[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 4389]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1903]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Tornado Gold International Corp., Twin Faces
East Entertainment Corp., Universal Ice Blast, Inc., US Farms, Inc., US
Microbics, Inc., and Visitel Network (a/k/a PRG Group, Inc.); Order of
Suspension of Trading

January 25, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tornado Gold International Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Twin Faces East Entertainment Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Universal Ice Blast, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
US Farms, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
US Microbics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Visitel Network, Inc. (a/k/a PRG Group, Inc.) because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 1995.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on January 25, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EST on February 7, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1903 Filed 1-25-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72683-72685]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0769]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Watson Bayou, Panama City, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
navigable waters of Watson Bayou, Panama City FL, within an area bound
by the following points: 30[deg]08'17.8'' N, 85[deg]38'6.6'' W (Diamond
Point), thence northeast toward 30[deg]08'34.6'' N, 85[deg]37'55.7'' W
(Eastern Shipbuilding), thence east to the South East Avenue Bridge.
The security zone is needed to protect the official party, the public,
and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry
of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Sector Mobile Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective from 1:30 p.m. on October 27, 2023,
through 5 p.m. on November 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0769 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email MSTC Stacy Stevenson,

Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-382-
8653, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. The security
zone must be established by October 27, 2023, to mitigate potential
terrorist acts, and enhance public and maritime safety and security.
The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM due to the short period
between the time of the request for Coast Guard enforcement and the
actual event. The request for enforcement was received on September 11,
2023. Furthermore, delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
security zone's intended objectives of protecting government officials
and dignitaries, mitigating potential terrorists acts, and enhancing
maritime safety and security.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action to restrict
vessel traffic is needed to protect life and property and mitigate
potential maritime threats.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard may issue security zone regulations under authority
in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The COTP has determined that a security
zone is necessary for the protection of government officials and
dignitaries during an official visit to Watson Bayou, Panama City, FL,
in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding. This rule is needed to protect
personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the security zone.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone on certain navigable waters
of Watson Bayou, Panama City FL from 1:30 p.m. October 27, 2023,
through 5 p.m. November 27, 2023. The security zone will be enforced
from 1:30 p.m. through 5 p.m. on October 27, 2023. If the event is
delayed, the security zone will be enforcement on a subsequent date
before November 27, 2023, for approximately 3.5 hours. The duration of
the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and ensure maritime
security in these navigable waters during a visit of government
personnel and dignitaries. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This regulatory action determination is
based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the security
zone. This security zone would impact a small, designated area of
Watson Bayou, in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding, for
approximately 3.5 hours or less during a period when vessel traffic is
typically relatively slow. In addition, vessel traffic will be able to
transit Watson Bayou Channel to the west of the security zone.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We
have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone lasting only 3.5 hours that will prohibit entry on a
portion of Watson Bayou, in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0769 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0769   Security Zone; Watson Bayou, Panama City, FL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable
waters of Watson Bayou, Panama City FL, within an area bound by the
following points: 30[deg]08'17.8'' N, 85[deg]38'6.6'' W (Diamond
Point), thence northeast toward 30[deg] 08'34.6'' N, 85[deg]37'55.7'' W
(Eastern Shipbuilding), then east to the South East Avenue Bridge, and
back to the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Sector
Mobile Captain of the Port (COTP) in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative on VHF-CH 16. Those in the security zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section is effective from 1:30 p.m. on
October 27, 2023, through 5 p.m. on November 27, 2023. The security
zone will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. through 5 p.m. on October 27,
2023. If the event is delayed, the security zone will be enforcement on
a subsequent date before November 27, 2023, for approximately 3.5
hours. If the COTP determines no further need to enforce the security
zone, the COTP will issue a general permission to enter via a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to indicate that the zone will no longer be subject
to enforcement. If the COTP determines the need to enforce the section
at a subsequent time, the COTP will provide the public with notice of
enforcement of the security zone by marine broadcast, local notice to
mariners, on-scene notice by a designated representative, or other
appropriate means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: October 16, 2023.
U.S. Mullins,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2023-23318 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45422-45423]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-480-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Annova LNG
Common Infrastructure, LLC, Annova LNG Brownsville A, LLC, Annova LNG
Brownsville B, LLC, and Annova LNG Brownsville C, LLC Annova LNG
Brownsville Project

