[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37940-37941]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12611-014]

Verdant Power, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 12611-014.
    c. Date filed: December 30, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Verdant Power, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project.
    f. Location: On the East River in New York County, New York. The
project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Ronald F. Smith, President and Chief
Operating Officer, Verdant Power, LLC, P.O. Box 282, Roosevelt Island,
New York, New York 10044. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The existing pilot project license authorizes the following
project facilities: (a) Thirty 35-kilowatt, 5-meter-diameter axial flow
turbine-generator units; (b) ten triframe mounts, each supporting three
turbine-generator units; (c) 480-volt underwater cables from each
triframe mount to five shoreline switchgear vaults that interconnect to
a control room and interconnection points; and (d) appurtenant
facilities for navigation safety and operation.
    Under the current pilot project license, which expires on December
31, 2021, Verdant installed, tested, and then removed a total of five
turbine-generator units. Verdant also proposes to install three
turbine-generator units attached to one triframe mount in late 2020
(i.e., Install B-1), under the existing pilot project license.
    The proposed project would be constructed in three phases: Install
B-1 (under the existing pilot license, as noted above), Install B-2
(three triframe mounts with a total of nine turbine-generator units),
and Install C (one triframe mount with three turbine-generator units).
The project would consist of a maximum of fifteen 35-kilowatt, 5-meter-
diameter axial flow turbine-generator units with a total installed
capacity of 0.525 megawatt. Each of the five triframe mounts would be
connected via underwater cables to an existing control room and a
proposed shoreline switchgear vault, and via an overhead transmission
line (for the first two triframe mounts) and an underground
transmission line (for the remaining three triframe mounts) to a point
of interconnection.
    The project would operate using the natural tidal currents of the
East River, during both ebb and flood tidal periods. As the direction
of tidal flow changes, each turbine-generator unit would rotate (or
yaw) to align the rotor to the direction of flow, through a passive
system caused by hydrodynamic forces on the turbine-generator unit. The
annual generation is expected to be from 840 to 1,200 megawatt-hours.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested individuals an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Access Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST
or MOTION TO INTERVENE, (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments....  August 2020.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)..  October 2020.
Issue notice of ready for environmental    October 2020.
 analysis.
Issue Single EA..........................  April 2021.
Comments on EA...........................  May 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13558 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 54705-54708]
[DOCID:fr26se07-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56471; File No. SR-OCC-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Binary Options

September 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 28, 2007, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by
OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend OCC's By-Laws and Rules to
permit OCC to clear and settle various types of binary options,
including ``fixed return options'' to be listed by the American Stock
Exchange (``Amex'') and binary options on broad-based securities
indexes proposed to be listed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit OCC to clear
and settle binary options, including fixed return options (``FROs'') to
be listed and traded by Amex\3\ and binary options on broad-based
indexes proposed to be listed and traded by CBOE.\4\ Binary options
(sometimes referred to as ``digital'' options) are all-or-nothing
options that pay a fixed amount if exercised in the money and otherwise
pay nothing. Until recently, OCC did not clear any binary options other
than credit default options (``CDOs'') traded on CBOE. CBOE and OCC
recently were granted approval for CBOE to trade and for OCC to clear
related products called credit default basket options (``CDBOs'').\5\
General characteristics of binary options, excluding features unique to
CDOs and/or CDBOs that were already described in OCC's prior rule
changes, are described below, followed by an explanation of the
specific rule changes being proposed by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56251 (August 14, 2007),
72 FR 46523 (August 20, 2007) (File No. SR-Amex-2004-27).
    \4\ File No. SR-CBOE-2006-105.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56275 (August 17,
2007), 72 FR 47097 (August 22, 2007) (File No. SR-CBOE-2007-026) and
56288 (August 20, 2007), 72 FR 49034 (August 27, 2007) (File No. SR-
OCC-2007-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Binary Options. Binary options are cash-settled
options that have only two possible payoff outcomes, either a fixed
exercise settlement amount or nothing at all. They are subject to
automatic exercise. The underlying interest of a binary option may be
one or more securities, an index of securities, or some other measure;
however, OCC presently intends to clear only binary options that are
within the definition of a ``security'' as determined by the
Commission. In its capacity as a ``derivatives clearing organization''
regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''), OCC
may in the future propose to clear binary options that are commodity
options subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC.
