[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11645]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0155]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Annisquam River, Gloucester,
MA, Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Blynman SR127 Bridge across the Annisquam River at mile 0.0, at
Gloucester, Massachusetts. This temporary deviation allows the SR127
Bridge to remain in the closed position for four days to facilitate
bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on March 16, 2009
through 6 p.m. on March 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0155 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blynman SR127 Bridge, across the
Annisquam River at mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts, has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet at mean high water
and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.586.
    The waterway predominantly supports recreational vessels of various
sizes, tour boats, whale watch boats and commercial fishing boats.
    The bridge owner, Massachusetts Highway department (MHD), requested
a temporary deviation to facilitate emergency bridge maintenance to
repair broken pinion bolts.
    The bridge owner did not provide the thirty days notice to the
Coast Guard for this deviation; however, this deviation was approved
because the repairs are time critical and must be performed without
undue delay in order to assure the continued safe reliable operation of
the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Blynman SR127 Bridge may remain
in the closed position from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on March 16, 2009 to
make a template to fabricate new bolts and from 6 a.m. on March 23,
2009 through 6 p.m. on March 25, 2009, to install the new pinion cap
bolts. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening
may do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 9, 2009.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-5988 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28768-28770]
[FR Doc No: E9-14253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Nissan

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s
(Nissan) petition for an exemption of the Murano vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
Part 541). Nissan requested confidential treatment for the information
and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. The agency
will address Nissan's request for confidential treatment by separate
letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2010 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Proctor's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is (202)
493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 19, 2008, Nissan
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2010 Nissan Murano
vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Nissan
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new
Murano vehicle line. Although specific details of the system's
operation, design, effectiveness and durability have been accorded
confidential treatment, NHTSA is, for the purposes of this petition,
disclosing the following general information. Nissan will install a
passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as
standard equipment on its Murano line beginning with MY 2010. Nissan
stated that the immobilizer system prevents normal operation of the
vehicle without the use of a special key. Turning off the ignition key
automatically activates the immobilizer device. Features of the
antitheft device will include an engine electronic control module
(ECM), immobilizer control (BCM), antenna and transponder key. Nissan
also stated that its device will not incorporate an audible and visual
alarm feature as standard equipment, but the alarms will be
incorporated on some of its models. Nissan's submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the
general requirements contained in 543.5 and the specific content
requirements of 543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Nissan provided
its own test information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device and believes that the device is reliable and durable
since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test.
Additionally, Nissan has incorporated a ``Security'' indicator light in
the vehicle which will provide a signal to inform the vehicle owner as
to the status of the immobilizer device. When the ignition key is
turned to the ``OFF'' position, the indicator light begins flashing to
reliably notify the operator that the immobilizer device is activated.
    Nissan compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Nissan stated that its antitheft device is
technologically superior and at least as effective as those devices in
the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the
parts-marking requirements.
    Nissan stated that NHTSA's theft data have shown a significant
reduction in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with
antitheft devices similar to that which Nissan proposes to install on
the new line. Specifically, Nissan stated that it believes that its
proposed device is technologically superior to devices installed on the
Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines, which have already
been granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency. Nissan concludes
that the data indicates that the immobilizer was effective in
contributing to the theft rate reduction for these lines. Nissan stated
that it believes the device it proposes to install on the MY 2010
Murano will be at least effective as those systems. By supplemental
letter dated May 22, 2009, Nissan provided further support of its
belief that its proposed device is at least as effective as other
similar devices installed in vehicle lines for which the agency has
granted exemptions. Specifically, Nissan referenced information
provided by the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which showed a 70%
reduction in theft when comparing the MY 1987 Ford Mustang with a
standard immobilizer to the MY 1995 Ford Mustang without an
immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan referenced data from the Highway Loss
Data Institute which showed that BMW vehicles experienced theft loss
reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim frequency and
a 78% lower average loss payment per claim for vehicles equipped with
an immobilizer. Nissan also stated that its Nissan Pathfinder vehicles
experienced a significant theft rate reduction from MY 2000 to 2001
with the implementation of an engine immobilizer system as standard
equipment. Specifically, the theft rate dropped from 3.0363 in MY 2000
to 1.9146 in MY 2001. The MY 2006 theft rate for the Nissan Pathfinder
is 1.3474, still significantly below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Murano vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information Nissan provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the four types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Murano vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2010
model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR Part 541, Appendix A-
1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements

incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: June 12, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-14253 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10642-10643]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03637]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384; FRL-10000-85]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (PP 8F8708)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of a corrected
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment of
regulations for residues of indoxacarb in or on certain popcorn
commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2019 (84 FR 37818) (FRL-9996-
78), EPA issued a document pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8F8708) by E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805.
EPA's notice stated that the petition requested that the Agency
establish tolerances for residues of the insecticide indoxacarb in or
on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and corn, pop,
stover at 15 ppm.
    In a comment submitted to the docket for that notice, FMC
Corporation informed the Agency that although the August 2, 2019 notice
identified E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company as the petitioner, FMC
Corporation had actually submitted the petition to the Agency
requesting the indoxacarb tolerances. In addition, FMC Corporation
noted that the summary of the petition included in the docket for this
action was not the petition that FMC Corporation had submitted
requesting tolerances for residues of indoxacarb on popcorn, but
rather, it was a resubmission of the 2016

summary of the petition from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company for the
other corn commodities. Subsequently, FMC Corporation submitted a
revised petition requesting tolerances for residues of indoxacarb in or
on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 ppm and corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm. Upon
receiving the corrected petition, EPA determined that the petition
contains the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2). EPA is now publishing notice of that receipt for
public comment pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA. The summary of
the petition (pesticide petition 8F8708) as drafted and submitted by
FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, is
included in the docket for this petition, at http://www.regulations.gov
with the docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384. After
considering public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what
action may be warranted.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: January 3, 2020.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-03637 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67509-67510]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65633; File No. SR-CHX-2011-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Change the Status of
Exchange-Registered Institutional Broker Firms

October 26, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On September 14, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to change the status of Exchange-registered
Institutional Broker firms (``Institutional Brokers''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
September 26, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65354 (September 19,
2011), 76 FR 59476 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Institutional Brokers are an elective sub-category of Exchange
Participants who are subject to the obligations of Article 17 of the
CHX rules. Typically, Institutional Brokers provide manual order
handling and execution services for other broker-dealers or
institutional clients. Institutional Brokers are the successors to the
floor brokers that operated within the Exchange's previous floor-based,
auction trading model. That model was eliminated as part of the
Exchange's transition to its New Trading Model, which features an
electronic limit order matching system as its core trading facility.\4\
In approving the Exchange's New Trading Model, the Commission stated:

    \4\ The Exchange replaced its traditional auction marketplace
with its New Trading Model beginning in 2006. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563
(October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Institutional brokers would be deemed to be participants
operating on the Exchange, although they would not effect
transactions from a physical trading floor (since the Exchange will
no longer have a physical trading floor) and could trade from any
location. A customer order would be deemed to be on the Exchange
when received by an institutional broker, but would not have
priority in the Matching System until it is entered into the
system.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. 71 FR at 59567.

Due to certain changes in the function of Institutional Brokers,\6\ CHX
proposes to treat Institutional Brokers as no longer always operating
on the Exchange. Pursuant to CHX's proposal, an order that is sent to
an Institutional Broker shall not be deemed to be ``on the Exchange''
unless and until the Institutional Broker enters it into the Exchange's
Matching System.\7\ Correspondingly, the Exchange proposes to delete
certain references to Institutional Brokers and/or their activity as
being ``on the Exchange'' in Article 11, Rule 3(e) and in Article 17,
Rule 3(a) and in Interpretation and Policy .01 thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Until fairly recently, CHX permitted Institutional Brokers
to execute trades outside the Exchange's core trading facility, the
Matching System, and those trades were still considered to be on the
Exchange. Utilizing a functionality known as the Validated Cross,
Institutional Brokers executed cross transactions based upon the
state of the national market and orders residing in the Matching
System at the time the parties agreed to the execution, rather than
as of the entry of all essential terms into the electronic systems
used by Institutional Brokers to handle and execute such
transactions. See, e.g., CHX Market Regulation Department
Information Memorandum MR-07-9 (December 6, 2007). In December 2010,
the Exchange eliminated the Validated Cross functionality and
ability of Institutional Brokers to execute transactions on the CHX
otherwise than through the Matching System. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 63564 (December 16, 2010), 75 FR 80870 (December 23,
2010) (SR-CHX-2010-25). Given this change, the Exchange states there
is no longer any meaningful reason to treat Institutional Brokers as
operating on the Exchange and the proposed Interpretation and Policy
.04 reflects that determination. See Notice, 76 FR at 59477.
    \7\ See New Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 3 of Article
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete Article 20, Rule 7 (Clearing
the Matching System), which requires Institutional Brokers to attempt
to execute trades on the Exchange before routing the order to another
destination, except if the Institutional Broker is trading for its own
account or its customer specifically requests otherwise. Currently,
Institutional Brokers are not permitted to execute transactions
directly in the over-the-counter (``OTC'') marketplace because, as
discussed above, orders directed to them are deemed on the Exchange.\8\
In light of the proposed elimination of the on-Exchange designation of
all Institutional Broker orders, CHX also proposes to modify Article
17, Rule 1 to permit Institutional Brokers to effect transactions both
on the Exchange and