    On July 13, 2016, Annova LNG Common Infrastructure, LLC; Annova LNG
Brownsville A, LLC; Annova LNG Brownsville B, LLC; and Annova LNG
Brownsville C, LLC (collectively, Annova) filed an application in
Docket No. CP16-480-000, section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting authorization to
site, construct, and operate a natural gas liquefaction and liquefied
natural gas (LNG) export facility, located on the Brownsville Ship
Channel (BSC) in Cameron County, Texas. The proposed project is known
as the Annova LNG Brownsville Project (Project) and would receive
natural gas from a third-party pipeline, create and store LNG, and load
up to 6.95 million tonnes per annum of LNG onto carriers for export to
overseas markets. On February 20, 2014, in Order No. 3394, the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, granted to Annova a
long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to Free Trade
Agreement nations.
    On July 27, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among
other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date

of issuance of the Commission staff's final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Annova LNG Brownsville Project. This instant
notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of
the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the
draft EIS in December 2018. The forecasted schedule for both the draft
and final EIS is based upon Annova providing complete and timely
responses to any future data requests. In addition, the schedule
assumes that the cooperating agencies will provide input on their areas
of responsibility on a timely basis.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--April 19, 2019
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--July 18, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Project Description

    The proposed Project would be located on about 364 acres of an
approximately 731-acre site on the southern bank of the BSC at mile
marker 8.2. The site is owned by the Port of Brownsville and Annova has
entered into a Lease Option Agreement for possible use of the site. The
BSC has direct access to the Gulf of Mexico via the Brazos Santiago
Pass.
    The Project would include six liquefaction trains with a total
capacity of 6 million tons per year of LNG. The natural gas delivered
to the site would be treated, liquefied, and stored on site in two
single containment LNG storage tanks. The Project would include two
principal parts, the LNG facilities and associated marine facilities.
The LNG facilities would be designed to receive 0.9 billion cubic feet
per day of natural gas via a planned intrastate pipeline; treat the gas
to remove constituents that affect the cryogenic process; liquefy the
gas; and store the LNG in storage tanks prior to loading for shipment
to overseas markets. The marine facilities would allow access to the
site and LNG loading onto LNG carriers.

Background

    On March 27, 2015, the Commission staff granted Annova's request to
use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the
Annova LNG Brownsville Project Docket No. PF15-15-000. On July 23,
2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Annova LNG Brownsville
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting (NOI).
    The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in
Docket No. PF15-15-000 and was sent to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes and
regional organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping
include: The purpose and need for the Project; impacts on recreational
areas and users; impacts on the socioeconomic conditions of the area;
impacts on wildlife, wetlands, and vegetation; and impacts on sensitive
areas such as the Bahia Grande wetland restoration area and the Padre
Island Seashore.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Department
of Transportation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; National Park Service; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; Federal
Aviation Administration; and U.S. Department of Energy are cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-480), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19399 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3625-3628]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93989; File No. SR-BX-2022-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the BX
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2

January 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 3, 2022, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the BX Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 2, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the BX Pricing
Schedule at Options 7, Section 2.