    A binary option, other than a CDO or CDBO, is in the money and will
be automatically exercised if its underlying interest value, when
measured against its exercise price, is determined to meet the criteria
for automatic exercise as specified in the Exchange Rules of the
listing Exchange.\6\ For example, in the case of a ``finish high fixed
return option,'' such option will be automatically exercised and
settled for a fixed amount of cash if its underlying interest value is
above its exercise price at expiration. In the case of a ``finish low
fixed return option,'' such option will be automatically exercised and
settled for a fixed amount of cash if its underlying interest value is
below its exercise price at expiration. The rules proposed in this
current filing for binary options are intended to be sufficiently
generic to be the basis for clearing binary options proposed to be
listed by Amex and CBOE as well as other binary options in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CDOs and CDBOs, on the other hand, do not have exercise
prices. A CDO or CDBO will be deemed to be in the money and will be
automatically exercised if a credit event occurs at any time prior
to the last day of trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By-Law and Rule Amendments Applicable to Binary Options. In order
to provide a framework of rules that can accommodate clearance and
settlement of various kinds of binary option products, OCC proposes to
broaden the By-Law Article and Rule Chapter covering CDOs and CDBOs.
(1) Terminology--Article I, Section 1 and Article XIV, Section 1
    ``Binary option'' would be defined in Article XIV, Section 1 of the
By-Laws, and the definition would be cross-referenced in Article I of
the By-Laws.
    The definitions of ``option contract'' and ``type of option'' in
Article I of the By-Laws would be amended to include a binary option.
    OCC proposes to redefine the term ``class'' in Article XIV, Section
1 so that it will apply to binary options generally. To be within the
same class, binary options other than CDOs or CDBOs must cover the same
underlying interest and have otherwise identical terms except for
exercise price (if any) and expiration date.
    The definition of ``exercise price'' in Article I would be replaced
with respect to binary options with a revised definition in Article
XIV, Section 1 which would recognize that binary options will be
settled by a fixed cash payment. The exercise price of a binary option
is neither an amount that is paid in exchange for an underlying
interest nor is it used to determine the exercise settlement amount as
in the case of other cash-settled options. In the case of a binary
option other than a CDO or CDBO, the exercise price of a binary option
is simply a defined value or range of values for the underlying
interest. If the underlying interest value falls within the defined
range at expiration of such binary option, the option will be
automatically exercised; otherwise, the option will expire unexercised.
A CDO or CDBO is said to have no exercise price.
    OCC proposes to redefine the term ``underlying interest'' in
Article XIV, Section 1 so that it will apply to binary options
generally. In the case of a binary option other than a CDO or CDBO, the
underlying interest is the underlying security, securities, index,
basket, or measure whose value is compared to such option's exercise
price to determine whether the option is in the money and will be
automatically exercised. In conjunction with the revised definitions of
``exercise price'' and ``underlying interest,'' OCC also proposes to
add a new defined term, ``underlying interest value,'' to Article XIV,
Section 1. When used with respect to a binary option other than a CDO
or CDBO, underlying interest value means the value or level of the unit
of trading of the underlying interest at any point in time as reported
by the reporting authority. A new definition for the term ``unit of
trading'' would state ``unit of trading'' when used with respect to a
binary option means the quantity of the underlying interest on which
the underlying interest value is based and is ordinarily a single share
in the case of binary options on individual equity securities or one
(1) In the case of binary index options. The terms ``unit of trading''
and ``underlying interest value'' would not be applicable to CDOs and
CDBOs.
    Other terms that were created or amended for CDOs and CDBOs will be
modified to apply to binary options generally.
(2) Terms of Cleared Contracts--Article VI, Section 10(e)
    Paragraph (e) of Article VI, Section 10 would be further amended to
apply to binary options generally.

(3) General Rights and Obligations--Article XIV, Section 2B
    Article XIV, Section 2B would define the general rights and
obligations of holders and writers of binary options other than CDOs or
CDBOs. As noted above, the holder of a binary option that is
automatically exercised would have the right to receive the fixed
exercise settlement amount from OCC, and the assigned writer would have
the obligation to pay that amount to OCC.