in other market centers, which would include the OTC marketplace,
subject to the rules of the appropriate self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CHX Market Regulation Department Information Memorandum
MR-11-09 (July 14, 2011), available on the Exchange's public Web
site, http://www.chx.com.
    \9\ Currently, the SRO for the OTC marketplace is FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\10\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, due to the elimination of the Validated
Cross functionality, an Institutional Broker can only execute an order
on the Exchange by submitting an order into the Matching System, which
is the means all other Exchange participants execute orders on the
Exchange.\12\ The Commission believes that it is appropriate and
consistent with the Act for Institutional Brokers to no longer be
deemed to be a participant operating on the Exchange, and that a
customer order received by an Institutional Broker should not be deemed
to be on the Exchange unless and until such order is entered into the
Matching System. Allowing an Institutional Broker to execute
transactions other than on the Exchange and eliminating the requirement
to clear the Matching System before sending customer orders to other
trading centers, should permit an Institutional Broker to more
effectively compete with other broker-dealers and serve the interests
of their customers and investors.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 6.
    \13\ The Commission notes that it approved separately changes to
CHX's rules governing the clearing of Institutional Brokers'
transactions effected other than on CHX. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65615 (October 24, 2011) (SR-CHX-2010-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2011-29) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28228 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36560-36562]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-5364]

Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and Cigarette
Advertisements (Revised); Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a revised final guidance for industry entitled
``Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and Cigarette
Advertisements (Revised).'' This is a revision to the third edition of
this final guidance, which issued in February 2021, and is intended to
assist those required to submit cigarette plans for cigarette packages
and cigarette advertisements by providing content, timing, and other
recommendations related to those submissions. FDA is revising this
guidance to reflect the May 21, 2021, court order that postponed the
effective date of the final rule entitled ``Tobacco Products; Required
Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements'' to July 13, 2022.
Pursuant to the court order, this revised guidance strongly encourages
entities to submit cigarette plans to FDA as soon as possible after
publication of the final rule, and in any event, by the recommended
submission date, which is currently September 13, 2021.

DATES: The announcement of the revised final guidance is published in
the Federal Register on July 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit electronic or written comments on Agency
guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-5364 for ``Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and
Cigarette Advertisements (Revised).'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which
the guidance may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Smith, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
1-877-287-1373, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised final guidance for
industry entitled ``Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and
Cigarette Advertisements (Revised).'' The Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) was enacted
on June 22, 2009, and granted FDA important new authority to regulate
the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products. The
Tobacco Control Act also amended section 4 of the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-92) (FCLAA) to direct
FDA to issue regulations requiring each cigarette package and
advertisement to bear a new textual warning label statement accompanied
by color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking
(section 201 of the Tobacco Control Act). In enacting this legislation,
Congress also provided that FDA may adjust the required warnings if FDA
found that such a change would promote greater public understanding of
the risks associated with the use of tobacco products (section 202 of
the Tobacco Control Act). The Tobacco Control Act also modified the
requirements of the FCLAA regarding the submission of cigarette plans
for the random and equal display and distribution of required warnings
on cigarette packages and quarterly rotation of required warnings in
cigarette advertisements. It also requires that such cigarette plans be
submitted to FDA for review and approval, rather than to the Federal
Trade Commission.
    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2020, FDA issued a final rule
entitled ``Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages
and Advertisements'' (85 FR 15638). The rule specifies the color
graphics that must accompany the new textual warning label statements
and establishes marketing requirements for cigarette packages and
advertisements. The marketing requirements include, among other things,
submission of a cigarette plan that provides for the random and equal
display and distribution of the required warnings on cigarette packages
and quarterly rotation of the required warnings in cigarette
advertisements, as described under section 4 of FCLAA.
    On April 3, 2020, the final rule was challenged in the U.S.
District Court for

