[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27218]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP13-889-000]

Mountaineer Gas Company v. Washington Gas Light Company: Notice
of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 30, 2013, Mountaineer Gas Company
(Mountaineer or Complainant) filed a complaint against Washington Gas
Light Company (WGL or Respondent), pursuant to the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, and Rule 206, 18 CFR 385.206, of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
alleging that the WGL is charging Mountaineer increased rates for lost
and unaccounted for (LAUF) gas that have not been approved or otherwise
ruled upon by the Commission in Docket Nos. PR13-6 and PR13-7.
Complainant alleges that WGL's unauthorized LAUF percentage increase
violates the procedural requirements of section 4 of the NGA, is
inconsistent with the Commission's established processing for WGL's
LAUF applications, and is inconsistent with the terms of the parties'
transportation agreement and WGL's tariff.
    Mountaineer Gas Company certifies that copies of the complaint were
served on the contacts of Washington Gas Light Company as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 20, 2013.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11041 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1238-1240]
[FR Doc No: 2016-253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76829; File No. SR-BX-2015-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Retail Price Improvement Program

January 5, 2016.
    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 December 22, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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

    BX is proposing change to amend BX Rule 4780, which governs the
Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program (``Retail Program''), to
distinguish between retail orders routed on behalf of other broker-
dealers and retail orders that are routed on behalf of introduced
retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis, as further
described below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4780, which governs the
Exchange's Retail Program,\3\ to distinguish between orders routed on
behalf of other broker-dealers and orders routed on behalf of
introduced retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis,
as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange adopted the Retail Program as BX Rule 4780 in
2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73702 (November 28,
2014), 79 FR 72049 (December 4, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange established the Retail Program in an attempt to
attract retail order flow to the Exchange, primarily by offering
pricing incentives. Under the Retail Program, Retail Member

Organizations \4\ are permitted to submit Retail Orders,\5\ and receive
rebates for added liquidity that are higher than the exchanges [sic]
standard rebates for added liquidity.\6\ In addition, RMOs may
optionally designate Retail Orders to be identified as Retail on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Member Organization is a Member (or a division
thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under BX Rule 4780
to submit Retail Orders.
    \5\ A Retail Order is an agency order, or riskless principal
order that satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail
Order must reflect trading interest of a natural person with no
change made to the terms of the underlying order of the natural
person with respect to price (except in the case of a market order
that is changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and
that does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.
    \6\ See BX Rule 7018.
    \7\ See BX Rule 4780(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 4780(b)(1) currently states that ``[t]o qualify as a
Retail Member Organization, a Member must conduct a retail business or
handle retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.'' \8\ Rather
than stating that one way to qualify as an RMO is to handle retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer, the Exchange proposes to
state that a Member may qualify as an RMO if it ``routes'' retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. The Exchange believes that
providing routing services on behalf of other broker-dealers with
retail order flow was the intended meaning of the provision and that
the term ``handle'' is vague. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
description would be better if it referred to routing services provided
to another broker-dealer with retail customers. The Exchange also
proposes to distinguish such routing services on behalf of another
broker-dealer from services provided by broker-dealers that carry
retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis, as described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background with respect to the proposed change, the Exchange
first would like to describe the terms ``introducing broker'',
``carrying firm'' or ``carrying broker-dealer'', and ``fully
disclosed,'' as such terms are commonly used in the securities
industry. An ``introducing'' broker-dealer is ``one that has a
contractual arrangement with another firm, known as the carrying or
clearing firm, under which the carrying firm agrees to perform certain
services for the introducing firm. Usually, the introducing firm
submits its customer accounts and customer orders to the carrying firm,
which executes the orders and carries the account. The carrying firm's
duties include the proper disposition of the customer funds and
securities after the trade date, the custody of customer securities and
funds, and the recordkeeping associated with carrying customer
accounts.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24,
1992), 57 FR 56973 (December 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a ``fully disclosed'' introducing arrangement is
``distinguished from an omnibus clearing arrangement where the clearing
firm maintains one account for all the customer transactions of the
introducing firm. In an omnibus relationship, the clearing firm does
not know the identity of the customers of the introducing firm. In a
fully disclosed clearing arrangement, the clearing firm knows the
names, addresses, securities positions and other relevant data as to
each customer.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a broker-dealer that is routing on behalf of
another broker-dealer, the Exchange does not believe that the routing
broker-dealer has sufficient information to assess whether orders are
truly retail in nature, and thus, requires an RMO routing on behalf of
other broker-dealers to maintain additional supervisory procedures and
obtain annual attestations, as described below, in order to submit
Retail Orders to the Exchange. In contrast, however, if a broker-dealer
is carrying a customer account on a fully disclosed basis, then such
carrying broker-dealer is required to perform certain diligence
regarding such account that the Exchange believes is sufficient to
assess whether a customer is a retail customer in order to submit
orders on behalf of such a customer to the Exchange as a Retail Order.
The carrying broker of an account typically handles orders from its
retail customers that are ``introduced'' by an introducing broker.
However, as noted above, in contrast to a typical routing relationship
on behalf of another broker- dealer, a carrying broker does obtain a
significant level of information regarding each customer introduced by
the introducing broker. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to state in
BX Rule 4780(b)(1) that for purposes of BX Rule 4780, ``conducting a
retail business shall include carrying retail customer accounts on a
fully disclosed basis.''
    BX Rule 4780(b)(6) currently states, in part, that ``[i]f a Retail
Member Organization represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer
customer, the Retail Member Organization's supervisory procedures must
be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such
broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the
definition of a Retail Order.'' This includes obtaining attestations
from the other broker-dealers for whom the RMO routes. In addition to
the proposed changes to BX Rule 4780(b)(1) described above, the
Exchange proposes to modify the language of BX Rule 4780(b)(6) to again
distinguish between an RMO that conducts a retail business because it
carries accounts on a fully disclosed basis from an RMO that routes
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. As proposed, the additional
attestation requirements of BX Rule 4780(b)(6) would apply to an RMO
that does not itself conduct a retail business but routes Retail Orders
on behalf of other broker-dealers. In turn, such attestation
requirements would not apply to an RMO that carries retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis. In connection with this change,
the Exchange is proposing various edits to the existing rule text so
that the reference is consistently to ``other broker-dealers'' rather
than ``broker-dealer customers.''
    The Exchange believes that allowing an RMO that carries retail
customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to submit Retail Orders to
the Exchange without obtaining attestations from broker-dealers that
might introduce such accounts will encourage participation in the
Retail Program. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the carrying
broker has sufficient information to itself confirm that orders are
Retail Orders without such attestations. The Exchange still believes it
is necessary to require the attestation by broker-dealers that route
Retail Orders on behalf of other broker- dealers, because, in contrast,
such broker-dealers typically do not have a relationship with the
retail customer and would not be in position to confirm that such
customers are in fact retail customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative

acts and practices because it highlights the parties for whom
additional procedures are required because they do not maintain
relationships with the end customer (i.e., routing brokers) and still
requires the RMO to follow such procedures to ensure that such orders
qualify as Retail Orders. As proposed, however, an RMO would not be
required to follow such procedures, including obtaining annual
attestations, to the extent such RMO actually knows the end customer
and carries the account of such customer and thus can itself confirm
that the orders qualify as Retail Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow RMOs that carry retail
customer accounts to participate in the Program without imposing
additional attestation requirements that the Exchange did not initially
intend to impose upon them. By removing impediments to participation in
the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail
customers to the Program.

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

    BX 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. The Exchange
believes that the amendment, by increasing the level of participation
in the Program, will increase the level of competition around retail
executions. The Exchange believes that the transparency and
competitiveness of operating a program such as the Program on an
exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors and
benefits retail investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to
encompass practices currently allowed on non-exchange venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \13\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition, and (iii) become operative for 30
days after its filing date, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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-BX-2015-086 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-086. 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 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-2015-086, and should be
submitted on or before February 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-253 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 146-147]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2012-0175]

Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal
Project

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

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal
Project.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and the Council on Environmental Quality
NEPA implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is announcing the
availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Longhorn Pipeline Reversal
Project (Project).
    PHMSA has posted the FEA and FONSI online at http://www.regulations.gov in docket number PHMSA-2012-0175.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Samaras, Attorney, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; by phone at 202-366-
4362; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Longhorn Pipeline runs from El Paso,
Texas to Houston, Texas and is owned and operated by Magellan Pipeline
Company, L.P. (Magellan). The Longhorn Pipeline currently transports
refined petroleum products from east to west (Houston to El Paso). The
Project will convert the segment of the Longhorn Pipeline that runs
from Crane, Texas to Houston, Texas to crude oil service and will
reverse the flow so that crude oil flows from west to east (Crane to
Houston). At Crane, refined products will enter the pipeline and move
west to El Paso, Texas. The refined products will enter the Longhorn
Pipeline via an existing pipeline segment that connects the Longhorn
Pipeline to the existing Orion West Pipeline located to the north of
the Longhorn Pipeline. The Orion West Pipeline runs from Frost, Texas
to El Paso and is also owned and operated by Magellan.
    PHMSA regulates the transportation of hazardous liquids via
pipeline and also issues and enforces pipeline safety regulations that
dictate requirements for construction, design, testing, operation, and
maintenance of natural gas and hazardous liquid (including crude oil,
petroleum products, and anhydrous ammonia) pipelines. PHMSA does not
typically serve as lead agency for pipeline construction projects, as
it has no authority over pipeline siting and does not issue any
approval or authorization to commence a pipeline construction project.
However, a settlement agreement specific to the Longhorn Pipeline
titled ``The Longhorn Mitigation Plan'' (LMP) resulted from litigation
associated with changes made to the Longhorn Pipeline in 1999. The LMP
provides PHMSA with broader responsibility and oversight of the
Longhorn Pipeline than it would have under normal circumstances.
Accordingly, PHMSA has issued an FEA in order to analyze the impacts of
the Project.
    The Project requires upgrades to the pipeline and will include
construction of a six-mile refined product pipeline segment in El Paso,
a three-mile crude oil pipeline segment from 9th Street Junction to
Speed Junction in Houston, and an eight-mile refined product pipeline
segment from East Houston to Holland Avenue in Houston. As part of the
Project, in order to facilitate reversal and increased capacity,
Magellan will modify and upgrade existing infrastructure by
constructing new pump stations and terminals at various locations along
the Longhorn and Orion Pipelines' right-of-ways. Although not
originally included in the LMP, activities along the Orion West
Pipeline and the segment from Odessa to Crane that will take place as a
result of the Project are analyzed in the FEA as connected actions.
    PHMSA published the draft environmental assessment for this project
for public comment on July 31, 2012. PHMSA received 48 comments. All
but three of the comments were form letters in support of the project.
Two comments raised environmental concerns about the project.
    The FEA analyzes the changes that will take place as a result of
the Project and connected actions and how the changes could impact the
human environment during construction, normal operations, and in the
unlikely event of a release. The FEA also analyzes the condition of the
Longhorn Pipeline and how the change in product and direction will
affect the pipeline. Based on the analysis presented in the FEA, PHMSA
has determined that the