(4) Adjustments of Binary Options Other than CDOs or CDBOs--Article
XIV, Section 3A; Unavailability or Inaccuracy of Final Underlying
Interest Value--Article XIV, Section 5; Determination of Final
Underlying Interest Value--Article XIV, Section 6
    Article XIV, Section 3A would describe the methods by which binary
options other than CDOs or CDBOs generally will be adjusted if
adjustments are deemed to be necessary. Special adjustment rules are
needed because of the fixed, cash-settlement feature of binary options.
For instance, under Article VI, Section 11A(d), which governs
adjustment of other equity options, if there is a stock dividend,
distribution, or split whereby a whole number of shares of the
underlying security is issued for each outstanding share, the exercise
price is proportionately reduced, and the number of option contracts is
increased by the number of shares issued with respect to each share of
the underlying security. This adjustment would be inappropriate for
binary options for which the underlying interest is an equity security.
For example, an XYZ option with an exercise price of $50 would be
adjusted to become two XYZ options, each with an exercise price of $25.
Because the fixed exercise settlement amount of a binary option is
intended to remain at $100, this adjustment would increase the total
payout upon exercise to $200. To avoid this result, Article XIV,
Section 3A(a)(4) would provide that the number of option contracts
would not proportionally increase and only the exercise price would be
adjusted. The other provisions of Article XIV, Section 3A are similar
to Article VI, Section 11A, with appropriate modifications for binary
options. In order to maintain consistency with adjustment policies for
physically settled stock options where such consistency is appropriate,
certain changes in the treatment of dividends that were proposed in SR-
OCC-2006-01 to become effective at a future date, will become effective
on the same date for binary options on single stocks.
    Article XIV, Section 3A(b) would govern adjustments of binary
options for which the underlying interest is an index of equity
securities and would be similar to Article XVII, Section 3, which
governs index options, with appropriate modifications to reflect unique
features of binary options. For instance, because binary options do not
have an index multiplier, the Securities Committee would generally
adjust the exercise price of a binary option of which the underlying
interest is an index of equity securities to get the appropriate
result.
    Article XIV, Section 5, would give OCC the authority to fix the
underlying interest value for a binary option other than a CDO or CDBO
and to rely on that value for determining whether such binary option
would be exercised under circumstances similar to those in which OCC
may currently fix the exercise settlement amount for index options.
    Article XIV, Section 6 would provide, in essence, that the
underlying interest value of a series of binary options at expiration,
other than CDOs or CDBOs, would be determined by the Exchange or
Exchanges on which such series is traded subject to any overriding
provision of OCC's By-Laws and Rules. If a series of options is traded
on more than one Exchange, OCC could use the underlying interest value
received from the Exchange deemed by OCC to be the principal Exchange,
or OCC could employ a procedure to derive a single value based on some
or all of the values received.
(5) Exercise and Settlement--Chapter XV of the Rules and Rule 801
    Binary options would not be subject to the exercise-by-exception
procedures applicable to most other options under OCC's Rules but would
instead be automatically exercised prior to or at expiration if the
specified criterion for exercise is met. The procedures for the
automatic exercise of binary options, as well as assignment and
settlement of exercises (including provisions applicable to a suspended
Clearing Member), would be set forth in Rules 1501 through 1505 of new
Chapter XV and in revised Rule 801(b).
(6) Margin Requirements--Rule 601; Deposits in Lieu of Margin--Rule
1506
    OCC would margin binary options through its usual ``STANS'' system.
STANS has been modified to accommodate the particular binary options to
be traded by Amex and the binary index product currently proposed by
CBOE. CDOs and CDBOs will be margined as described in the applicable
rule filings cited above.
    OCC is not proposing to accept escrow deposits in lieu of clearing
margin for binary options. Therefore, Rule 1506 would state that Rule
610, which otherwise would permit such deposits, does not apply to
binary options.
