, the Commission recognizes that it is
imperative for industry participants to receive notice of the extended
compliance date, and providing immediate effectiveness upon publication
of this release will allow industry participants to adjust their
implementation plans accordingly.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) (stating that an agency may dispense with
prior notice and comment when it finds, for good cause, that notice
and comment are ``impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest''). This finding also satisfies the requirements of
5 U.S.C. 808(2), allowing the rules to become effective
notwithstanding the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 (if a federal agency
finds that notice and public comment are ``impractical, unnecessary
or contrary to the public interest,'' a rule ``shall take effect at
such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines'').
Also, because the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only
requires agencies to prepare analyses when the Administrative
Procedures Act requires general notice of rulemaking, that Act does
not apply to the actions that we are taking in this release.
    \7\ The compliance date extensions set forth in this release are
effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Section
553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act allows effective dates
that are less than 30 days after publication for a ``substantive
rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission identified certain costs and benefits associated
with the amendments to Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO in
the Rule 201 Adopting Release. The extension of the compliance date for
the amendments to Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO will delay
the benefits of the Rules, but the Commission believes that the limited
extension is necessary and appropriate because it will provide (1)
certain exchanges additional time to modify their current procedures
for conducting single-priced transactions for covered securities that
have triggered Rule 201's circuit breaker in a manner that is
consistent with the goals and requirements of Rule 201, and (2)
industry participants additional time for programming and testing for
compliance with the requirements of Rule 201 and Rule 200(g). The
extension also will delay the costs of complying with the
amendments.\8\ The Commission believes that the extension does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act, because, as noted
above, the extension will give exchanges additional time to modify
certain of their current procedures, and industry participants
additional time for programming and testing, in a manner that is
consistent with the goals and requirements of the amendments to Rule
201 and Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission identified in the Rule 201 Adopting Release
certain ongoing costs associated with the amendments to Rule 201 and
Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO. Because of the extension of the
compliance date, such costs could be avoided from November 10, 2010
to February 28, 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

    Dated: November 4, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28327 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49484-49485]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Delays in Processing of Special Permits Applications

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

1. Awaiting additional information from applicant
2. Extensive public comment under review
3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or
precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis
4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special
permit applications

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

N--New application
M--Modification request
R--Renewal Request
P--Party To Exemption Request

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2012.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reason for    Estimated date
    Application No.         Applicant          delay       of completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Modification to Special Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14372-M...............  Kidde Aerospace                3      10-31-2012
                         and Defense,
                         Wilson, NC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     New Special Permit Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15080-N...............  Alaska Airlines,               4      10-31-2012
                         Seattle, WA.
15334-N...............  Floating                       3      09-30-2012
                         Pipeline
                         Company
                         Incorporated,
                         Halifax, Nova
                         Scotia.
15504-N...............  FIBA                           3      10-31-2012
                         Technologies,
                         Inc., Millbury,
                         MA.
15552-N...............  POLY-COAT                      4      10-31-2012
                         Systems, Inc.,
                         Liverpool, TX.
15558-N...............  3M Company, St.                4      10-31-2012
                         Paul, MN.
15568-N...............  ATK Launch                     3      10-31-2012
                         Systems,
                         Corinne, UT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Party to Special Permits Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15537-P...............  Austin Powder                  4      10-31-2012
                         Company,
                         Cleveland, OH.
14372-P...............  L'Hotellier,                   3      10-31-2012
                         France.
13548-P...............  Interstate                     4      10-31-2012
                         Battery System
                         of The
                         Redwoods,
                         Eureka, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Renewal Special Permits Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12412-R...............  Carolina Pool                  3      10-31-2012
                         Management,
                         Charlotte, NC.
11136-R...............  Alaska                         3      10-31-2012
                         Pyrotechnics,
                         Anchorage, AK.
14313-R...............  Airgas, Inc.,                  3      12-31-2012
                         Radnor, PA.
12283-R...............  Interstate                     4      09-30-2012
                         Battery of
                         Alaska,
                         Anchorage, AK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-19830 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57440-57442]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0737]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations
Meetings, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary security zones
on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill in the vicinity of
Randalls and Wards Island, the Wall Street Heliport, and the United
Nations Headquarters. These security zones are necessary to ensure the
safety of the President of the United States, members of his official
party, and other senior government officials. In addition, this action
is necessary to protect visiting dignitaries and the Port of New York/
New Jersey against terrorism, sabotage or other subversive acts and
incidents of a similar nature during the dignitaries' visit to New York
City. The zones will restrict vessels from a portion of the East River
and Bronx Kill when public officials are scheduled to arrive and depart
the area. Persons or vessels will not be allowed to enter these
security zones without permission from the Captain of the Port New York
(COTP) or the COTP's designated on-scene representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from September 25,
2014 until September 29, 2014 at 8:00 p.m. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was
signed, September 8, 2014, until September 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0737]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 rule,
call or email LT Hannah Eko, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard
Sector New York; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule
VTSNY Vessel Traffic Service New York