Project will not result in significant environmental impacts.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2012.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-31520 Filed 12-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 927-929]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82433; File No. SR-DTC-2017-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Restore the Timeframe for
Processing Credit Post-Payable Adjustments

January 2, 2018.
    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 December 21, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 clearing agency. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change by DTC would amend the Distributions
Service Guide (``Guide'') \3\ to (i) restore a practice of DTC relating
to the timeframe for accepting a request from an issuer or its agent
(``Paying Agent'') for a post-payable adjustment (``PPA'') of principal
and income payments (``P&I'') that results in the allocation of
additional credits to Accounts of affected Participants (``Credit
PPA''), and (ii) make technical changes to the Guide, as more fully
described below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Distributions-Service-Guide-FINAL-January-
2017.pdf.
    \4\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, By-Laws and
Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company, available
at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
dtc_rules.pdf; and in the Guide, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change by DTC would amend the Guide to (i)
restore a practice of DTC relating to the timeframe for accepting a
request from a Paying Agent for a Credit PPA, and (ii) make technical
changes to the Guide, as more fully described below.
(i) Background
    One of the core asset services provided by DTC is the daily
collection and allocation of funds distributions on Securities held by
DTC. Commonly referred to as P&I, these funds include dividend,
interest, periodic principal, redemption, and maturity payments arising
from the servicing of Securities held by DTC. DTC provides centralized
processing to facilitate this service, and, on each Business Day,
communicates with Paying Agents regarding the P&I due that day,
collects payments, and allocates entitlements to Participants.
    Occasionally, a Paying Agent may request a PPA at DTC due to an
error on the part of the Paying Agent, trustee, issuer, or a change in
the principle factor or rate. A PPA can result in debits (``Debit
PPA'') and/or credits to Settlement Accounts of the affected
Participants.
    When DTC receives a request for a PPA from a Paying Agent,\5\ DTC
processes the debit and/or credit adjustments for the misapplied
principal or income to the Settlement Accounts of affected
Participants. Accordingly, affected Participants will need to process
adjustments to their customers' accounts for any misapplied principal
or income and any associated interest. In addition, affected
Participants may need to process adjustments against any customer that
traded the security after the initial payment had occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A request for a Credit PPA will only be processed by DTC on
receipt of associated funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debit PPAs carry particular risks. When DTC processes a Debit PPA,
it will automatically debit the Settlement Accounts of the affected
Participants, which in turn must seek to collect the funds from their
customers, which in turn may need to recover from end investors. This
recovery process gets more difficult as time passes and creates
significant credit exposure, as customers and the end investors may no
longer have the funds to debit, or may have closed or moved their
accounts.
    Historically, DTC accommodated Paying Agent adjustment requests by
processing PPAs (whether a Debit PPA, a Credit PPA, or both) up to one
year after the initial payment was made (``One Year Cutoff''). In 2012,
the Commission approved a DTC rule filing that implemented a practice
whereby DTC would not accept a request for a PPA from a Paying Agent
beyond ninety calendar days after the initial payment date (``Ninety-
Day Cutoff'').\6\ The purpose of shortening the timeframe was to
mitigate the risks associated with PPAs, in particular Debit PPAs, by
reducing the volume of PPAs and to allocate the accountability to the
Paying Agents responsible for the PPAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67599 (August 6, 2012),
77 FR 47898 (August 10, 2012) (SR-DTC-2012-03). The implementation
was staggered over the course of 2014. The Ninety-Day Cutoff was
effective as of January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current practice, if a Paying Agent wants to effectuate a
PPA beyond the Ninety-Day Cutoff, it cannot be processed through DTC.
The Paying Agent must request from DTC an allocation register listing
all affected Participants and positions. Using the allocation register,
the Paying Agent must then attempt to contact each affected Participant
to make direct adjustments and/or payment arrangements outside of DTC.
(ii) Proposal To Restore the One Year Cutoff for Credit PPAs
    After the Ninety-Day Cutoff became effective on January 1, 2015, a
post-payable adjustment task force (``Task Force''), formed by DTC and
comprised of Paying Agents and representative members of the
Association of Global Custodians (``AGC''), the American Bankers
Association, and the Corporate Actions division of the Securities
Industry and Financial Market Association (``SIFMA''), monitored the
PPA landscape. From that review, the Task Force determined that all
parties--Paying Agents, issuers, Participants, investors--would benefit
from restoring the timeframe for the processing of Credit PPAs (but not
Debit PPAs) from the Ninety-Day Cutoff back to the original One Year
Cutoff. The restoration of the PPA timeframe back to a One Year Cutoff
for Credit PPAs would allow Paying Agents more time to make correct
allocations to Participants efficiently through DTC, rather than
requiring the Paying Agent to make the adjustments bilaterally with
each Participant, outside of DTC. This efficiency would allow
Participants, their customers, and end investors to receive their funds
more quickly.
    DTC and the Task Force determined to preserve the Ninety-Day Cutoff
for

