[Federal Register: December 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67812-67815]
[DOCID:fr21de09-5]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release No. 33-9087; File No. S7-23-09]
RIN 3235-AK44

Extension of Filing Accommodation for Static Pool Information in
Filings With Respect to Asset-Backed Securities

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting an amendment to Rule 312 of
Regulation S-T to extend its application for one year. Rule 312
provides a temporary filing accommodation for filings with respect to
asset-backed securities that allows static pool information required to
be disclosed in a prospectus to be provided on an Internet Web site
under certain conditions. Under the rule, such information is deemed to
be included in the prospectus included in the registration statement
for the asset-backed securities. As a result of the extension, the rule
will apply to filings with respect to asset-backed securities filed on
or before December 31, 2010.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment is effective December 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Harrington, Attorney-Adviser,
Division of Corporation Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adopting an amendment to Rule 312 \1\
of Regulation S-T.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 232.312.
    \2\ 17 CFR 232.10 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background and Discussion of the Amendment

    In December, 2004, we adopted new and amended rules and forms to
address the registration, disclosure and reporting requirements for
asset-backed securities (``ABS'') under the Securities Act of 1933 \3\
(the ``Securities Act'') and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \4\
(the ``Exchange Act'').\5\ As part of this rulemaking, we adopted
Regulation AB,\6\ a new principles-based set of disclosure items
forming the basis for disclosure with respect to ABS in both Securities
Act registration statements and Exchange Act reports. Compliance with
the revised rules was phased in; full compliance with the revised rules
became effective January 1, 2006. One of the significant features of
Regulation AB is Item 1105, which requires, to the extent material,
static pool information to be provided in the prospectus included in
registration statements for ABS offerings.\7\ While the disclosure
required by Item 1105 depends on factors such as the type of underlying
asset and materiality, the information required to be disclosed can be
extensive. For example, a registrant may be required to disclose
multiple performance metrics in periodic increments for prior
securitized pools of the sponsor for the same asset type in the last
five years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \5\ See Asset-Backed Securities, Release No. 33-8518 (December
22, 2004) [70 FR 1506] (adopting release related to Regulation AB
and other new rules and forms related to asset-backed securities)
(hereinafter, the ``2004 Adopting Release'').
    \6\ 17 CFR 229.1100 et seq.
    \7\ See Form S-1 and Form S-3 under the Securities Act. Static
pool information indicates how groups, or static pools, of assets,
such as those originated at different intervals, are performing over
time. By presenting comparisons between originations at similar
points in the assets' lives, the data allows the detection of
patterns that may not be evident from overall portfolio numbers and
thus may reveal a more informative picture of material elements of
portfolio performance and risk.
    \8\ 17 CFR 229.1105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the 2004 Adopting Release, in response to the
Commission's proposal to require material static pool information in
prospectuses for ABS offerings, many commenters representing both ABS
issuers and investors requested flexibility in the presentation of such
information. In particular, commenters noted that the required static
pool information could include a significant amount of statistical
information that would be difficult to file electronically on EDGAR as
it existed at that time and difficult for investors to use in that
format. Commenters accordingly requested the flexibility for ABS
issuers to provide static pool information on an Internet Web site
rather than as part of an EDGAR filing.\9\ In response to these
comments, we adopted Rule 312 of Regulation S-T, which permits, but
does not require, the posting of the static pool information required
by Item 1105 on an Internet Web site under the