(7) Acceleration of Expiration Date--Rule 1507(d)
    This new provision would accelerate the expiration date of a binary
option other than a CDO or CDBO when OCC determines in its discretion
that the underlying interest value of such option has become fixed
prior to the expiration of the option (e.g., where the equity security
underlying a binary option has been converted by a merger into the
right to receive a fixed amount of cash). If the option is out of the
money, it would expire unexercised. Otherwise, it would be
automatically exercised.
    The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are consistent with
the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act because they
are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of transactions in, including exercises of, binary options,
and to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the
clearance and settlement of such transactions, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of such transactions, and in general
to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
accomplishes this purpose by applying substantially the same rules and
procedures to these transactions as OCC applies to similar transactions
in other cash-settled options except to the extent that special rules
and procedures are required in order to accommodate unique features of
binary options.

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been 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 the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-OCC-2007-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-08. 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 Section, 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 OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.optionsclearing.com. 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-OCC-2007-08 and should be submitted on
or before October 17, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18963 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61627-61628]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-3-000]

City and County of San Francisco v. Pacific Gas and Electric
Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 7, 2014, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e) and Rule 206
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, the City and County of San
Francisco (Complainant), filed a formal complaint against Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent
unreasonably denied service to Complainant under its Wholesale
Distribution Tariff, as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contact for the Respondent as listed in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The
Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on
or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to
intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2014.

    Dated: October 7, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24342 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80414-80416]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32390]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76696; File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy

December 18, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 3, 2015, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i) \4\ thereunder, so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
changes 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)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule changes is to revise the
ICE Clear Europe End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (the ``Price
Discovery Policy'') to accommodate industry changes regarding the
reduction of the frequency for which Single Name (``SN'') Credit
Default Swap (``CDS'') contracts roll to the new on-the-run-contract.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe proposes revising its Price Discovery Policy to
accommodate industry change regarding the reduction of the frequency
for which SN CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run-contract. The
changes affect the labeling convention for cleared SN CDS contracts for
price reporting purposes, but will not alter the terms of the contracts
or the range of tenors of SN CDS contracts currently cleared by ICE
Clear Europe.
    ICE Clear Europe believes such revisions will facilitate the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions cleared by ICE Clear
Europe. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
    As part of ICE Clear Europe's end-of-day price discovery process,
ICE Clear Europe Clearing Members are required to submit end-of-day
prices for specific instruments related to their open interest at ICE
Clear Europe, in accordance with Rule 503(g) and the ICE Clear Europe
Procedures. These end-of-day price submissions are used by ICE Clear
Europe in its calculation of settlement prices.
    ICE Clear Europe refers to a group of SN instruments with the same
risk sub-factor and coupon as a ``curve.'' Each point, or tenor, along
the curve is labeled with a tenor name. Currently for SN instruments,
the market convention is to describe tenors based on the period
remaining until the scheduled termination date of the contract. Under
this convention, the nearest-to-expiring contract is referred to as the
0M tenor, the next nearest to expiring is referred to as the three
month (3M) tenor, and so on (with scheduled termination dates spaced at
3 month intervals), up to ten years (10Y). ICE Clear Europe supports
the clearing of all 41 SN tenors from 0M to 10Y. As such, ICE Clear
Europe also calculates settlement prices for the 41 SN tenors on the
curve. However, ICE Clear Europe defines a subset of the 41 tenors as
``benchmark-tenors'', which are tenors for which Clearing Members
provide submissions in the end-of-day price discovery process. The nine
benchmark tenors are 0M, 6M, 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y, and 10Y, which
correspond to so-called ``on-the-run'' contracts.
    Currently, as a matter of CDS market practice, the on-the-run
contract for a particular tenor is the contract expiring

on the next following quarterly International Money Market (``IMM'')
dates (i.e., March 20, June 20, September 20, and December 20) for the
relevant year. For example, the SN CDS contract expiring December 20,
2020 will be considered the five-year on-the-run contract until
December 20, 2015, from which time the contract expiring March 20, 2021
will be viewed as the 5Y on-the-run contract, until the next quarterly
roll date, etc. Accordingly, market participants seeking to maintain
exposure at a particular CDS tenor will typically ``roll'' SN CDS
contracts into the new on-the-run contract (i.e., terminate positions
in the old on-the-run contract and establish positions in the new on-
the-run contract) on a quarterly basis on the IMM dates. To account for
this practice, at each quarterly roll date, ICE Clear Europe re-labels
the 41 SN tenors to reflect the rolling and expiration of contracts.