Debit PPAs.\7\ As described above, Debit PPAs create significant credit
risk exposure for Participants, customers, and investors as more time
passes, because it becomes more difficult for Participants to recover
debited funds from their customers that may no longer have an account,
may not have available funds, or may no longer service the end
investor. By retaining the Ninety-Day Cutoff for Debit PPAs, DTC would
be (i) maintaining the appropriate allocation of risk among
Participants, their clients, investors, issuers and Paying Agents, (ii)
creating proactive incentives for Paying Agents and issuers to reduce
the number of Debit PPAs, and (iii) promoting payment finality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the proposed rule change, if DTC receives a PPA that
would result in both credits to and debits from affected Participant
accounts after the Ninety-Day Cutoff but before the One Year Cutoff
for Credit PPAs, DTC would only process the credits (assuming
associated funds were also received), and the Paying Agent would
have to collect the debits outside of DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, DTC proposes to restore the
timeframe for the processing of Credit PPAs from the Ninety-Day Cutoff
back to a One Year Cutoff.\8\ In addition, DTC proposes to modify the
language of the Guide to (i) reflect a One Year Cutoff for Credit PPAs
and a Ninety-Day Cutoff for Debit PPAs, and (ii) remove outdated
language about the date of effectiveness of the Ninety-Day Cutoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ No other DTC practices with regard to PPAs would change,
including without limitation, DTC's practice of servicing all court-
directed adjustments (with appropriate supporting documentation),
regardless of age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Technical Changes to the Guide
    DTC is also proposing to modify language in the Guide to (i) remove
the statement that PPA adjustments will appear on Participant
Statements, as adjustments can only be viewed using CA Web, ISO 20022
messages and CCF Files, (ii) for consistency with the term ``P&I'', add
the word ``principal'' to the list of payments that may be subject to a
PPA, and (iii) remove an incorrect reference to CMO/ABS securities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There can be a change in the principal factor or rate on any
security, not just a CMO/ABS security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outreach
    DTC discussed the Task Force's recommendation to restore the
timeframe for the processing of Credit PPAs to a One Year Cutoff with
the SIFMA Corporate Action Section and AGC, which have agreed with the
recommendation.
Implementation Date
    DTC will implement the proposed rule change upon approval of this
filing by the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of the
clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\11\ By
restoring the timeframe back to a One Year Cutoff for the processing of
Credit PPAs through DTC, DTC is providing centralized processing for
Credit PPAs for a longer period of time, whereas Paying Agents would
otherwise have to process the Credit PPAs outside of DTC after ninety
days. In addition, the proposed rule change would make technical
changes to the Guide, as described above, which would help ensure that
the procedures relating to PPAs are accurate and consistent. Therefore,
DTC believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate a more
efficient process for Paying Agents to allocate funds, and for
Participants to receive funds owed to them, as well as allow
Participants to have a clearer understanding of the related procedures,
thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with the requirements of the Act,
in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F), cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change with respect to
the Ninety-Day Cutoff for Credit PPAs would have any impact on
competition because it would apply to all Paying Agents and would allow
all Participants to receive their correct P&I credit allocations in a
more efficient manner, and therefore would not disproportionately
impact any Paying Agent or Participant.
    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change with respect to
technical changes to the Guide would have any impact on competition
because it would merely update the Guide to make changes for accuracy
and consistency and therefore would not affect the rights and
obligations of any Participant or other interested party.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2017-023 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2017-023. 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 website (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 website 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 DTC and on DTCC's
website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2017-023 and should be submitted on
or before January 29, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00081 Filed 1-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 64233]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4147-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Santa Clara Pueblo; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Santa Clara Pueblo (FEMA-4147-DR), dated September 27,
2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2013.