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On four previous occasions, the Coast Guard established similar
temporary security zones on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill
in the vicinity of Randalls Island and Wards Island, Wall Street
Heliport, and the United Nations Headquarters. Those four security
zones were effective on the following dates: March 11, 2014, April 11,
2014, June 17, 2014, and July 17, 2014. In each of those instances, the
Coast Guard was unable to publish the temporary security zone in the
Federal Register prior to enforcing the zone due to receiving late
notifications regarding the arrival dates of the visiting dignitaries.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because the specifics associated with the Presidential and dignitary
visits were not received in time to publish an NPRM and seek comments
before the subject visits. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the
effective date of this rule to await public comments would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest since it would
inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its statutory missions and
jeopardize the safety of the President of the United States, members of
his official party, other senior government officials, and visiting
dignitaries.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define security zones.
    The United States Secret Service has requested that the Coast Guard
establish a temporary security zone on the waters of the East River and
Bronx Kill during the arrival and departure of the President of the
United States to and from Randalls and Wards Islands or Wall Street
Heliport, New York. Additionally, the Coast Guard anticipates that
various dignitaries will visit the United Nations Headquarters between
September 17, 2014 and September 29, 2014. These visits by the
President of the United States, members of his official party, senior
government officials, and visiting dignitaries may incite terrorism,
sabotage, or other subversive acts. Accordingly, the Captain of the
Port, Sector New York, has determined that these security zones are
necessary to protect said individuals.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed above, the Captain of the Port, Sector
New York, is establishing three temporary security zones. These
temporary security zones will be in effect from September 17 to
September 29, 2014. The security zones are located on a portion of the
East River and Bronx Kill. The East River and Bronx Kill security zones
cover waters in the vicinity of Wall Street Heliport, Randalls and
Wards Island, and the United Nations Headquarters. Specific geographic
locations for each security zone are specified in the regulatory text.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This determination is based on the limited time that vessels will
be restricted from the zones. The temporary security zones will only be
enforced for a limited duration from 6:00 a.m. on September 17, 2014
until 8:00 p.m. on September 29, 2014. Thus, the Coast Guard expects
minimal adverse impact on mariners from the zones' enforcement based on
the limited duration of the enforcement period. Moreover, the Coast
Guard also expects minimal adverse impact on mariners in light of the
limited geographic area affected and because mariners may request
authorization from the COTP or a designated on-scene representative to
transit each zone. In addition, before and during the enforcement
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available
to users of the waterway, including verbal broadcast notice to mariners
and distribute a written notice to waterway users online at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the East River and Bronx Kill in the
vicinity of Wall Street Heliport, Randalls and Wards Island, and the
United Nations Headquarters.
    These temporary security zones will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for all of the reasons
discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. 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.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of three temporary
security zones and thus, is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We
seek any comments or information that may lead

to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0737 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0737  Security Zone, East River; Wall Street Heliport,
Manhattan, NY.

    (a) Location. Each of the three following areas is a temporary
security zone:
    (1) All waters of the East River within the following boundaries;
east of a line drawn between approximate position 40[deg]42'01'' N,
074[deg]00'39'' W (east of The Battery) to 40[deg]41'36'' N,
074[deg]00'52'' W (point north of Governors Island) and north of a line
drawn from the point north of Governors Island to the southwest corner
of Pier 7 North, Brooklyn; and south of a line drawn between
40[deg]42'14.8'' N, 074[deg]00'20.3'' W (Wall Street, Manhattan), and
the northwest corner of Pier 2 North, Brooklyn (NAD 1983).
    (2) All waters of the East River between the Hell Gate Rail Road
Bridge (mile 8.2), and a line drawn from a point at approximate
position 40[deg]47'27.12'' N, 073[deg]54'35.14'' W (Lawrence Point,
Queens) to a point at approximate position 40[deg] 47'52.55'' N,
073[deg]54'35.25'' W (Port Morris Stacks), and all waters of the Bronx
Kill southeast of the Bronx Kill Rail Road Bridge (mile 0.6).
    (3) All waters of the East River north of a line drawn from
approximate position 40[deg]44'37'' N, 073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of
East 35th Street, Manhattan), to approximate position 40[deg]44'23'' N,
073[deg]57'44.5'' W (Hunters Point, Long Island City), and south of the
Queensboro Bridge (NAD 1983).
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, ``Designated on-
scene representative'' is any Coast Guard VTSNY (Vessel Traffic Service
New York) watchstander or any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. A
designated on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, or
onboard a federal, state, or local agency vessel that is authorized to
act in support of the Coast Guard. ``Dignitary'' means the President or
Vice President of the United States, or visiting heads of foreign
states or governments.
    (c) Effective and enforcement period. This section is effective and
will be subject to enforcement from 6:00 a.m. on September 17, 2014
until 8:00 p.m. on September 29, 2014.
    (d) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or move within the security
zone created by this section unless granted permission to do so by the
COTP or a designated on-scene representative. Entry, transit, or
anchoring within the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP.
    (e) Notice. The COTP will provide notice of the establishment and
enforcement of these security zones in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (f) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in a
security zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP
or a designated on-scene representative. Those vessels may be required
to anchor or moor up to a waterfront facility.
    (g) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within a security
zone shall telephone the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or a designated on-scene
representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
    (h) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: September 8, 2014.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2014-22850 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Examples The following example chemicals can be added to the PBT Profiler by clicking on the checkbox and then pushing the "Add Selected Chemicals to Current Profile" button at the end of the page. Selecting your browser's "back" button or pushing the "Cancel and Return to Data Entry Page" will return you directly to the PBT Profiler Data Entry Page without adding any examples to the profile.

Note: These example chemicals may have experimental data available. They are provided only to help users familiarize themselves with the features of the PBT Profiler.

Add to profile? CAS Registry Number Chemical Name Structure 95 50 1 1, 2 Dichloroethane 129 00 0 Pyrene 2385 85 5 Mirex 67 66 3 Trichlormethane (chloroform)

67 64 1 Acetone 35822 46 9 1,2,3, 4,6, 7,8

Heptachlorodibenzop dioxin 50 99 7 Glucose 95 95 4 2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 70 34 8 1 Fluoro 2, 4dintitrobenzene 309 00 2 Aldrin Developed by the Environmental Science Center under contract to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Computer Resources Donated by Syracuse Research Corporation Ver 0. 911 BetaR Restricted Access Last Updated April 18, 2001