    The CDS industry has proposed reducing the frequency at which SN
CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run contract. Specifically, the
CDS industry has proposed moving from quarterly roll dates to semi-
annual roll dates for SN CDS contracts. Under the revised approach,
market participants are expected to roll SN CDS contracts only on the
March 20 and September 20 IMM dates, and the on-the-run contracts will
be determined based on the next following June 20 and December 20
expiration dates. As a result, a particular contract tenor will
generally remain the on-the-run contract for six months, rather than
three.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes changes to its Price Discovery Policy to
accommodate the change in roll frequency for on-the-run contracts.
Under the revised policy, ICE Clear Europe will re-label scheduled
termination dates with benchmark tenor names every six months, on the
March 20 and September 20 IMM dates for CDS contracts (i.e., the on-
the-run roll dates). The re-labeling is based on the remaining time to
maturity that will apply to a given scheduled termination date on the
next quarterly IMM date (i.e. the next December 20 or June 20 standard
maturity date). Upon the semi-annual re-labeling, the nearest to
maturity contract is referred to as the 0M tenor, and the tenor label
for each longer-date contract is based on that contract's time to
maturity relative to the scheduled termination date labeled as the 0M
tenor.
    The new nine benchmark tenors will be the 0/3M, 6M, 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y,
5Y, 7Y and 10Y, which correspond to the on-the-run contracts for those
tenors. Eight of the nine benchmark tenors remain constant and refer to
individual scheduled termination dates that are fixed for the six-month
periods between semi-annual re-labeling, specifically the 6M, 1Y, 2Y,
3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y, and 10Y. However, the 0M tenor matures three months
after a semi-annual labeling, and ICE Clear Europe defines the first
(shortest-dated) benchmark tenor as the 0M tenor from a semi-annual re-
labeling until the maturity of that tenor, and defines the first
benchmark tenor as the 3M tenor from the maturity of the 0M tenor
through the next semi-annual re-labeling. The label 0/3M tenor refers
to this re-mapping of the first benchmark tenor to different IMM dates
on a quarterly basis. Throughout the policy, references to the 0M SN
tenor have been updated to 0/3M to reflect this change.
    Consistent with the approach being taken throughout the CDS market,
the changes to accommodate the change in SN roll frequency will take
effect with the December 20, 2015 roll.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICE Clear Europe,
including Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).\6\ ICE Clear Europe's end of day
price discovery process allows ICE Clear Europe to determine reliable,
market-driven prices for the CDS instruments it clears, which are in
turn necessary to facilitate accurate daily settlement in such
instruments. The proposed revisions to the Price Discovery Policy will
accommodate industry changes regarding the reduction of the frequency
for which SN CDS contracts roll to the new on-the-run contract, and in
particular will enable ICE Clear Europe to continue to perform its end
of day price discovery process in an effective manner in light of such
industry changes. As such, the proposed changes are designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions
within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \7\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
changes are designed to accommodate industry changes regarding the
reduction of the frequency for which SN CDS contracts roll to the new
on-the-run-contract, and will apply uniformly across all market
participants. ICE Clear Europe is not changing the products or tenors
of SN CDS offered, and does not believe that the amendments will
adversely affect access to clearing or the cost of clearing for
Clearing Members or other market participants. Therefore, ICE Clear
Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on
competition that is inappropriate 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 relating to the proposed changes to the rules have
not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    The foregoing rule changes have become effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i)
\9\ thereunder. The amendments principally effect a change in an
existing service of a registered clearing agency that does not
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of
the clearing agency or persons using the service. At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule changes, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule changes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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-ICEEU-2015-020 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-ICEEU-2015-020. 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 filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    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-ICEEU-2015-020
and should be submitted on or before January 14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32390 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30014-30018]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0062]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66, Elliott Bay,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone
extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA to ensure adequate
safety during the annual parade of ships and aerial demonstration for
Fleet Week. This safety zone is necessary to promote safety on
navigable waters and will do so by enforcing vessel movement
restrictions in the immediate vicinity of Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA,
immediately prior to, during and immediately following this annual
event. Entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within these
zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget
Sound or Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective June 23, 2011. This rule is enforced
annually during the parade of ships which typically occurs on a
Wednesday during the last week of July or the first week in August from
8 a.m. until 8 p.m; however, it will only be enforced thirty minutes
prior to, during, and thirty minutes after the annual parade of ships
and aerial demonstration.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0062 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG USCG-2010-0062 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail LTJG Ian S. Hanna, Sector Puget Sound Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On February 25, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66,
Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA'' in the Federal Register (75 FR 037). We
received 72 comments on the proposed rule. We made changes based on
those comments, and on November 24, 2010 we published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) with the same title in the
Federal Register (75 FR 226). We received 110 comments on the SNPRM.