conditions set forth in the rule.\10\ We recognized at the time that a
Web-based approach might allow for the provision of the required
information in a more efficient, dynamic and useful format than was
currently feasible on the EDGAR system. At the same time, we explained
that we continued to believe at some point for future transactions the
information should also be submitted with the Commission in some
fashion, provided investors continue to receive the information in the
form they have requested. Accordingly, we adopted Rule 312 as a
temporary filing accommodation applicable to filings filed on or before
December 31, 2009.\11\ We explained that we were directing our staff to
consult with the EDGAR contractor, EDGAR filing agents, issuers,
investors and other market participants to consider how static pool
information could be filed with the Commission in a cost-effective
manner without undue burden or expense that still allows issuers to
provide the information in a desirable format. We also noted, however,
that it might be necessary, among other things, to extend the
accommodation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 2004 Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.
    \10\ 17 CFR 232.312(a). Instead of relying on Rule 312, an
issuer can include information required by Item 1105 of Regulation
AB physically in the prospectus or, if permitted, through
incorporation by reference from an Exchange Act report.
    \11\ 17 CFR 232.312(a); see also 2004 Adopting Release, Section
III.B.4.b.
    \12\ 2004 Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2009, we published for public comment \13\ a proposed
amendment to extend the temporary filing accommodation set forth in
Rule 312 of Regulation S-T for one year so that it would apply to
filings with respect to ABS filed on or before December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Extension of Filing Accommodation for Static Pool
Information in Filings With Respect to Asset-Backed Securities,
Release No. 33-9074 (October 19, 2009) [74 FR 54767] (hereinafter,
the ``Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received three comment letters that addressed the proposed
extension.\14\ Two commenters expressed support for the Rule 312 filing
accommodation and the proposed extension.\15\ The ASF cited the strong
preference among both its issuer and investor members for Web-based
presentation of static pool information due to its efficiency, utility
and effectiveness and the current lack of an adequate filing
alternative.\16\ The ABA Committees expressed their belief that the
accommodation has been highly successful and of great value to
investors.\17\ Neither the ASF nor the ABA Committees was aware of any
difficulties that investors or other market participants had locating,
accessing, viewing or analyzing static pool information disclosed on a
Web site.\18\ For these reasons, among others, both the ASF and the ABA
Committees requested that the filing accommodation be made permanent
or, in the alternative, extended for a longer period of time.\19\ One
commenter, in contrast, did not support the extension and suggested the
Commission should require structured disclosure using an industry
standard computer language.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The public comments we received are available online at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-23-09/s72309.shtml.
    \15\ See letters from the American Securitization Forum (the
``ASF'') and the Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities and
the Committee on Securitization and Structured Finance of the
Section of Business Law of the American Bar Association (the ``ABA
Committees'').
    \16\ See letter from ASF.
    \17\ See letter from ABA Committees.
    \18\ See letters from ASF and ABA Committees.
    \19\ Id. The ASF requested a five-year extension if the rule
could not be made permanent and the ABA Committees requested an 18
to 24 month extension in such a case. Both the ASF and the ABA
Committees expressed the belief that a permanent or longer extension
would encourage continued use of the Web-based presentation by
providing more of an incentive for issuers to make investments in
developing and innovating Web sites for static pool disclosure. A
longer extension would also, the ASF noted, give the Commission
adequate time to consider alternatives.
    \20\ See letter from Paul Wilkinson. If the alternate approach
supported by Mr. Wilkinson could not be implemented by January 1,
2010, he recommended that any extension only last until the
alternate approach could be implemented. As discussed more fully
below, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is in the
process of exploring the feasibility of a filing mechanism for
static pool information that would allow the information to be filed
with the Commission in an efficient and useful manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are adopting as proposed a one-year extension to the temporary
filing accommodation provided by Rule 312. Based on the staff's
experience since Rule 312 became effective in 2006, the vast majority
of residential mortgage-backed security issuers and a significant
portion of ABS issuers in other asset classes have relied on the
accommodation provided by the rule to disclose static pool information
on an Internet Web site. Furthermore, we believe that it remains the
case that it could be difficult to file the information electronically
on EDGAR as it exists today and difficult for investors to use in that
format.
    During the extension, the existing requirements of Rule 312 will
continue to apply. Pursuant to these requirements, the registrant must
disclose its intention to provide static pool information through a Web
site in the prospectus included in the registration statement at the
time of effectiveness and provide the specific Internet address where
the static pool information is posted in the prospectus filed pursuant
to Rule 424.\21\ The registrant must maintain such information on the
Web site unrestricted and free of charge for a period of not less than
five years, indicate the date of any updates or changes to the
information, undertake to provide any person without charge, upon
request, a copy of the information as of the date of the prospectus if
a subsequent update or change is made to the information and retain all
versions of the information provided on the Web site for a period of
not less than five years in a form that permits delivery to an investor
or the Commission. In addition, the registration statement for the ABS
must contain an undertaking pursuant to Item 512(l) of Regulation S-K
\22\ that the information provided on the Web site pursuant to Rule 312
is deemed to be part of the prospectus included in the registration
statement.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 230.424.
    \22\ 17 CFR 229.512(l).
    \23\ 17 CFR 232.312. As we indicated in the 2004 Adopting
Release, if the conditions of Rule 312 are satisfied, then the
information will be deemed to be part of the prospectus included in
the registration statement and thus subject to all liability
provisions applicable to prospectuses and registration statements,
including Section 11 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77k]. 2004
Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we noted in the Proposing Release, since the adoption of Rule
312 in December, 2004, technological advances and expanded use of the
Internet have enabled the Commission to adopt additional rules
incorporating electronic communications. The Commission continues to
recognize that, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions,
the Internet can present a reliable and cost-effective alternative or
supplement to traditional disclosure methods.\24\ On the other hand, we
are mindful of the benefit of having information filed on the EDGAR
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Internet Availability of Proxy Materials,
Release No. 34-55146 (Jan. 22, 2007) [72 FR 4148] (adopting release
for voluntary E-Proxy rules) and Internet Availability of Proxy
Materials, Release No. 34-52926 (December 8, 2005) [70 FR 74598]
(proposing release for voluntary E-Proxy rules). See also Enhanced
Disclosure and New Prospectus Delivery Option for Registered Open-
End Management Investment Companies, Release No. 33-8998, Section
III.A.4.c (Jan. 13, 2009) [74 FR 4546] (adopting Item 11(g)(2) of
Form N-1A under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-1
et seq.] which allows exchange-traded funds to provide premium/
discount information on a Web site rather than in a prospectus or
annual report) and Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591,
Section VI.B.1 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722] (adopting ``access
equals delivery'' model for final prospectus delivery).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we noted in the Proposing Release, the staff of the Division of
Corporation Finance is currently engaged in a broad