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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 27, 2013, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Santa Clara Pueblo resulting from severe storms and flooding
during the period of July 19-21, 2013, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists for the Santa Clara Pueblo and associated
lands.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance
for the Santa Clara Pueblo and associated lands. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following area has been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    The Santa Clara Pueblo for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance
program.

    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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-25337 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28207-28209]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0254]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration,
Friday Harbor, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in
Friday Harbor for the San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration
fireworks display. The safety zone is necessary to help ensure the
safety of the maritime public during the display and will do so by
prohibiting all persons and vessels from entering the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Kenneth Hoppe, Waterways Management
Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-
6051, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your

comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast
Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0254] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0254) 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.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish
safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and
environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.
    The San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration fireworks display
will be held on July 4, 2015. Fireworks displays create hazardous
conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of
vessels that congregate near the displays as well as the noise, falling
debris, and explosions that occur during the event. A safety zone is
necessary in order to prevent vessels from congregating in the
proximity of the firework discharge site to ensure maritime public
safety.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In order to mitigate the hazards associated with the fireworks
display, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone in Friday Harbor, WA in a 200 yard radius around the point
48[deg]32.471' N, 123[deg]0.714' W. This safety zone would be in effect
from 5:00 p.m. on July 4 until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.
    All persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering the
safety zone during the dates and times they are effective unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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 rule is not a
significant regulatory action because it creates a safety zone that is
minimal in size and short in duration.

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
proposed 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 or
operators of vessels intending to transit through the established
safety zone during the times of enforcement. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the temporary safety zone is minimal in size and short in
duration, maritime traffic will be able to transit around it and may be
permitted to transit through with the permission from the Captain of
the Port or a Designated Representative.
    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 proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule
involves a temporary safety zone around a fireworks display in Friday
Harbor. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed 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 proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-286 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-286  Safety Zone; San Juan Island Independence Day
Celebration; Friday Harbor, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated as a temporary
safety zone:
    (1) All waters within a 200 yard radius around the point
48[deg]32.471' N, 123[deg]0.714' W.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor,
or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or Designated Representatives. Designated
Representatives are Coast Guard
    Personnel authorized by the Captain of the Port to grant persons or
vessels permission to enter or remain in the safety zone created by
this section. See 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, for additional
information and requirements.
    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the
safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
Designated representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol
craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast guard Sector Puget Sound Joint
Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 5:00 p.m. on
July 4, 2015, until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
M.W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-11939 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 73919-73921]
[DOCID:fr28de07-184]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57005; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-122]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Amending Its Obvious Error Rule for Options on
Indices, ETFs, and HOLDRS

December 20, 2007.
    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 October 31, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On December 14, 2007, the CBOE submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 24.16, which is the
Exchange's rule applicable to the nullification and adjustment of
transactions in index options, options on exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs''), and options on HOLding Company Depository ReceiptS
(``HOLDRS''). The Exchange is proposing to amend the rule to change the
manner in which it applies the obvious price error provision to
transactions occurring as part of the Hybrid Opening System (``HOSS'')
process. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.com
.