Seven comments requested a public meeting. We did not hold a public
meeting on this rule.

Basis and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone
extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA to restrict the
movement of vessels, thirty minutes prior to, during, and thirty
minutes following the annual parade of ships and aerial demonstration,
thereby ensuring participant and spectator safety.

Background

    The Fleet Week Parade of Ships has historically resulted in vessel
congestion near Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA which adversely compromises
participant and spectator safety. This safety zone is necessary to
direct the movement of vessels in the vicinity of Pier 66 establishing
unobstructed traffic lanes for response craft in the event of an
emergency and ensuring participant, spectator and maritime safety. The
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound may be assisted by other Federal and
local agencies in the enforcement of this safety zone.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The regulatory text of this Final Rule is the same as the
regulatory text of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; no
changes have been made to this regulation since the SNPRM. Twenty-four
comments received were outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
    Seven requests for a public meeting were received. The Coast Guard
does not plan to hold a public meeting. Public comment on proposed
rules is an essential component of the notice-and-comment rulemaking
process established by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). An
opportunity for oral presentations at public meetings may be offered
but is not required. The Coast Guard has determined the two comment
periods for this rule combined with numerous means available for public
comment has provided adequate and sufficient time for the public to
express their concerns without necessitating a public meeting. The
original NPRM received over 70 comments, which were received,
considered and resulted in changes to the regulation as reflected in
the SNPRM. The SNPRM further allowed for public comment on this rule
and received 110 comments.
    Ten comments articulated reasons to hold a public meeting. The
purpose of a public meeting is to provide the public the opportunity to
provide comment on complex and technical issues that are difficult to
articulate in written public comment. Public meetings do not include an
argumentative dialogue on proposed regulations. Many of the reasons
submitted ask for this kind of dialogue that the government is not
allowed to engage in at a public meeting. All the comments received
have been direct and easily understood. Therefore there would be no
added benefit in holding a public meeting.
    One comment stated that the Coast Guard could not have chosen a
worse time for public comment as it occurred during a time of major
U.S. holidays. The Coast Guard received 110 comments on this SNPRM and
72 comments on the NPRM for this rule. The Coast Guard has determined
that these methods of comment have properly provided ample opportunity
and sufficient time for the public to comment on this regulation.
Operational demands and rulemaking procedures dictated the timeline of
publication of this rulemaking. The abundance of comments indicates the
target audience has been notified and given the opportunity to comment.
    Six comments stated opposition to this regulation. The Coast Guard
appreciates the reasons behind the opposition of this rule. However,
this regulation is necessary to uphold agency responsibilities of
promoting safety of life on navigable waters.