review of the Commission's regulation of ABS including disclosure,
offering process, and reporting of ABS issuers. Along with this review,
the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is continuing to
explore whether a filing mechanism for static pool information that
fulfills the objectives identified above is feasible. Although we note
the two commenters' requests that we make the filing accommodation
permanent or extend it for a longer period of time as well as the other
commenter's request that we immediately move to provide for structured
disclosure using an industry standard computer language, we continue to
believe a proposal for a longer-term solution for providing static pool
disclosure would be better considered together with other possible
proposals to revise the regulations governing the offer and sale of
ABS. The one-year extension of Rule 312 that we are adopting today is
intended to provide time to enable us to proceed in this manner.
    The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires that an agency
publish an adopted rule in the Federal Register 30 days before it
becomes effective. This requirement, however, does not apply if the
agency finds good cause for making the rule effective sooner.\25\
Because the temporary filing accommodation expires on December 31,
2009, we believe it is necessary to make the amendment effective
December 31st so that there is no gap between which an issuer would be
required to convert its static pool data into an EDGAR filing. In
addition, this extension creates no new requirements but maintains a
voluntary accommodation that relieves a registrant from the obligation
to file static pool data on EDGAR, provided it makes the information
available on a Web site. The Commission therefore believes the
extension grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds good cause to make
the amendment effective December 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Rule 312 of Regulation S-T was adopted in 2004 along with other new
and amended rules and forms to address the registration, disclosure and
reporting requirements for ABS under the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act. In connection with this prior rulemaking, we submitted a
request for approval of the ``collection of information'' requirements
contained in the amendments and rules to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(``PRA'').\26\ OMB approved these requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \27\ The collections of information to which Rule 312 of
Regulation S-T relates are ``Form S-1'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0065)
and ``Form S-3'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Item 1105 of Regulation AB \28\ requires certain static pool
information, to the extent material, to be provided in prospectuses
included in registration statements for ABS offerings.\29\ Rule 312 is
a temporary filing accommodation that permits the posting of the static
pool information required by Item 1105 on an Internet Web site under
the conditions set forth in the rule.\30\ The amendment to Rule 312
extends the existing temporary filing accommodation provided by the
rule for one additional year. As is the case today, issuers may choose
whether or not to take advantage of the accommodation during the
extension. The conditions of Rule 312 remain otherwise unchanged. The
disclosure requirements themselves, which are contained in Forms S-1
and S-3 under the Securities Act and require the provision of the
information set forth in Item 1105 of Regulation AB, also remain
unchanged. Therefore, the amendment will not result in an increase or
decrease in the costs and burdens imposed by the ``collection of
information'' requirements previously approved by the OMB. No commenter
suggested the extension would impose any new paperwork burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 229.1105.
    \29\ See Form S-1 and Form S-3 under the Securities Act.
    \30\ 17 CFR 232.312(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    In this section, we examine the benefits and costs of the
amendment. In the Proposing Release, we requested that commenters
provide views, supporting information and estimates on the benefits and
costs that may result from the adoption of the proposed amendment. No
commenter addressed the cost-benefit analysis of the Proposing Release.

A. Benefits

    We initially adopted the filing accommodation provided by Rule 312
of Regulation S-T because commenters requested flexibility in the
presentation of required static pool information.\31\ Given the large
amount of statistical information involved, those commenters argued for
a Web-based approach that would allow issuers to present the
information in an efficient manner and with greater functionality and
utility than might be available if an EDGAR filing was required.\32\ We
believe this greater functionality and utility has enhanced an
investor's ability to access and analyze the static pool information
and also removed the burden on issuers of duplicating the information
in each prospectus as well as easing the burdens of updating such
information.\33\ As we discussed in the 2004 Adopting Release, since
the information is deemed to be part of the prospectus included in the
registration statement, the rule is designed to give investors access
to accurate and reliable information.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 2004 Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ See Section I above and 2004 Adopting Release, Section V.D.
    \34\ See 2004 Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By extending the accommodation provided by Rule 312, these benefits
to both issuers and investors will continue to apply. As discussed
above, many ABS issuers rely on Rule 312 to provide static pool
information on an Internet Web site rather than in an EDGAR filing.\35\
We proposed the one-year extension of Rule 312 because we do not
believe we can implement an alternative filing mechanism by the end of
2009 that would meet the objectives of both issuers and investors to
present static pool information in an efficient, cost-effective form
that would provide investors utility and functionality in terms of
accessing and analyzing that information. Therefore, if we did not
amend Rule 312 to extend its application as we are doing today, static
pool information would have been required in EDGAR filings beginning on
January 1, 2010. We believe this would have resulted in costs for
issuers as they attempt to adjust their procedures in a short period of
time in order to present the information in a format acceptable to the
EDGAR system and could have resulted in costs to investors if the
information filed on EDGAR was presented in a less useful format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Section I above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By extending Rule 312, we seek to avoid these potentially negative
effects for issuers and investors as we continue to explore the best
format in which to require the filing of static pool information. As
indicated above, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is
considering this issue along with other proposals addressing the
disclosure, offering process and reporting of ABS issuers.

