[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79057-79058]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0019; OMB No. 1660-0108]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; National Emergency Family Registry and Locator
System (NEFRLS)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015 at 80
FR 60397 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received one comment
which included the following statements regarding NEFRLS:
    1. ``Shelters are not jails, the evacuees come and go after
arriving, often without the knowledge of the shelter managers.
Therefore using the Safe and Well program is but a small way of
contacting evacuees.''
    2. ``Some will intentionally hide their identity for a myriad of
reasons. (abusive spouse, warrants, debts, don't want the government to
know where they are, no legal citizens).''
    3. ``There is no single collection point for several states to
share data of missing persons after a catastrophic event that covers
several states.''
    4. ``In Texas and other larger western states the travel times are
considerable, so would like to have vehicles able to have reports of
who is on board said vehicles.''
    5. ``Integration with other local (state level) software solutions
via API such as WebEOC is a must.''
    6. ``One system at the federal level--this should replace NSS or
integrate into it (single sign on).''
    FEMA evaluated the comment received regarding the NEFRLS. As
mandated by Congress, NEFRLS is intended to be a system that survivors
and people searching for them can use voluntarily on an individual
basis. It is not intended to be a comprehensive data collection tool
for responders and/or governments nor is it intended to be inclusive of
all disaster survivors but only those who voluntarily choose to
register. NEFRLS is not an evacuation tracking tool that can be used to
create manifests. FEMA has developed the National Mass Evacuation
Tracking System (NMETS) that is available to States at no charge that
can perform this function. Information about NMETS can be found at the
following link, http://www.fema.gov/individual-assistance-national-mass-evacuation-tracking-system. FEMA routinely explores options to
increase interoperability and data sharing where applicable. FEMA
always appreciates feedback from members of the emergency management
community.

    The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.
Collection of Information
    Title: National Emergency Family and Registry System (NEFRLS).
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0108.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 528-2.
    Abstract: NEFRLS is a Web-based database enabling FEMA to provide a
nationally available and recognized database allowing adults (including
medical patients) that have been displaced by a Presidentially declared
major disaster or emergency to voluntarily register via the Internet or
a toll-free number. This database allows designated individuals to
search for displaced friends, family, and household members. Congress
mandated that FEMA establish NEFRLS in the Post Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, (PKEMRA) section 689c.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government, Federal
Government, and Individuals or Households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,640.
    Estimated Cost: $241,634. There are no recordkeeping, capital,
start-up or maintenance costs associated with this information
collection.

Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-31870 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4350-4352]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01391]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76935; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule