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
    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 24.16, which is its
obvious error rule pertaining to index options, options on ETFs, and
options on HOLDRS. The proposal would revise the obvious price error
provision that pertains to transactions occurring as part of the HOSS
opening rotation process. Currently, Rule 24.16 provides that an
obvious price error would be deemed to have occurred when the execution
price of a buy (sell) transaction is above (below) the fair market
value of the option by at least a prescribed minimum error amount.\3\
For purposes of transactions occurring on HOSS, ``fair market value''
is currently defined as the midpoint of the first quote after the
transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous
transaction(s). The Exchange is proposing to revise the fair market
value calculation to provide additional conditions that would apply
during regular HOSS rotations and during HOSS rotations in index
options series that are being used to calculate the final settlement
price of volatility indexes. The additional conditions are intended to
reasonably factor the amount of available liquidity into the fair
market value calculation during these rotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, for series trading with normal bid-ask
differentials as established in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv), the prescribed
minimum error amount is as follows: $0.125 if the fair market value
is below $2, $0.20 if the fair market value is $2 to $5, $0.25 if
the fair market value is above $5 to 10, $0.40 if the fair market
value is above $10 to 20, and $0.50 if the fair market value is
above $20. See CBOE Rule 24.16(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to regular HOSS rotations, the Exchange is proposing
to add a condition that the option contract quantity subject to
nullification or adjustment would not exceed the size of the first
quote after the transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the
erroneous transaction(s).\4\ For example, assume that the opening
transactions in series XYZ totaled 200 contracts at a price $0.75. Also
assume that a member representing non-CBOE Market-Maker A sold 200
contracts, trading 100 contracts with CBOE Market-Maker B and 100
contracts with non-CBOE Market-Maker C. Finally, assume that the first
quote after the transaction in question that does not reflect the
erroneous transaction is bid 100 contracts for $0.95 and offered 150
contracts at $1.15. In this scenario, an erroneous sell transaction
would be deemed to have occurred in accordance with the obvious price
error provision because the $0.75 price received by non-CBOE Market-
Maker A is at least $0.125 lower than the fair market value of
$1.05.\5\ In addition, because the size of the bid in the first quote
after that does not reflect the erroneous transaction is for 100
contracts, up to 100 contracts executed on the opening on behalf of
non-CBOE Market-Maker A would be subject to

nullification or adjustment under the obvious price error provision.\6\
Any nullifications or adjustments would occur on a pro rata basis
considering the overall size of the HOSS opening trade. Thus, 50
contracts executed against CBOE Market-Maker B would have a price
adjustment to $1.05 (provided the adjusted price does not violate A's
limit price) and 50 contracts executed against non-CBOE Market-Maker C
would have a price adjustment to $1.05 (provided the adjusted price
does not violate A's or C's limit price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For erroneous sell transactions, the size of the bid would
be used. For erroneous buy transactions, the size of the offer would
be used.
    \5\ $1.05 is the midpoint of $0.95 and $1.15.
    \6\ A HOSS transaction involving a non-CBOE Market-Maker is
adjusted based on the first non-erroneous quote after the erroneous
transaction on CBOE, provided the price does not violate the non-
CBOE Market-Maker's limit price. Otherwise, the transaction is
nullified. See Rule 24.16(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to HOSS rotations in index options series being used
to calculate the final settlement price of a volatility index,\7\ the
Exchange is proposing to add a condition that the first quote after the
transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous
transaction(s) must be for at least the overall size of the HOSS
opening transaction(s).\8\ If the size of the quote is less than the
overall size of the opening transaction(s), then the obvious price
error provision shall not apply. For example, if the opening trade in
Series XYZ is for a total of 200 contracts and the bid or offer, as
applicable, of the first quote after the transaction(s) in question
that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s) is for 500
contracts, then the quote would be used to determine the fair market
value and whether an obvious price error occurred. If the bid or offer,
as applicable, of the quote is for only 100 contracts, then the trade
would not be subject to nullification or adjustment under the obvious
price error provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange states that CBOE's and the CBOE Futures
Exchange, LLC's (a designated contract market approved by the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of CBOE) rules provide for the listing and trading of options and
futures, as applicable, on various volatility indexes. This proposed
obvious price error provision would be utilized only for those index
options series used to calculate the final settlement price of a
volatility index and only on the final settlement date of the
options and futures contracts on the applicable volatility index in
each expiration month. Thus, for example, the proposed obvious price
error provision would be used for the relevant Standard & Poor's 500
Stock Index (``SPX'') options series on settlement days for CBOE
Volatility Index (``VIX'') options and futures contracts. The
Exchange notes that, during the final settlement date, traders
holding hedged volatility futures positions to settlement can be
expected to trade out of their SPX options on that date. Traders who
hold short, hedged VIX futures would liquidate that hedge by selling
their SPX options, while traders holding long, hedged VIX positions
would liquidate their hedge by buying SPX options. In order to seek
convergence with the VIX final settlement value, these traders would
be expected to liquidate their hedges by submitting orders in the
appropriate SPX option series during the SPX opening on the final
settlement date of the VIX futures contract. To the extent: (i)
traders who are liquidating hedges predominately are on one side of
the market (e.g., seek to buy the particular SPX options); and (ii)
those traders' orders predominate over other orders during the SPX
opening on the final settlement date for the VIX futures contract,
trades to liquidate hedges may contribute to an order imbalance
during the SPX opening on that date. The same is equally applicable
with respect to the final settlement dates of other volatility index
options and futures. In light of this potential for a large order
imbalance in the applicable series on these dates, the Exchange
believes that the application of a modified obvious price error
provision is reasonable and appropriate and will contribute to a
fair and orderly opening.
    \8\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-122 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-122. 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 inspection
and copying 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-CBOE-2007-122 and should be
submitted on or before January 18, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25187 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55967-55969]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165