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Increase the Taker Fees in
Penny Symbols for all market participants except Customers \4\ from
$0.46 to $0.50 per contract, (2) increase the Customer Taker Fee in SPY
from $0.26 to $0.31 per contract, and (3) remove the higher Maker
Rebate of $0.42 per contract currently offered to Lead Market Makers
\5\ and Market Makers \6\ for IWM, GLD, SLV, and TSLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \5\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' or (``LMM'') applies to a
registered BX Options Market Maker that is approved pursuant to
Options 2, Section 3 to be the LMM in an options class (options
classes).
    \6\ The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to Options 2, Section 1, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to Options 2, Section 9. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penny Taker Fee
    Today, the Exchange charges LMM, Market Maker, Non-Customer,\7\
Firm,\8\ and Customer orders in Penny Symbols a Taker Fee of $0.46 per
contract. For Customer orders in SPY, the Exchange charges a reduced
Taker Fee of $0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Non-Customer'' shall include a Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market Maker.
    \8\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the Penny Taker Fees for all
market participants except Customers from $0.46 to $0.50 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the Customer Taker Fee in SPY
from $0.26 to $0.31 per contract.
Penny Maker Rebate
    The Exchange currently offers LMMs and Market Makers a Maker Rebate
in Penny Symbols that is $0.29 per contract (LMMs) and $0.25 per
contract (Market Makers). For AAPL, IWM, GLD, QQQ, SLV, and TSLA, both
LMMs and Market Makers are currently offered a higher Maker Rebate of
$0.42 per contract.
    The Exchange now proposes to remove IWM, GLD, SLV, and TSLA from
the list of Penny Symbols eligible to receive the higher $0.42 per
contract Maker Rebate. While the Exchange will no longer offer the
higher rebate for IWM, GLD, SLV, and TSLA, Participants will still
receive the Penny Maker Rebate in these Penny Symbols, albeit at a
lower rate of $0.29 per contract (for LMMs) and $0.25 per contract (for
Market Makers). Furthermore, LMMs and Market Makers will continue to be
provided the higher $0.42 Maker Rebate for AAPL and QQQ orders under
this proposal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Penny Taker Fee
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Penny Taker
Fees for all market participants except Customers from $0.46 to $0.50
per contract is reasonable. While the Penny Taker Fees are increasing
in this manner, the Exchange believes that its fees remain competitive
with other options exchanges.\13\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fees will continue to attract order flow to BX to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange further believes that
increasing the Penny Taker Fees from $0.46 to $0.50 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes
will apply uniformly to all similarly situated Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'') currently charges
all market participants except Priority Customers a Penny Taker Fee
of $0.50 per contract. See MRX Options 7, Section 3. In addition,
NYSE Arca Options similarly charges all market participants except
Customers a take liquidity fee in Penny Issues of $0.50 per
contract. See NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, Transaction Fee
for Electronic Executions--Per Contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Customer
Taker Fee in SPY from $0.26 to $0.31 per contract is reasonable. While
the Customer Taker Fee in SPY is increasing, Customers will continue to
receive favorable pricing compared to all other market participants on
BX. In particular, no other market participants except Customers are
currently eligible to receive this reduced Taker Fee in SPY. These
market participants are instead assessed the Penny Taker Fee of $0.46
per contract today (which is increasing to $0.50 per contract under
this proposal). The Exchange believes that offering the reduced Taker
Fee in