January 20, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 13, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective January 13, 2016.\3\ The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange originally filed this proposed rule change on
January 04, 2016 under File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-01. The Exchange
subsequently withdrew that filing on January 13, 2016 and filed this
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Sections I. A., C. and E of
the Fee Schedule to adjust fees and credits payable, effective on
January 13, 2016.
    Section I.A. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the rates for Standard
Option transactions. The Exchange is proposing to increase rates per
contract for Electronic transactions. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to increase rates for Electronic transactions in issues in the
Penny Pilot program from $0.44 to $0.50 for Broker Dealers,
Professional Customers and Non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers; from
$0.34 to $0.42 for Firms; and $0.23 to $0.25 for DOMMs, e-Specialists,
NYSE Amex Options Market Makers and Specialists. These rates are
competitive with rates being charged on other exchanges for Electronic
executions in Penny Pilot issues.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, Miami Securities International Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') charges $0.45 to firms and $0.47 to non-MIAX market
makers, broker dealers and public customers other than priority
customers for execution in Penny Pilot issues (see MIAX fee
schedule, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/content/fees);
and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') charges $0.48 to professional
customers, broker dealers and firms for execution in Penny Pilot
issues (see PHLX fee schedule, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=PHLXPricing). In addition, NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'') and
BATS BZX Exchange (``BATS'') all charge a $0.50 take fee for
removing liquidity in Penny Pilot issues. See NYSE Arca fee
schedule, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NOM fee
schedule, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=OptionsPricing; and BATS fee schedule, available here,
http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase rates per contract for
Electronic transactions in issues that are not part of the Penny Pilot
program from $0.58 to $0.75 for Broker Dealers, Firms, Professional
Customers and Non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers; and $0.23 to $0.25
for DOMMs, e-Specialists, NYSE Amex Options Market Makers and
Specialists. These rates are competitive with rates being charged on
other exchanges for Electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, MIAX charges $0.29 to MIAX market makers and
$0.75 to non-MIAX market makers, firms, broker dealers and public
customers other than priority customers for executions in non-Penny
Pilot issues (see id., MIAX fee schedule); PHLX charges $0.25 to
specialists and market makers and $0.75 to professional customers,
broker dealers and firms per execution in Non-Penny issues (see id.,
PHLX fee schedule); and CBOE charges $0.75 to broker dealers, non-
CBOE market makers and professionals per execution in non-Penny
Pilot issues (see The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') fee schedule, http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf). In addition, the BOX Options Exchange, LLC
(``BOX'') assesses fees greater than $1.00 to non-Customers for
executions against Public Customer interest in non-Penny Pilot
issues and NYSE Arca charges a $0.99 take fee to lead market makers,
market makers, firms and broker dealers for executions in non-Penny
Pilot issues. See NYSE Arca fee schedule, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; and BOX fee schedule, available
here, http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section I.C. of the Fee Schedule currently provides a discount to
NYSE Amex Options Market Maker transaction fees based on a sliding
volume scale (the ``Sliding Scale'' [sic].\6\ Specifically, an NYSE
Amex Options Market Maker that has monthly volume on the Exchange of
0.10% or less of total