[USCG-2018-0983]

2018 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special
Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated
Navigation Areas

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notification of substantive rules
issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but
expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This
document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation
areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the
Federal Register was not possible.

DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became
effective, primarily between July 2018 to September 2018, unless
otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published
in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed
online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this document contact
Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains
of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and
security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District
Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain
local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or
environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described
by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in
motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to
vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are
issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas
and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize
changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal
vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are
water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels
navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast
Guard District Commander.
    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be
precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs
without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however,
often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press
releases, and other means. Moreover, Coast Guard patrol vessels provide
actual notification when enforcing the restrictions imposed by the
rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the
end of the effective period, mariners

were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones,
security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas
or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene
prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must
publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To
meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the
Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety
zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation
areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not
included in this list because they are published in their entirety in
the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their
entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are
placed in effect or terminated.
    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily
during the period between July 2018 to September 2018 unless otherwise
indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and
search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Docket Number                          Type                      Location           Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-2017-1017..........................  Safety Zones..............  Los Angeles, CA...........       4/25/2018
USCG-2018-0319..........................  Safety Zones..............  Pittsburgh, PA............       5/24/2018
USCG-2018-0345..........................  Safety Zones..............  San Diego, CA.............       5/27/2018
USCG-2018-0206..........................  Safety Zones..............  Main Ship Channel.........       5/30/2018
USCG-2018-0547..........................  Safety Zones..............  Chicago, IL...............       6/12/2018
USCG-2018-0418..........................  Special Local Regulations.  South Haven, MI...........       6/19/2018
USCG-2018-0640..........................  Safety Zones..............  Detroit, MI...............       6/27/2018
USCG-2018-0506..........................  Safety Zones..............  Blackslough Landing, CA...       6/30/2018
USCG-2018-0576..........................  Safety Zones..............  Hempstead, NY.............       6/30/2018
USCG-2018-0293..........................  Safety Zones..............  Baltimore County, MD......       6/30/2018
USCG-2018-0429..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Cape May, NJ..............        7/1/2018
USCG-2018-0651..........................  Safety Zones..............  Little Traverse Bay, MI...        7/1/2018
USCG-2018-0446..........................  Security Zones............  Corpus Christi, TX........        7/3/2018
USCG-2018-0370..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Christi, TX...............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0500..........................  Safety Zones..............  Panama City, FL...........        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0478..........................  Safety Zones..............  Dempolois, AL.............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0555..........................  Safety Zones..............  Shreveport, LA............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0203..........................  Safety Zones..............  Murrells Inlet, SC........        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0171..........................  Safety Zones..............  North Charleston, SC......        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0145..........................  Safety Zones..............  Charleston, SC............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0436..........................  Safety Zones..............  Myrtle Beach, SC..........        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0568..........................  Special Local Regulations.  New York, NY..............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0454..........................  Safety Zones..............  Long Island...............        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0543..........................  Safety Zones..............  Bullhead City, Arizona....        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0355..........................  Safety Zones..............  San Diego COPT Zone.......        7/4/2018
USCG-2012-1036..........................  Safety Zones..............  Port Long Island Zone.....        7/4/2018
USCG-2018-0620..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Mystic, CT................        7/8/2018
USCG-2018-0699..........................  Safety Zones..............  Huron, MI.................       7/12/2018
USCG-2018-0649..........................  Safety Zones..............  Buffalo, NY...............       7/13/2018
USCG-2018-0646..........................  Safety Zones..............  Cleveland, OH.............       7/13/2018
USCG-2018-0378..........................  Safety Zones..............  Orange, TX................       7/14/2018
USCG-2018-0690..........................  Safety Zones..............  Lake St. Clair............       7/18/2018
USCG-2018-0705..........................  Security Zones............  St. Louis, MO.............       7/19/2018
USCG-2018-0719..........................  Safety Zones..............  Delaware City, DE.........       7/21/2018
USCG-2018-0721..........................  Safety Zones..............  Clayton, NY...............       7/21/2018
USCG-2018-0545..........................  Safety Zones..............  Port Lake Michigan Zone...       7/21/2018
USCG-2018-0642..........................  Safety Zones..............  Cleveland, OH.............       7/21/2018
USCG-2018-0721..........................  Safety Zones..............  Clayton, NY...............       7/21/2018
USGC-2018-0463..........................  Safety Zones..............  Beaufort, SC..............       7/21/2018
USCG-2018-0471..........................  Special Local Regulations.  San Juan, Harbor..........       7/22/2018
USCG-2018-0726..........................  Safety Zones..............  Branson, MO...............       7/23/2018
USCG-2018-0616..........................  Safety Zones..............  Spring Valley, IL.........       7/23/2018
USCG-2018-0727..........................  Security Zones............  Louis, MO.................       7/26/2018
USCG-2018-0311..........................  Security Zones............  Louis, MO.................       7/26/2018
USCG-2018-0564..........................  Safety Zones..............  Ocean City, NJ............       7/28/2018
USCG-2018-0687..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Port Duluth Zone..........       7/28/2018
USCG-2018-0747..........................  Security Zones............  Oahu, HI..................       7/31/2018
USCG-2018-0609..........................  Safety Zones..............  Copt New York Zone........        8/3/2018
USCG-2018-0734..........................  Safety Zones..............  San Francisco, CA.........        8/4/2018
USCG-2018-0758..........................  Safety Zones..............  St. Paul, MN..............        8/8/2018
USCG-2018-0768..........................  Safety Zones..............  Steukacoom, WA............       8/10/2018
USCG-2018-0741..........................  Safety Zones..............  Bellaire, OH..............       8/11/2018
USCG-2018-0830..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Shreveport, LA............       8/11/2018
USCG-2018-0756..........................  Notices...................  Lake Michigan Zone........       8/11/2018
USCG-2018-0715..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Bullhead City, Arizona....       8/11/2018
USCG-2018-0755..........................  Safety Zones..............  Manitowoc, WI.............       8/17/2018
USCG-2018-0816..........................  Safety Zones..............  Lodi, NY..................       8/23/2018
USCG-2018-0829..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Greenville, MS............       8/24/2018
USCG-2018-0806..........................  Security Zones............  Corpus Christi, TX........       8/25/2018
USCG-2018-0766..........................  Safety Zones..............  Sinclair Inlet, WA........       8/28/2018
USCG-2018-0861..........................  Safety Zones..............  Gulf of Mexico............       8/31/2018