B. Costs

    We do not believe the one-year extension of the Rule 312

accommodation will impose any new or increased costs on issuers. In the
Cost-Benefit Analysis section of the 2004 Adopting Release, we noted
that ABS issuers electing the Web-based accommodation provided by Rule
312 would incur costs related to the maintenance and retention of
static pool information posted on a Web site and might also incur
start-up costs.\36\ While it is likely that certain of those costs will
continue to impact ABS issuers that elect the Web-based approach during
the extension period, we do not believe the amendment will impose any
new or increased costs for ABS issuers because it does not change any
other conditions to the accommodation or the underlying filing and
disclosure obligations. As a result of the extension of the
accommodation, ABS issuers will be able to continue their current
practices for an additional year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 2004 Adopting Release, Section V.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For investors, there may be costs associated with the static pool
information not being electronically filed with the Commission. For
example, when information is electronically filed with the Commission,
investors and staff can access the information from a single,
centralized location, the EDGAR Web site. We think these costs are
mitigated by the fact that ABS issuers relying on the Rule 312
accommodation must ensure that the prospectus for the offering contains
the Internet Web site address where the static pool information is
posted, the Web site must be unrestricted and free of charge, such
information must remain on the Internet Web site for five years with
any changes clearly indicated and the issuer must undertake to provide
the information to any person free of charge, upon request, if a
subsequent update or change is made. Furthermore, because the
information is deemed included in the prospectus under Rule 312, it is
subject to all liability provisions applicable to prospectuses and
registration statements.
    Investors and issuers may have incurred costs to adjust their
processes in anticipation of the lapse of the Rule 312 accommodation
and potential reversion to a requirement to file static pool
information on EDGAR. In this case, benefits to investors or issuers of
not having to change their procedures regarding static pool reporting
in a short time frame would be diminished by any costs already incurred
in anticipation of the change. We believe such anticipatory action and
any associated costs are minimal.

IV. Consideration of Impact on the Economy, Burden on Competition, and
Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    Section 2(b) of the Securities Act requires us, when engaging in
rulemaking where we are required to consider or determine whether an
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to also
consider whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and
capital formation.
    As discussed in greater detail above, Rule 312 of Regulation S-T
was adopted as a temporary filing accommodation so that issuers of ABS
could present static pool information on an Internet Web site. The
amendment to Rule 312 of Regulation S-T that we are adopting today
extends its application for one year. We are not changing the
conditions of Rule 312 or the disclosure obligations to which it
applies. We do not believe that the one-year extension will impose a
burden on competition. We also believe the extension of the filing
accommodation will continue to promote efficiency and capital formation
by permitting ABS issuers to disclose static pool information in a
format that is more useful to investors and cost-effective and not
unduly burdensome for ABS issuers.
    We requested comment on whether the proposed amendment, if adopted,
would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. We did
not receive any comments directly responding to this request.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification

    In Part VI of the Proposing Release, the Commission certified
pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \37\ that
the proposed amendment to Rule 312 of Regulation S-T would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While the Commission encouraged written comments regarding this
certification, no commenters responded to this request or indicated
that the amendment as adopted would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory Authority and Text of the Final Amendment

    The amendment described is being adopted under the authority set
forth in Sections 6, 7, 10, 19 and 28 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77j, 77s, and 77z-3).

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 232

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendment

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission hereby amends
title 17, chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),
80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.
* * * * *

Sec.  232.312  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  232.312 by removing ``December 31, 2009'' and in its
place adding ``December 31, 2010'' in the first sentence of paragraph
(a).

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 15, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30185 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66813-66815]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0895]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Temporary Change to Date and Location for Recurring
Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks Display Within the Eighth Coast Guard
District, Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the enforcement period
and location for a recurring fireworks display within the Eighth Coast
Guard District. This regulation applies to only one recurring fireworks
display event that takes place in Pittsburgh, PA. This action is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display.