industry Customer equity and exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options
volume \7\ is charged a base rate of $0.23 and, these same market
participants, upon reaching certain volume thresholds, or Tiers,
receive a reduction of this per contract rate.\8\ The Exchange is
proposing to raise these rates across all Tiers by $0.02, which is
competitive with base rates charged to market makers on other
exchanges.\9\ In addition, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate Tier
7 because Market Makers were not availing themselves of this Tier. With
this change, Tier 6 would be the highest achievable Tier available to
Market Makers that achieved Electronic volume of greater than 1.75%
total industry Customer equity and ETF in a given month. Finally, the
Exchange is proposing to offer an alternative means for Market Makers
to qualify for the reduced per contract rate charged at each Tier of
the Sliding Scale which is currently available to Market Makers that
execute posting volumes in excess of 0.85% of Industry Customer Equity
and ETF Option Volume.\10\ The Exchange proposes to make the Sliding
Scale rates available to those Market Makers participating in either of
the Prepayment Programs offered by the Exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.C.(NYSE Amex Options Market
Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic), available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \7\ The volume thresholds are based on an NYSE Amex Options
Market Makers' volume transacted Electronically as a percentage of
total industry Customer equity and ETF options volumes as reported
by the Options Clearing Corporation (the ``OCC''). Total industry
Customer equity and ETF option volume is comprised of those equity
and ETF contracts that clear in the Customer account type at OCC and
does not include contracts that clear in either the Firm or Market
Maker account type at OCC or contracts overlying a security other
than an equity or ETF security. See OCC Monthly Statistics Reports,
available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.
    \8\ In calculating an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker Electronic
volumes, the Exchange excludes any volumes attributable to Mini
Options, QCC trades, CUBE Auctions, and Strategy Execution Fee Caps,
as these transactions are subject to separate pricing described in
Fee Schedule Sections I.B., I.F., I.G., and I.J, respectively. See
Fee Schedule, Section I.C, supra n. 6.
    \9\ See supra nn. 4, 5.
    \10\ See supra n. 8.
    \11\ The Commission notes that, consistent with this change, the
Exchange proposes to add cross-references to Section I.C. in Section
I.D. of the Fee Schedule. See Fee Schedule, Section I.D. (describing
both the 1- and 3- year Prepayment Programs), see supra n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section I.E. of the Fee Schedule describes the Exchange's ACE
Program, which features five tiers expressed as a percentage of total
industry Customer equity and ETF option average daily volume and
provides two alternative methods through which Order Flow Providers may
receive per contract credits for Electronic Customer volume that the
OFP, as agent, submits to the Exchange. The Exchange is proposing two
amendments to Tier 2 of the Program. First, the Exchange proposes to
increase the base rebate (i.e., Customer Volume Credits not tied to
either Prepayment Program) from $0.13 to $0.14. Second, the Exchange
proposes to offer an additional method for which OFPs can qualify for
Tier 2. Specifically, as proposed, an ATP Holder may qualify for Tier 2
by increasing Customer Electronic ADV by 0.35% or more of Industry
Customer Equity and ETF Options ADV from its volumes in October 2015.
The Exchange's proposal is intended to incentivize OFPs to increase its
[sic] Customer Electronic volumes even if they do not have the volumes
equating to 0.60% Industry Customer Equity and ETF Options ADV (the
current qualification basis to meet Tier 2).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the transaction rates
for Electronic transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the rates are competitive with fees charged by
other exchanges and are designed to attract (and compete for) order
flow to the Exchange, which provides a greater opportunity for trading
by all market participants.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra nn. 4, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the reduce [sic] rates
per contract on the Sliding Scale are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the rates are competitive with fees
charged by other exchanges and are designed to attract (and compete
for) order flow to the Exchange, which provides a greater opportunity
for trading by all market participants.\15\ In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposal to make all Market Makers participating in
one of the Exchange's Prepayment Programs eligible to avail themselves
of the Sliding Scale is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it may encourage additional market making firms
to participate in one of these Programs, which could result in
increased capital (and resulting liquidity) being committed to the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. The proposed change
would also incentivize Market Makers already enrolled in a Prepayment
Program to increase posted liquidity on the Exchange, which would
benefit all Exchange participants, including ATP Holders, through
increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.
The Exchange also believes that eliminating Tier 7 from the Sliding
Scale is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it removes an incentive that was never utilized, thereby adding clarity
and transparency to the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra nn. 4, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the ACE
Program are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the credits offered are based on the amount of business
transacted on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposal to
enable ATP Holders to be eligible for Tier 2 based on an increase in
volume over their October 2015 volume is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it encourages ATP Holders to maintain
increased volumes executed on the Exchange. Moreover, the proposed
alternative basis for achieving Tier 2 would enable those ATP Holders
that are otherwise ineligible for the ACE Program tiers (i.e., because
of insufficient monthly volume) to qualify by increasing or ``stepping
up'' their own volume executed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that
offering so-called ``step up'' pricing or tiers that use a particular
month as a benchmark for incentives is not new or novel.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BATS fee schedule, available here, http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/ (offering a ``Customer
Step-Up Volume Tier'' based on a member achieving ``Options Step-Up
Add TCV'' as well as ``NBBO Setter Tiers.). See, e.g., Securities
and Exchange Release No. 76411 (November 10, 2015), 80 FR 71892,
71893 (November 17, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-98) (among other changes,
adopting a Step-Up Volume Tier, which BATS characterized as being
``[s]imilar to other pricing where the Exchange seeks to incentivize
growth by providing tiered pricing based on a Member's participation
increase over time'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to
the ACE Program are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they would enhance the incentives to Order Flow
Providers to transact Customer orders on the Exchange,