USCG-2012-1036..........................  Safety Zones..............  Island Park...............        9/1/2018
USCG-2018-0823..........................  Safety Zones..............  Port Michigan Zone........        9/1/2018
USCG-2018-0858..........................  Security Zones............  Annapolis, MD.............        9/2/2018
USCG-2018-0712..........................  Security Zones............  San Diego, CA.............        9/2/2018
USCG-2018-0748..........................  Safety Zones..............  Naval Base Guam...........        9/3/2018
USCG-2018-0650..........................  Safety Zones..............  San Francisco, CA.........        9/4/2018
USCG-2018-0783..........................  Safety Zones..............  Carnelian Bay, CA.........        9/7/2018
USCG-2018-0851..........................  Safety Zones..............  Pennsville, NJ............        9/8/2018
USCG-2018-0581..........................  Safety Zones..............  Hawaiian Island...........       9/10/2018
USCG-2018-0618..........................  Special Local Regulations.  San Diego, CA.............       9/14/2018
USCG-2018-0738..........................  Special Local Regulations.  San Diego, CA.............       9/14/2018
USCG-2018-0865..........................  Safety Zones..............  Sandusky, OH..............       9/15/2018
USCG-2018-0723..........................  Safety Zones..............  Philadelphia, PA..........       9/16/2018
USCG-2018-0902..........................  Safety Zones..............  Seattle, WA...............       9/19/2018
USCG-2018-0833..........................  Safety Zones..............  Chicago, IL...............       9/20/2018
USCG-2018-0892..........................  Safety Zones..............  WI, Harbor................       9/21/2018
USCG-2018-0898..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Toledo, OH................       9/22/2018
USCG-2018-0900..........................  Drawbridges...............  Seaside Heights, NJ.......       9/26/2018
USCG-2018-0802..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Hartford, CT..............       9/29/2018
USCG-2018-0897..........................  Safety Zones..............  Washington DC.............       9/30/2018
USCG-2018-0643..........................  Special Local Regulations.  Clearwater Beach, FL......       9/30/2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date: October 25, 2018.
Katia Kroutil,
Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United
States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-24539 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P