SPY of $0.31 per contract to Customers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed pricing will apply uniformly to all
similarly situated Participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities which attracts
market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads and may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Penny Maker Rebate
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove IWM, GLD, SLV,
and TSLA from the list of Penny Symbols eligible to receive the higher
$0.42 per contract Maker Rebate is reasonable. While the Exchange will
no longer offer the higher rebate, Participants will still receive a
Maker Rebate in these Penny Symbols, albeit at a lower rate of $0.29
per contract (for LMMs) and $0.25 per contract (for Market Makers).
Other than the $0.30 Penny Maker Rebate currently provided to
Customers, these are still the highest Penny Maker Rebates provided to
market participants today.\14\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
its rebate program for Penny Symbols will remain attractive for LMMs
and Market Makers, and will continue to attract order flow to BX to the
benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As a comparison, Non-Customers and Firms are currently
provided a Penny Maker Rebate of $0.12 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as the changes will apply uniformly to all
similarly situated Participants. With the proposed changes, the
Exchange will still provide LMMs and Market Makers some of the highest
Penny Maker Rebates in IWM, GLD, SLV, and TSLA compared to other market
participants.\15\ Further, the Exchange believes that offering more
favorable pricing for LMMs and Market Makers is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Unlike other market participants, LMMs and
Market Makers add value through continuous quoting and the commitment
of capital. As it relates to the higher Penny Maker Rebate provided to
LMMs compared to Market Makers, the Exchange believes that this
differentiation is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory given that
LMMs are subject to heightened quoting obligations compared to Market
Makers.\16\ The higher rebate therefore recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by LMMs. Overall, the Exchange believes that incentivizing
both LMMs and Market Makers to provide greater liquidity benefits all
market participants through the quality of order interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 13 with accompanying text.
    \16\ See Options 2, Section 4(j) (setting forth the 90% or
higher quoting obligations for LMMs) and Section 5(d) (setting forth
the 60% or higher quoting obligations for Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    In terms of intra-market competition, all pricing would be
uniformly assessed to similarly situated market participants. Customers
will continue to receive favorable pricing as compared to other market
participants because Customer liquidity enhances market quality on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities, which benefits all
market participants. Furthermore, the proposed changes to the Penny
Maker Rebate program for LMMs and Market Makers are designed to
incentivize these market participants to provide greater liquidity,
which benefits all market participants through the quality of order
interaction.
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange believes that
with the proposed changes, its pricing remains competitive with other
options markets and will offer market participants with another choice
of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Participants or competing
order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2022-001 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-2022-001. 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 the Exchange. 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-BX-
2022-001, and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01221 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19135]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Special
Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on February 6, 2018. The FAA will use the information it
collects and reviews to monitor compliance with the regulations
regarding air tours in the Grand Canyon National Park.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0653.
    Title: Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon
National Park.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on February 6, 2018 (83 FR 5291). Each operator seeking
to obtain or in possession of an air carrier operating certificate must
comply with the requirements of 14 CFR part 135 or part 121, as
appropriate. Each of these operators conducting air tours in the Grand
Canyon National Park must additionally comply with the collection
requirements for that airspace. The FAA will use the information it
collects and reviews to monitor compliance with the regulations and, if
necessary, take enforcement action against violators of the
regulations. No comments were received.
    Respondents: 12.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 36 hours.
    Public comments invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 24, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-09100 Filed 4-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


December 22, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Revisions to Clarify the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating Permits Programs FROM: Jeffrey R. Holmstead Assistant Administrator ( 6101A)

TO: Jessica Furey Associate Administrator Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation ( 1806A)

The attached Final Rule titled " Revisions to Clarify the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating Permits Programs" was developed as a Tier 3 regulatory action. OMB requested review of two previously published actions closely related to these actions, thus these actions are also " significant" under Executive Order 12866, however, there are not economically significant. Please submit this package for review by OMB under Executive Order 12866 and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Attachment


46. In Sec.  192.603, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.603  General provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) The Associate Administrator or the State Agency that has
submitted a current certification under the pipeline safety laws, (49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by
an operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity
for hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.206 or the relevant State
procedures, require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as
necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.

PART 193--LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES: FEDERAL SAFETY
STANDARDS

0
47. The authority citation for Part 193 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

0
48. In Sec.  193.2017, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  193.2017  Plans and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) The Associate Administrator or the State Agency that has
submitted a current certification under section 5(a) of the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act with respect to the pipeline facility governed by
an operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity
for hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.206 or the relevant State
procedures, require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as
necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.
* * * * *

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
49. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60116, 60118,
and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.

0
50. In Sec.  195.402, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.402  Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.

* * * * *
    (b) The Associate Administrator or the State Agency that has
submitted a current certification under the pipeline safety laws (49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by
an operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity
for hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.206 or the relevant State
procedures, require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as
necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.
* * * * *

PART 199--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING

0
51. The authority citation for Part 199 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and 60118; 49
CFR 1.53.

0
52. In Sec.  199.101, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  199.101  Anti-drug plan.

* * * * *
    (b) The Associate Administrator or the State Agency that has
submitted a current certification under the pipeline safety laws (49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by
an operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity
for hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.206 or the relevant State
procedures, require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as
necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2013, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.97(a).
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23047 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P