DATES: In Sec.  165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 67 is
effective from September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017. In Sec.
165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 59 is suspended from
September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0895 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh,
U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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 fireworks displays on or over the
navigable waterway poses safety concerns for waterway users. In this
case, the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled, ``Sector Ohio Valley
Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update'' in which it proposed to
amend and update its safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first
table to Sec.  165.801 relating to recurring fireworks shows and other
events within the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of
responsibility. The NPRM published on March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11706), and
no comments were received. A final rule was published, entitled,
``Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update'' on June
14, 2016 finalizing the recurring safety zones listed in 33 CFR
165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801 (81 FR 38595).
    On August 25, 2016, the Coast Guard discovered the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 59
for the Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks, Pittsburgh, PA has been changed
to extend through February 2017, instead of January 2017, and the
location has been changed from Ohio River, Mile 0.3-Allegheny River,
Mile 0.2 to Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.3 and
Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1.
    After receiving and fully reviewing the event information,
circumstances, and exact location, the Coast Guard determined that it
is impracticable to publish an NPRM for the date and location changes
because we must establish this safety zone on the date of publication
of this rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule is contrary to the public interest as immediate
action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property
during the hazards created by a barge-based fireworks display near and
over the navigable waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that a
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks
display. For the 2016-2017 Pittsburgh Steelers football season, the
Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in 33 CFR
165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 59. Instead, by this
rule, the Coast Guard will create a separate temporary rule in Sec.
165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 67 in order to reflect
the correct dates and locations for the 2016-2017 Pittsburgh Steelers'
football season fireworks display events. This change is needed to
accommodate the change in date and location of Pittsburgh Steelers
Fireworks. No other portion of the Sec.  165.801, the first table to
Sec.  165.801or other provisions in Sec.  165.801 are affected by this
regulation.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is temporarily suspending the regulation listed in
33 CFR 165.801, the first table to Sec.  165.801, entry 59 and adding
temporary regulation in Table to Sec.  165.801, entry 67 in order to
reflect the correct dates and locations for this year's events. This
change is needed to accommodate the change in date and location of
Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks. No other portion of the first table to
Sec.  165.801 or other provisions in Sec.  165.801 shall be affected by
this regulation. Entry 59 establishes the safety zone on Sunday,
Monday, or Thursday from September through January at Ohio River, Mile
0.3-Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 (Pennsylvania).
    This regulation temporarily changes the enforcement period from
September through January to August through February, and the location
from Ohio River, Mile 0.3-Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 (Pennsylvania) to
Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela
River mile 0.0-0.1. The duration of the safety zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created from a barge-based firework display. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime
community will be provided advance notification via the Local Notice to
Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a
small portion of the waterway for a limited duration of less than two
hours in the evening. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety
zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue broadcast notices to mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit 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
safety 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
contact 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or
    Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 safety zone lasting less then two hours that will
prohibit entry to the Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile
0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1 during the barge-based firework
event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An 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 rule.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 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. In Sec.  165.801, in the first table:
0
a. From September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017, suspend entry
``59''.
0
b. From September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017, add entry ``67''.

    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  165.801   Annual fireworks displays and other events in the
Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                     Sponsor/name               Location                  Safety zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
67. Sunday, Monday or Thursday      Pittsburgh Steelers/  Pittsburgh, PA...........  Allegheny River mile 0.0-
 from August through February.       Pittsburgh Steelers                              0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-
                                     Fireworks.                                       0.3 and Monongahela River
                                                                                mile 0.0-0.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

L. Mcclain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2016-23522 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29106-29108]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74970; File No. SR-ISE-2015-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees To Introduce a New ``Retail''
Designation for Priority Customer Orders

May 14, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 29, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a new
``Retail'' designation for Priority Customer orders. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a
new ``Retail'' designation for Priority Customer orders. A ``Priority
Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s), as defined in Rule 100(a)(37A). This market participant
type is one of six currently recognized for purposes of determining
applicable fees and rebates, along with: Market Maker,\3\ Non-ISE
Market Maker,\4\ Firm Proprietary,\5\ Broker-Dealer,\6\ and
Professional Customer.\7\ The Priority Customer designation was adopted
by the Exchange to provide competitive pricing and market structure
advantages to retail investors, and to level the playing field between
retail investors and market professionals. As such, Priority Customer
orders executed on the Exchange are generally afforded more favorable
fees and rebates than other market participants, including Professional
Customers. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to
introduce a further distinction between