which would benefit all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those market participants
that do not participate in the ACE Program. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes to the ACE Program are consistent with
the Act because they may attract greater volume and liquidity to the
Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing
tighter quoting and better prices, all of which perfects the mechanism
for a free and open market and national market system.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ 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 Exchange acknowledges that the proposed
changes relating to transaction charges and/or credits, including the
Sliding Scale and ACE Program, may increase both intermarket and
intramarket competition by incenting participants to direct their
orders to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of quoting and
may increase the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange. To the
extent this purpose is achieved, the Exchange believes the proposed
amendments are pro-competitive and any resulting increase in volume and
liquidity to the Exchange would benefit all of Exchange participants
through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price
discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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 purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-09.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-09, and should be submitted on or before February 16,
2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01391 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45059-45061]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0832]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo,
NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for certain waters of the Buffalo River during the Head of the Buffalo
Regatta. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels
from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or a designated representative. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0832 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Sean Dolan, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On August 16, 2018, the Buffalo Scholastic Rowing Association
notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a rowing regatta
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on October 20, 2018, in conjunction with
the Head of the Buffalo Regatta. The rowing vessels will launch for
their warmup from the Ohio St. Kayak Launch, at position
42[deg]51'55.9'' N, 78[deg]52'07.2'' W, then proceed to travel upriver
to turnaround at position 42[deg]51'36.7'' N, 78[deg]50'56.0'' W. The
race will then begin at position 42[deg]51'40.0'' N, 78[deg]50'56.5''
W, and proceed downriver to the finish line near the Ohio St. bridge at
position 42[deg]52'17.5'' N, 78[deg]52'21.0'' W. Participants will then
proceed further upriver to the turnaround point located at position
42[deg]52'19.4'' N, 78[deg]52'25.3'' W, and return to the starting
point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with rowboat races would be a safety
concern for anyone within that stretch of the Buffalo River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance the safety of vessels
and racers on the navigable waters within the above stated points,
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone to be
enforced intermittently from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on October 20,
2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between the two
points starting at position 42[deg]52'19.4'' N, 78[deg]52'25.3'' W, and
ending at position 42[deg]51'36.7'' N, 78[deg]50'56.0'' W, on the
Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during,
and after the scheduled rowboat races between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes 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 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which
would impact a small designated area of the Buffalo River. However, the
Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider

the potential impact of regulations on small entities during
rulemaking. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated
and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would 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
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone
lasting 10 hours that would prohibit entry into the waters contained
within a 3.1-mile stretch of the Buffalo River. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.
01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration 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 proposed
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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0832 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0832   Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo
River, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY, beginning at position 42[deg]52'19.4'' N,
78[deg]52'25.3'' W to 42[deg]51'36.7'' N, 78[deg]50'56.0'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until
6:30 p.m. on October 20, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. 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 Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 28, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-19192 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50271-50272]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2432-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1893R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
(Savonburg) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2433-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1897R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2434-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1978R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2435-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2793 ATC-
City of Eagle River CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2436-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2796 ATC-
City of Kaukauna CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2437-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2805 ATC-
Rock Energy Cooperative CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2438-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2806 ATC-
City of Oconomowoc CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2439-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2390R3 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2440-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Rochelle Municipal
Utilities.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rochelle Municipal
Utilities submit Service Agreement No. 4232 with ComEd to be effective
8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150813-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20461 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4792-4793]
[DOCID:fr27ja09-71]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59253; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Adoption of FINRA Rule 2140 (Interfering With the Transfer of
Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