the Eastern District of Texas.\1\ On May 8, 2020, the Court granted a
joint motion to govern proceedings in that case and postpone the
effective date of the final rule by 120 days.\2\ On December 2, 2020,
the same Court granted a new motion by Plaintiffs in the same case to
postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90
days.\3\ On March 2, 2021, the same Court granted a new motion by
Plaintiffs in the same case to postpone the effective date of the final
rule by an additional 90 days.\4\ On May 21, 2021, the same Court
granted a new motion by Plaintiffs in the same case to postpone the
effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days.\5\ The new
effective date of the final rule is July 13, 2022. Pursuant to the
court order, any obligation to comply with a deadline tied to the
effective date of the final rule is similarly postponed, and those
obligations and deadlines are now tied to the postponed effective date.
As such, this revised guidance strongly encourages entities to submit
cigarette plans to FDA as soon as possible after publication of the
final rule, and in any event, by September 13, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States Food and
Drug Administration et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex. filed April
3, 2020).
    \2\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. May 8, 2020) (order granting joint motion and establishing
schedule), Doc. No. 33.
    \3\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. December 2, 2020) (order granting Plaintiffs' motion and
postponing effective date), Doc. No. 80.
    \4\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. March 2, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs' motion and
postponing effective date), Doc. No. 89.
    \5\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. May 21, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs' motion and postponing
effective date), Doc. No. 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA is issuing this guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA regarding the submission of plans for cigarette
packages and cigarette advertisements. It does not establish any rights
for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR 1141.10 have been approved under 0910-0877.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic
version of the guidance at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-guidance-regulations/rules-regulations-and-guidance, and https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14674 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83569]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4724-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Hawaii; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR), dated August 10, 2023, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 8, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 8, 2023, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne
Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Hawaii resulting from wildfires beginning on August 8, 2023, and
continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special
cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds
provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of August 10, 2023, and
August 18, 2023, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of
Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except
assistance previously approved at 100 percent.
    This adjustment to state and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section
408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-26275 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 47039-47040]
[DOCID:fr04au10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62582; File No. SR-OC-2010-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by OneChicago, Amending Rule
419(a), Regulatory Halts

July 28, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Act,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 13, 2010, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'' or ``OCX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change 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.
OneChicago also has filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') under Section 5c(c) of the
Commodity Exchange Act \3\ on July 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OneChicago is proposing to amend its Rule 419(a) and the
Interpretation thereto, to make it clear that a ``regulatory
halt''applies not only to the suspending of all trading in equity
securities in the underlying national securities exchange but also to a
trading pause on an individual underlying equity security that has been
imposed by the rules of the national securities exchange. OneChicago
filed a similar rule change on June 15, 2010. However, after further
discussion with the staffs of both the Commission and the CFTC it has
agreed to make this additional amendment. These changes will make the
provisions [sic] Rule 419 consistent with the Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Trading
Pauses Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility, issued by the Commission
on June 10, 2010 (Release No. 34-62252).

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

    OneChicago has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and
basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and
comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. These statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is [sic] make it clear
that a trading pause imposed by a national securities exchange to an
equity security underlying a single stock future will also be subject
to a trading pause by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 419. Presently, it
is not clear that this is the case because of the language of Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Regulation Sec.  41.1(l)(2). This change
will clarify any possible confusion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \4\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to protect investors and the public interest, and to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system. Accordingly, under Section 6(h)(3)(C) the requirements
for listing standards and conditions for trading for security futures
must ``be no less restrictive than comparable listing standards for
options traded on a national securities exchange * * *''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    OneChicago does not believe that the proposed rule change will have
an impact on competition.

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

    Comments on the OneChicago proposed rule change have not been
solicited and none have been received.

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

    The proposed rule change will become effective on July 14, 2010.
Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule
change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily
abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule
change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OC-2010-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2010-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File

Number SR-OC-2010-03 and should be submitted on or before August 25,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19217 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7968-7970]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0751]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Triathlon National Championships, Milwaukee Harbor,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone within Milwaukee
Harbor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Milwaukee Harbor due to the 2015 Olympic and
Sprint Distance National Championships. This safety zone is necessary
to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards
associated with the 2015 Olympic and Sprint Distance National
Championships.