market participants that fall within the definition of Priority
Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Rule
100(a)(25).
    \4\ A ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as defined in
Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
See Schedule of Fees, Preface.
    \5\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. See Schedule of Fees,
Preface.
    \6\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
See Schedule of Fees, Preface.
    \7\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See Schedule of
Fees, Preface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange proposes to introduce a new ``Retail''
designation for Priority Customer orders for the purpose of determining
applicable fees and rebates. As proposed, a Retail order is a Priority
Customer order that originates from a natural person, provided that no
change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side
of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology. The proposed definition of a Retail
order is designed to mirror a similar concept introduced by the New
York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex (``Amex''), and other
equities exchanges to promote price improvement for orders submitted by
retail investors.\8\ The proposed rule change, however, is intended to
provide benefits to retail options investors in the form of more
favorable pricing rather than market structure changes.\9\ While the
Exchange is not amending fees and rebates applicable to Priority
Customer orders that are designated Retail at this time, the Exchange
intends to introduce special fees and rebates for Retail orders at a
later date, such that Retail orders will potentially be entitled to the
most favorable fees and rebates available on the Exchange. Until such
time, Retail orders will be charged the same fees and provided the same
rebates as other Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-
2011-84) (Approval Order). See also NYSE and Amex Rule 107C(a)(3).
    NYSE and Amex define a ``Retail Order'' as an agency order or a
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule
5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to
the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no
change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or
side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
    \9\ In addition, the Exchange notes that unlike the related
equities programs, all members will be eligible to mark orders as
Retail provided that the orders meet the requirements discussed
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\11\ because is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to
potentially offer more favorable fees and rebates to Retail orders that
originate from natural persons. Currently, the Exchange distinguishes
between orders executed for two categories of Public Customer: \12\
Priority and Professional Customers. Priority Customers are
distinguished from Professional Customers by the requirement that they
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). Because of
this limitation, Priority Customer orders are generally afforded more
favorable fees and rebates than market professionals, including
Professional Customers. The Exchange now believes that it is
appropriate to distinguish further between orders that originate from a
natural person (i.e., Retail orders) and other Priority Customer
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Public Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Rule 100(a)(38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The equities markets already provide benefits to order flow that
originates from a natural person and not a trading algorithm or any
other computerized methodology. The Exchange believes that the proposed
definition of a Retail order is appropriate as it is substantially
similar to the definition already used in the equities context, and is
therefore already familiar to market participants. The Exchange notes,
however, that unlike equities exchanges such as NYSE and Amex, it is
not proposing any market structure changes at this time to accompany
the introduction of a Retail designation for Priority Customer orders.
All Priority Customer orders will continue to benefit from the current
market structure benefits that they receive on the Exchange. In
addition, Priority Customer orders other than Retail orders will
continue to benefit from pricing that is generally more favorable than
pricing adopted for Professional Customer and non-Customer orders.
    By adopting a definition of Retail order, the Exchange hopes to be
able to offer potentially more favorable fees and rebates to retail
investors. The Exchange believes that this will advance the goals
identified when the Exchange first introduced the Priority Customer
designation, by providing genuine retail investors with the best prices
available on the Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the
fees and rebates for Retail orders will initially be the same as fees
and rebates for other Priority Customer orders; however, the Exchange
will introduce additional pricing advantages for Retail orders at a
later date pursuant to a proposed rule change filed with the
Commission.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes the proposed Retail designation is an innovative
change that evidences strong competition between options markets. In
particular, the proposed rule change is designed to allow the Exchange
to potentially offer the most favorable fees and rebates available to
Retail orders that originate from natural persons. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \15\
because the foregoing 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. The Exchange provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2015-14 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 No. SR-ISE-2015-14. 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 changes 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 ISE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2015-14 and should be
submitted on or before June 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12149 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 50952-50954]
[DOCID:fr28au06-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54336; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases
the Standard Position and Exercise Limits for Certain Options Traded on
the Exchange

August 18, 2006.
    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 August 9, 2006, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which
renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The CBOE proposes to extend an existing pilot program that
increases the standard position and exercise limits for certain options
traded on the Exchange (``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the CBOE's Web site (http://www.cboe.com),