January 15, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 29, 2008,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. [``NASD'']) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt without material change NASD
Interpretive Material 2110-7 (IM-2110-7) (``Interfering With the
Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes'')
as a FINRA rule in the consolidated FINRA rulebook. The proposed rule
change would renumber NASD IM-2110-7 as FINRA Rule 2140 in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\2\ FINRA is proposing to adopt
without material change NASD Interpretive Material 2110-7 (IM-2110-7)
(``Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of
Employment Disputes'') as a FINRA rule in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook. The proposed rule change would renumber NASD IM-2110-7 as
FINRA Rule 2140 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The current FINRA rulebook includes, in addition to FINRA
Rules, (1) NASD Rules and (2) rules incorporated from NYSE
(``Incorporated NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and
Incorporated NYSE Rules are referred to as the ``Transitional
Rulebook''). While the NASD Rules generally apply to all FINRA
members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members of
FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''). For more
information about the rulebook consolidation process, see FINRA
Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Background
    NASD IM-2110-7 provides that it shall be inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade for a member or person associated with a
member \3\ to interfere with a customer's request to transfer his or
her account in connection with the change in employment of the
customer's registered representative provided that the account is not
subject to any lien for monies owed by the customer or other bona fide
claim. Prohibited interference includes, but is not limited to, seeking
a judicial order or decree that would bar or restrict the submission,
delivery, or acceptance of a written request from a customer to
transfer his or her account.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``person associated with a member'' includes, among
others, registered representatives. See FINRA By-Laws, Article I,
Paragraph (rr).
    \4\ IM-2110-7 further states that nothing in the Interpretation
shall affect the operation of NASD Rule 11870 (Customer Account
Transfer Contracts). Generally, Rule 11870 addresses the transfer of
securities account assets from one member to another member in
connection with a customer request. (FINRA intends to review NASD
Rule 11870 and related interpretive materials as part of a later
phase in the rulebook consolidation process. Note that the
Commission has approved FINRA's proposed rule change to rescind, as
duplicative of Rule 11870, Incorporated NYSE Rule 412 and its
Interpretation. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58533
(September 12, 2008), 73 FR 54652 (September 22, 2008) [File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-036].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA adopted IM-2110-7 to address the practice of delaying
customer account transfers.\5\ In adopting IM-2110-7, FINRA noted that,
when a registered representative leaves his or her firm for a position
at a different firm, clients serviced by the registered representative
may decide to continue their relationship with the registered
representative by transferring their accounts to the registered
representative's new firm. FINRA expressed concern that the registered
representative's former firm, concerned that its former employee may
have breached his or her employment contract by sharing client
information with the new firm or by soliciting clients to transfer
their accounts to the new firm, sometimes would seek a court order to
prevent the transfer of accounts. FINRA noted that in a prior Notice to
Members it had already alerted members that unnecessary delays in
transferring customer accounts, including delays accompanied by
attempts to persuade customers not to transfer their accounts, are
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.\6\ FINRA
stated that

obtaining court orders to prevent customers from following a registered
representative to a different firm is similar to the unfair practice of
delaying transfers that the earlier Notice had warned about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASD Notice to Members 02-07 (January 2002) (Interfering
With Customer Account Transfers); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 45239 (January 4, 2002), 67 FR 1790 (January 14, 2002)
[File No. SR-NASD-2001-95].
    \6\ NASD Notice to Members 79-7 (February 1979) (Fair Treatment
of Customer Accounts); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
15194 (September 28, 1978) (Notice to Broker-Dealers Concerning Fair
Treatment of Customer Accounts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting IM-2110-7, FINRA further stated that the Interpretive
Material does not affect the ability of member firms to use employment
agreements to prevent former representatives from soliciting firm
customers. Members are not prevented from pursuing other remedies they
may have arising from employment disputes with former registered
representatives. Rather, IM-2110-7 is limited to restricting a member
from interfering with a customer's right to transfer his or her account
once the customer has asked the firm to move the account.
(B) Proposal
    FINRA believes that NASD IM-2110-7 is consistent with the goal of
investor protection and serves the public interest. FINRA proposes to
transfer NASD IM-2110-7 with only minor changes into the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook. Specifically, IM-2110-7 would be recodified with
conforming revisions as a stand-alone FINRA rule rather than as
interpretive material to NASD Rule 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor
and Principles of Trade).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The exact revised text of IM-2100-8 is attached as Exhibit 5
to the proposed rule change and is available at http://
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2008/P117330.
Similarly, FINRA has transferred NASD Rule 2110 to the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook without change as FINRA Rule 2010. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174
(October 1, 2008) [File No. SR-FINRA-2008-028].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than ninety days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would
further the purposes of the Act because as part of the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook the proposed rule change will protect investors and the
public interest by addressing interference with the transfer of
customer accounts in the context of employment disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period: (i) As the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2008-052 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-FINRA-2008-052. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA and on FINRA's
Web site at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2008/
P117330. 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-
FINRA-2008-052 and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1656 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15108-15111]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0154]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Severn River,
College Creek, Weems Creek and Carr Creek, Annapolis, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations for the ``William I. Koch International Sea Scout Cup'', a
sailboat regatta to be held on the waters of the Severn River,
Annapolis, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the
Severn River adjacent to the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
during the sailboat regatta.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0154 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District,
Inspections and Compliance Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0154), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you

submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0154)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays; or the Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, Room 416 between 9
a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On July 13 through July 19, 2008, the U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD will host the ``William I. Koch International Sea Scout
Cup'', sailboat regatta on the waters of the Severn River. This youth
sailing regatta is comprised of young men and women between the ages of
14 and 21 who are actively registered in the Sea Scout program. The
five-day event will be held at the Naval Academy's Sailing Center.
Teams from the United States and 20 countries will test their
seamanship skills as they sail 14' sloop rigged boats. The event will
consist of approximately 80 fourteen-foot sailboats racing about
several marked courses on the Severn River. A fleet of spectator
vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to
the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be
temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants,
support vessels, spectators and transiting vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations on specified waters on the Severn River adjacent to the
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. This rule would be enforced
from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008, and
would restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the sail
boat regatta. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical would
allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. If the
event's daily activities should conclude prior to 7:30 p.m.,
enforcement of this proposed regulation may be terminated for that day
at the discretion of the Patrol Commander. Except for participants and
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during
the enforcement period.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this
proposed regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of
the Severn River adjacent to U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
during the event, the effects of this regulation would not be
significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would
be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the
maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information
broadcast, area newspapers and radio stations, so mariners can adjust
their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the
regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
deems it is safe to do so.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to transit this section of the Severn River during
the event.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008. The regulated area will
apply to a segment of the Severn River adjacent to the U.S. Naval
Academy waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the
regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the
regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at
the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes
wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would
publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to
Mariners and issue marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust
their plans accordingly. Information regarding the International Sea
Scout Cup will be disseminated by local community news papers and radio
stations.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking. 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 Coast Guard at
the number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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.

Collection of Information

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

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 proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment.
    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery
of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35-T05-017 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-017  Severn River, Annapolis, MD

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the
waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the
northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude
39[deg]00'38.9'' N, longitude 076[deg]31'05.2'' W thence to the north
shoreline at latitude 39[deg]00'54.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]30'44.8''
W, this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed
highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a
line drawn from the Naval Academy Light at latitude 38[deg]58'39.5'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'49'' W thence southeast to a point 700 yards east
of Chinks Point, MD at latitude 38[deg]58'1.9'' N, longitude
076[deg]28'1.7'' W thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude
38[deg]58'29'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'16'' W. All coordinates
reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.

    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of the
regulated area shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any
Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
    (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Official Patrol.
    (3) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside of the regulated area
specified in paragraph (a) of this section but may not block a
navigable channel.
    (d) Enforcement period. (1) This section will be enforced from 8:30
a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2008 and if the
event's daily activities should conclude prior to 6 p.m., enforcement
of this proposed regulation may be terminated for that day at the
discretion of the Patrol Commander.
    (2) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.

    Dated: March 10, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-5776 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1961-1962]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00247]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0326; FRL-10018-80-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing
Manufacture (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Asphalt Processing and
Roofing Manufacture (EPA ICR Number 0661.13, OMB Control Number 2060-
0002), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
February 28, 2021. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on May 12, 2020 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 10,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0326, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information

collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), as well as for the applicable
standards at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU. This includes submitting
initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and
results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with
these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Asphalt processing and roofing
manufacture facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart UU).
    Estimated number of respondents: 144 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 34,100 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $9,240,000 (per year), which includes
$5,240,000 in annualized capital and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations. First, the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years. Second, the growth
rate for this industry is very low or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in
the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry
growth, there are also no changes in the capital/startup or operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-00247 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TABLE 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL EPA RESOURCE REQUIREMENT NESHAP 40 CFR PART 61 SUBPART E REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT EPA Hours/

Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Plant/ Year ( B) EPA Hours/

Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Plants/ Year ( D) EPA Hours/

Year ( E= C* D ) ( E)

INITIAL PERFORMANCE TESTS 24 1 24 0 0 REPEAT PERFORMANCE TEST 24 0.2 4.8 0 0 REPORT REVIEW New Plants Notification of Construction 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 Notification of Initial Startup 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 Notification of Actual Startup 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 Notification of Initial Test 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 Time required to participate in performance test 24 1 24 0 0 Time required to review performance test results 8 1 8 0 0 Existing Plants Annual emission test 4 1 4 133 532 Review semi annual reports 8 2 16 12 192 Review notification on monitored parameters 8 2 16 12 192 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 916 SALARY BURDEN ( per year)

1 person x916h/ yrx34.69 31776.04 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN $ 31,776.04 916 Assumptions Number of new plants ( per year) 0 Performance tests repeated due to failure 20%

EPA labor rate ( GS 10 Step 1 + 110% overhead) $ 34.69


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 71778]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 6a-4, Form 1-N; SEC File No. 270-496, OMB Control No. 3235-
0554.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 6a-4 and Form 1-N, summarized below.
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. The
Code of Federal Regulation citation to this collection of information
is 17 CFR 240.6a-4 and 17 CFR 249.10 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Act'').
    Section 6 of the Act \1\ sets out a framework for the registration
and regulation of national securities exchanges. Under the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a futures market may trade security
futures products by registering as a national securities exchange. Rule
6a-4 \2\ sets forth these registration procedures and directs futures
markets to submit a notice registration on Form 1-N.\3\ Form 1-N calls
for information regarding how the futures market operates, its rules
and procedures, corporate governance, its criteria for membership, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and the security futures products it
intends to trade. Rule 6a-4 also requires entities that have submitted
an initial Form 1-N to file: (1) Amendments to Form 1-N in the event of
material changes to the information provided in the initial Form 1-N;
(2) periodic updates of certain information provided in the initial
Form 1-N; (3) certain information that is provided to the futures
market's members; and (4) a monthly report summarizing the futures
market's trading of security futures products. The information required
to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 6a-4 is designed to
enable the Commission to carry out its statutorily mandated oversight
functions and to ensure that registered and exempt exchanges continue
to be in compliance with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.6a-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 249.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents to the collection of information are futures
markets.
    The Commission estimates that the total annual burden for all
respondents to provide ad hoc amendments \4\ to keep the Form 1-N
accurate and up to date as required under Rule 6a-4 would be 60 hours
(15 hours/respondent per year x 4 respondents \5\) and $400 of
miscellaneous clerical expenses. The Commission estimates that the
total annual burden for all respondents to provide annual and three-
year amendments \6\ under Rule 6a-4 would be 88 hours (22 hours/
respondent per year x 4 respondents) and $576 ($144 per year x 4
respondents \7\). The Commission estimates that the total annual burden
for the filing of the supplemental information \8\ and the monthly
reports required under Rule 6a-4 would be 24 hours (6 hours/respondent
per year x 4 respondents \9\) and $240 of miscellaneous clerical
expenses. Thus, the Commission estimates the total annual burden for
complying with Rule 6a-4 is 172 hours and $1216 in miscellaneous
clerical expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.6a-4(b)(1).
    \5\ The Commission estimates that four exchanges will file
amendments with the Commission in order to keep their Form 1-N
current.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.6a-4(b)(3) and (4).
    \7\ The Commission notes that while there are currently five
Security Futures Product Exchanges, one of those exchanges, NQLX, is
dormant.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.6a-4(c).
    \9\ See supra footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with Rule 6a-4 is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 6a-4 shall not be kept confidential; the information
collected is public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 12, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25089 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P