DATES: This final rule is effective from August 1, 2015, until August
30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0751. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On December 30, 2014, The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled
Safety Zone; Triathlon National Championships, Milwaukee Harbor,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the Federal Register (79 FR 78369). We did not
receive any comments in response to the proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    In 2014, the Coast Guard was informed that the Olympic and Sprint
Distance National Championships are scheduled to return to Milwaukee
Harbor in 2015. Within and around Milwaukee Harbor at Lakeshore inlet,
this event is expected to involve thousands of participants competing
in a swim race surrounded by thousands of spectators. The swim portion
of this event is anticipated to occur on three days during the second
week of August, 2015. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has
determined that the likelihood of transiting watercraft during the swim
competition involving a large number of competitors presents a
significant risk of serious injuries or fatalities.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that a safety
zone is necessary to mitigate the aforementioned safety risks. Thus,
this rule establishes a safety zone that encompasses all waters of
Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore inlet and the Marina at Pier
Wisconsin, west of an imaginary line across the entrance to the Marina
at Pier Wisconsin connecting coordinates 43[deg]02.253' N.,
087[deg]53.623' W. and 43[deg]01.737' N., 087[deg]53.727' W. (NAD 83).
    This rule will be effective from August 1, 2015, until August 30,
2015. Additionally, the Coast Guard anticipates that this safety zone
will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. on August 7; from 6:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on August 8, and from 6:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
on August 9, 2015. This 2015 enforcement schedule may change, and in
the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will issue
a Notice of Enforcement with an updated enforcement schedule.
    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that
the zone in this rule is or will be enforced by all appropriate means
to the affected segments of the public including publication in the
Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a).
Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of

the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Overall, we expect the
economic impact of this rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor within the waters of the marina at Pier Wisconsin or
Lakeshore inlet during the times in which the safety zone is enforced
in August of 2015.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be enforced for a limited time during the month of August;
further, this safety zone has been designed to allow traffic to pass
safely around the zone whenever possible, and vessels will be allowed
to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the
Port.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this
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 FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and
thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph (34)(g) of the
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist

supporting this determination is 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0751 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0751  Safety Zone; Triathlon National Championships,
Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of
Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore inlet and the marina at Pier
Wisconsin, west of an imaginary line across the entrance to the Marina
at Pier Wisconsin connecting coordinates 43[deg]02.253' N,
087[deg]53.623' W and 43[deg]01.737' N, 087[deg]53.727' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This safety zone is effective from August 1,
2015, until August 30, 2015. The Coast Guard anticipates that this
safety zone will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. on August
7; from 6:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on August 8, and from 6:30 a.m. until
11:30 a.m. on August 9, 2015. This 2015 enforcement schedule may
change, and in the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will issue a Notice of Enforcement with an updated enforcement
schedule.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic except as
permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on
her behalf. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her
designated on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-03074 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5858-5861]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02014]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74164; File No. SR-BYX-2015-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Chapter IX of Its Rulebook To Incorporate Certain Rules of NASDAQ and
FINRA Relating to Arbitration and Mediation

January 28, 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 January 14, 2015, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.

The Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 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)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Chapter IX of its rulebook
to incorporate certain rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') relating to arbitration and mediation. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at http://www.batstrading.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On July 30, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), the Exchange, and NYSE Regulation, Inc. consolidated
their member firm regulation operations into a combined organization,
FINRA, and entered into a plan to allocate to FINRA certain regulatory
responsibilities for common rules and common members (``17d-2
Agreement'').\5\ The 17d-2 Agreement was entered into in accordance
with the requirements of Rule 17d-2 promulgated pursuant to the Act,\6\
which permits self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to allocate
certain regulatory responsibilities with respect to common members and
common rules. On September 5, 2012, the Exchange and FINRA entered into
a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA''), whereby FINRA was retained
to perform certain regulatory services on behalf of the Exchange
pertaining to dispute resolution. On February 1, 2014, the Exchange and
FINRA terminated their 2012 RSA and entered into a new RSA that covers
the services contained in the 2012 RSA plus additional regulatory
services. Today, FINRA performs all arbitration, mediation, and other
dispute resolution services, as may be needed from time to time, on
behalf of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (Jul. 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (Aug. 1, 2007) (File No. 4-544) (Notice of Filing
and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate FINRA's performance of these functions under the 2014
RSA and to further harmonize the rules of FINRA and the Exchange
generally, the Exchange is proposing to conform the text of its rules
governing arbitration and mediation (Chapter IX) to the FINRA Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (12000 Series), FINRA Code
of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (13000 Series), and the
FINRA Code of Mediation (14000 Series).
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IX (Arbitration) of its
rulebook to incorporate certain rules of NASDAQ and FINRA relating to
arbitration and mediation, and to make certain non-substantive changes.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to its current
rules in Chapter IX of its rulebook.
Proposed Amendments to Current Rules
    The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 9.1 (Code of
Arbitration) to make the rule substantially similar to NASDAQ Rule
10100. The Exchange proposes to replace the reference to NASD Code of
Arbitration with FINRA Code of Arbitration,\7\ clarify the meaning of
``Exchange arbitrations,'' \8\ and add a sentence stating that Members
must comply with FINRA arbitration rules as if they were rules of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 12000 Series (Code of Arbitration Procedure
for Customer Disputes) and FINRA Rule 13000 Series (Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes).
    \8\ They would be defined as ``every claim, dispute or
controversy arising out of or in connection with matters eligible
for submission under Rule 9.2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace current Rule 9.2 (Jurisdiction)
with amended Rule 9.2 (Matters Eligible for Submission), which is
substantially similar to NASDAQ Rule 10101.\9\ Amended Rule 9.2 would
state that the Exchange adopts the FINRA Code of Arbitration for any
dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or in connection with the
business of any Member, or arising out of the employment or termination
of employment of associated person(s) with any Member: Between or among
Members; between or among Members and associated persons; and between
or among Members or associated persons and public customers, or others,
except for any type of dispute, claim, or controversy that is not
permitted to be arbitrated under the FINRA Code of Procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also FINRA Rule 12000 Series, FINRA Rule 13000 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 9.3 (Predispute
Arbitration Agreements) to incorporate FINRA Rule 2268 by reference,
instead of restating the predispute arbitration agreement rules in
full.
    The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 9.5 (Payment of
Awards), to re-name its tile as ``Failure to Act under Provisions of
FINRA Code of Arbitration,'' to expand the rule to include additional
conduct deemed inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade
and a violation of Rule 3.1 (Business Conduct of Members), using the
language of NASDAQ IM-10100, and FINRA IM-12000 and IM-13000. These
prohibited acts include: Failure to submit a dispute for arbitration
under the FINRA Code of Arbitration as required by the FINRA Code of
Arbitration; failure to comply with any injunctive order issued
pursuant to the FINRA Code of Arbitration; failure to appear or to
produce any document in his or her or its possession or control as
directed pursuant to provisions of the FINRA Code of Arbitration;
failure to honor an award, or comply with a written and executed
settlement agreement, obtained in connection with an arbitration
submitted for disposition under the FINRA Code of Arbitration where
timely motion has not been made to vacate or modify such award pursuant
to applicable law; or, failure to comply with a written and executed
agreement obtained in connection with a mediation submitted for
disposition pursuant to the FINRA Code of Mediation.\10\ The Exchange
proposed to add Rule 9.5(b) to provide that action by Members requiring
associated persons to waive the arbitration of disputes contrary to the
provisions of the FINRA

Code of Arbitration is a violation of Exchange Rule 3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rule 14000 Series (Code of Mediation Procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 9.6 to extend the
application of the rule (currently applicable to arbitration) to
mediation.
    The Exchange proposes to add proposed Rule 9.7 (Mediation) to state
that FINRA's mediation services, as governed by the 14000 Series of
FINRA's Manual (the Code of Mediation Procedure), are also available to
Members who voluntarily agree to submit matters for mediation. The
Exchange also proposes to incorporate by reference the FINRA Code of
Mediation into its rules so that Members have the same obligations with
which to comply as if such rules and interpretations were part of the
Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 9.8 (Regulatory Services
Agreement) to state, among other things, that FINRA staff will perform
arbitrations and mediations on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to an
RSA with FINRA in accordance with the FINRA Codes of Arbitration and
Mediation.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will provide greater harmonization between Exchange and FINRA rules of
similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient
regulatory compliance for members of both the Exchange and FINRA
(``dual members''). As previously noted, in many instances the proposed
rule text is substantially similar to FINRA's and NASDAQ's respective
rule texts, which have already been approved by the Commission. As
such, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed
to provide greater harmonization between Exchange and FINRA rules of
similar purpose for arbitration and mediation matters, resulting in
less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for dual
members and facilitating FINRA's performance of its regulatory
functions under the 2014 RSA.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposal.

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

    The Commission believes that because the proposed rule change does
not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a SRO to give the Commission written notice of its intent
to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior
to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter
time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied
this requirement. See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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-BYX-2015-04 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 No. SR-BYX-2015-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BYX-2015-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 24, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02014 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P