at the CBOE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE 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 Pilot Program, as previously approved by the Commission,
provides for an increase to the standard position and exercise limits
for equity option contracts and for options on QQQQs for a six-month
period.\5\ Specifically, the Pilot Program increased the applicable
position and exercise limits for equity options and options on the QQQQ
in accordance with the following levels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Pilot Program was approved by the Commission on February
23, 2005. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51244 (February
23, 2005), 70 FR 10010 (March 1, 2005) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2003-30, as amended) (``Pilot Program Order''). The Pilot Program
has been extended twice and is due to expire on September 1, 2006.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52262 (August 15, 2005), 70
FR 48995 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2005-61); and 53348 (February 22, 2006), 71
FR 10574 (March 1, 2006) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2006-11).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Pilot program equity option
 Current equity option contract limit \6\         contract limit\*\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13,500 contracts..........................  25,000 contracts.
22,500 contracts..........................  50,000 contracts.
31,500 contracts..........................  75,000 contracts.
60,000 contracts..........................  200,000 contracts.
75,000 contracts..........................  250,000 contracts.
\*\Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Pilot program QQQQ option
    Current QQQQ option contract limit             contract limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
300,000 contracts.........................  900,000 contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program for an additional six-month period, through March 1, 2007. The
Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program for six months is
warranted due to the positive feedback from members and for the reasons
cited in the original rule filing that proposed the adoption of the
Pilot Program.\6\ Also, the Exchange has not encountered any problems
or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. For
these reasons, the Exchange requests that the Commission extend the
Pilot Program for the aforementioned additional period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Pilot Program Order, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements provided under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CBOE-2006-69 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-69. 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. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-CBOE-2006-69 and should be submitted on or before September
18, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14195 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 17)]
[
Notices]
[Page 4666-4667]
[DOCID:fr25ja08-152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Availability of Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper for the
Proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, Las Vegas, Clark County,
NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is issuing this notice to advise
the public that the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper for the Draft
EIS will be made available for public comment pursuant to section 304
of the Vision 100 Century of Aviation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176) [49
U.S.C. 47171(l)]. The Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper has been
prepared for the construction and operation of the proposed Southern
Nevada Supplemental Airport, located along Interstate Highway 15 about
30 miles south of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. FAA is seeking
comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Brooks, Environmental
Protection Specialist, AWP-610.6, Airports Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles,
California 90009-2007, Telephone: 650/922-1899. Comments on the Draft
Purpose and Need Working Paper should be submitted to the address above
and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time,
Friday, February 29, 2008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is preparing a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Southern Nevada
Supplemental Airport (SNSA). The need to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is based on the procedures described in FAA
Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, FAA
Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions, and BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1.
Further, the FAA and BLM are preparing this EIS jointly pursuant to the
Ivanpah Valley Airport Lands Transfer Act of 2000, (Pub. L. 106-362).
Clark County proposes to build the airport along Interstate Highway 15
north of the Nevada/California border about 30 miles south of Las
Vegas, between Primm and Jean in Clark County, Nevada. The purpose of
the proposed airport is to provide additional capacity to accommodate
the forecasted growth in air carrier aircraft operations and aviation
passenger demand into the Las Vegas area. This airport would supplement
existing air carrier capacity at McCarran International Airport (LAS).
The Draft EIS is also being prepared by FAA and BLM pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    FAA and BLM are making the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper
available to the public and governmental agencies for review and
comment. This working paper contains information that the FAA and BLM
will include into the Purpose and Need Section of the Draft EIS. FAA
and BLM will consider all comments received for the purpose of
developing future documents supporting the Draft EIS. FAA and BLM will
accept comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper until 5
p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, February 23, 2008.
    Copies of the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper are available
for public review at the following locations during normal business
hours:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Western-Pacific Region, Office of the Airports Division, 15000 Aviation
Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
National Headquarters, Office of Airports, Planning and Environmental
Needs Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North Torrey
Pines, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
    The document is also available for public review at the following
libraries and other locations and at the following Web site: http://
www.snvairporteis.com:

Boulder City Public Library, 701 Adams Boulevard, Boulder City, Nevada
89005
Gibson Library, 280 South Water Street, Henderson, Nevada 89015-7288
Pittman Library, 1608 Moser Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89015-4323
Paseo Verde Library, 280 South Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, Nevada
89012-2301
Malcolm Library, 2960 Sunridge Heights Parkway, Henderson, Nevada 89052
Clark County Law Library, 309 South 3rd Street, Suite 400, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89155
Lied Library--UNLV, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
UNLV Libraries Government Publications, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89101
Nevada State Library and Archives, 716 N. Carson Street, Suite B,
Carson City, Nevada 89701
North Las Vegas Library District, 2300 Civic Center Drive, North Las
Vegas, Nevada 89030-5839
Aliante Branch Library, 2400 Deer Springs Way, North Las Vegas, Nevada
89084
Pahrump Community Library District, 701 East Street, Pahrump, Nevada
89048-0578
White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, Nevada 89301-1965
Clark County Library, 1401 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119-
5256
Goodsprings Library, 365 West San Pedro Avenue, Goodsprings, Nevada
89019-0667
Lincoln County Library, 63 Main Street, P.O. Box 330, Pioche, Nevada
89043-0330
Alamo Branch Library, 100 South First West, P.O. Box 239, Alamo, Nevada
89001-0239
Caliente Branch Library, 100 Depot Avenue, P.O. Box 306, Caliente,
Nevada 89008-0306
Searchlight Library, 200 Michael Wendal Way, Searchlight, Nevada 89046
Sandy Valley Library, 650 W. Quartz Avenue, Sandy Valley, Nevada 89019
Mt. Charleston Library, 1252 Aspen Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89124
Moapa Valley Library, 350 N. Moapa Valley Blvd., Overton, Nevada 89040
Laughlin Library, 2840 S. Needles Hwy., Laughlin, Nevada 89020
Blue Diamond Library, 14 Cottonwood Drive, Blue Diamond, Nevada 89004
Moapa Town Library, 1340 E. Highway 168, Moapa, Nevada 89025
Indian Springs Library, 715 Gretta Lane, Indian Springs, Nevada 89018
Bunkerville Library, 150 W. Virgin Street, Bunkerville, Nevada 89007
Mesquite Library, 121 W. First Street, Mesquite, Nevada 89027
Enterprise Library, 25 E. Shelbourne Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
Green Valley Library, 2797 N. Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, Nevada
89014
Las Vegas Library, 833 Las Vegas Blvd. North, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Meadows Library, 300 W. Boston Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Rainbow Library, 3150 N. Buffalo Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
Sahara West Library, 9600 W. Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89177
Spring Valley Library, 4280 S. Jones Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Sunrise Library, 5400 Harris Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110
Summerlin Library, 1771 Inner Circle Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
West Charleston Library, 6301 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada
89146
West Las Vegas Library, 951 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Whitney Library, 5175 E. Tropicana Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 457001,
Building LLB 1173, MS 7033, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-7001
William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451003,
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-1003
Nevada State College, 1125 Nevada State Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89015
Cambridge Recreation Center, 3930 Cambridge St., Las Vegas, Nevada
89119
Paradise Recreation Center, 4775 McLeod Dr., Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Silver Springs Recreation Center, 1951 Silver Springs Pkwy, Henderson,
Nevada 89074
Whitney Ranch Recreation Center, 575 Galleria Dr. C,
Henderson, Nevada 89015
Hollywood Recreation Center, 1650 S. Hollywood Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada
89142
Desert Breeze Community Center, 8275 Spring Mountain Rd., Las Vegas,
Nevada 89117
Helen Mayer Community Center, 4525 New Forest Dr., Las Vegas, Nevada
89147
Whitney Community Center, 5712 Missouri Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89122
West Flamingo Senior Center, 6255 W. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, Nevada
89103
Whitney Senior Center, 5712 Missouri Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89122
Sunset Park Administration Building, 2601 E. Sunset Rd., Las Vegas,
Nevada 89120
Henderson City Hall, 240 S. Water Street, Henderson, Nevada 89015
Las Vegas City Hall, 400 Stewart Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
North Las Vegas City Hall, 2200 Civic Center Dr., North Las Vegas,
Nevada 89030
Clark County Government Center, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89155
Boulder City Hall, 401 California Avenue, Boulder City, Nevada 89005
Sunrise Manor Town Hall, 2240 Linn Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada
McCarran International Airport, Clark County Department of Aviation,
Planning Division, 5757 Wayne Newton Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Henderson Executive Airport, 1400 Executive Airport Drive, Suite B,
Henderson, Nevada 89052
North Las Vegas Airport, 2730 Airport Dr., 101, North Las
Vegas, Nevada 89032
Jean Sport Aviation Center, 23600 Las Vegas Blvd., Jean, Nevada 89019

    The Draft Purpose and need Working Paper will be available for
public comment for 30 days. Written comments on the Draft Purpose and
Need Working Paper should be submitted to the address above under the
heading ``For Further Information Contact'' and must be received no
later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, February 29, 2008.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on January 18, 2008.
George Aiken,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. 08-328 Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


Decision IV/ 25. Essential uses 1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing an essential use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol:

( a) That a use of a controlled substance should qualify as " essential" only if:

( i) It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society ( encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and ( ii) There are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health;

( b) That production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance for essential uses should be permitted only if:

( i) All economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; and ( ii) The controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for controlled substances;

( c) That production, if any, for essential use, will be in addition to production to supply the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol prior to the phase out of the controlled substances in those countries;

2. To request each of the Parties to nominate, in accordance with the criteria approved in paragraph 1 ( a) of the present decision, any use it considers " essential", to the Secretariat at least six months for halons and nine months for other substances prior to each Meeting of the Parties that is to decide on this issue;

3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical and Economic Options Committee to develop, in accordance with the criteria in paragraphs 1 ( a) and 1 ( b) of the present decision, recommendations on the nominations, after consultations with experts as necessary, regarding:

( a) The essential use ( substance, quantity, quality, expected duration of essential use, duration of production or import necessary to meet such essential use);

( b) Economically feasible use and emission controls for the proposed essential use;

( c) Sources of already produced controlled substances for the proposed essential use ( quantity, quality, timing); and ( d) Steps necessary to ensure that alternatives and substitutes are available as soon as possible for the proposed essential use;

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, while making its recommendations to take into account the environmental acceptability, health effects, economic feasibility, availability, and regulatory status of alternatives and substitutes;

5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to submit its report, through the Secretariat, at least three months before the Meeting of the Parties in which a decision is to be taken. The subsequent reports will also consider which previously qualified essential uses should no longer qualify as essential;

6. To request the Open ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and make its recommendations to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties for halons and at the Sixth Meeting for all other substances for which an essential use is proposed;

7. That essential use controls will not be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol until the phase out dates applicable to those Parties;