    Ten comments stated that this regulation infringes on First
Amendment rights to free speech. This regulation establishes a safety
zone to promote safety of life on navigable waters. The Coast Guard is
authorized to create safety zones in accordance with 33 CFR 165.20 for
safety purposes. The Captain of the Port has identified a potential
navigation safety problem between spectator craft and participants of
the Fleet Week Parade of Ships, and this zone is designed to address
that safety problem. The minimal size of this safety zone will enable
displays of free speech in visibly accessible areas to take place
immediately north and south of the zone along the pier. Typically
spectators gather at the parade viewing area at piers 66 and 63 well
before the parade. In years past, any on water protest activities have
had the full attention of the spectators prior to the parade. The Coast
Guard believes that this proposed safety zone is small enough in size
and short enough in duration that it will not hinder or impact
demonstrations of free speech. Protest, spectator, and other vessels
may congregate in the vicinity of Pier 66 while spectators are
assembling and dispersing from this event and this safety zone is not
enforced. Furthermore, an alternate protest area is available outside
of this safety zone in places which are visually and audibly accessible
to spectators during the parade and aerial demonstration while this
safety zone is being enforced. This includes the area directly to the
south of the safety zone in front of the public Pier 63 where many of
the event spectators are gathered. Pictures posted to the docket
clearly show protesters in this area which is visible not only to the
people gathered at Pier 63 but also clearly visible from the review
stand at Pier 66.
    Eleven comments stated the effect of this regulation is to deny the
public the opportunity to provide a visual protest to the Navy war
ships at SeaFair, in the place and during the time that the protest is
most visible. The Coast Guard believes that this safety zone is small
enough in size and short in duration that it will not hinder protest
activities. Small boats may congregate in the vicinity of Pier 66 while
spectators are

assembling and dispersing from the parade of ships while this safety
zone is not enforced. During this time much of the audience is already
gathered. Alternative channels for expression during the parade include
the area immediately north and south of this zone where protestors will
remain visible and audible to other spectators watching from Pier 66.
Additionally, any place on the pier is open to protest activities.
    Eight comments stated that safety is not an issue during the
parade, and state that they believe the zone is a no protest zone. The
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound has a legitimate safety concern with
the converging of large vessels participating in the Parade of Ships
and smaller vessels that gather for the event. The vessels in the
parade of ships that approach Pier 66 during the parade create large
wakes and some even shoot water from fire monitors, both of which pose
a significant threat to any small vessels that may be gathered in front
of Pier 66. Additionally, the aerial demonstration following the parade
requires a clear area for the safety of the demonstrators and the small
vessels gathered for the parade. Also, were an accident to occur during
the parade, emergency response craft would need to transit quickly into
the area. Small vessels gathered in front of Pier 66 pose a threat to
event participants and themselves if they gather in certain spots. This
zone is meant to delineate to all parties involved where the danger
area is during the parade event and keep people clear of it.
    Seven comments, including three photographs, state that there has
not been any vessel congestion near Pier 66 during this event. Vessel
congestion does not necessarily mean that many vessels are gathered.
When one or more small spectator vessels are gathered in front of Pier
66 and significantly larger parade participant vessels approach close
to the pier, the area would become congested and unsafe. This is
because the larger vessels have limited maneuverability when they are
near the pier, and the smaller vessels may be too underpowered to
maneuver quickly to be able to get themselves out of harm's way. Also
historically, more vessels have gathered for the parade than did in
2010 and it is reasonable to plan for the gathering of more vessels.
    Five comments stated the revisions to the enforcement times are
ambiguous. The effective period for this rule is larger than the
enforcement period to allow for slight yearly fluctuations in
scheduling for this annual event while enabling opportunity for public
comment, providing ample public notice, and codifying this regulation.
Yearly announcements indicating the exact date and time of the Parade
of Ships will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners. One comment
requested clarification on what ``thirty minutes prior to the
beginning, during and thirty minutes following the conclusion of the
parade of ships'' means. This regulation will be enforced beginning
thirty minutes before ships arrive at Pier 66 for the review portion of
the parade, during the review, and, if needed, thirty minutes following
the completion of the parade of ships review, which may include an
aerial demonstration. For the purposes of this regulation, the
beginning of the Parade of Ships is identified by the first participant
vessel approaching Pier 66.
    Nine comments stated an increase in size of 40% from the safety
zone described in the NPRM. The safety zone described as extending 100
yards from Pier 66, is the same as in the NPRM. Any slight increase in
size is due to increased accuracy in GPS coordinates to assist in
technical plotting of this data. The practical application of the
physical description of this zone is not affected by these changes
since the description has remained unchanged.
    Two comments stated the Coast Guard usually enforces a ``no-protest
zone'' to keep demonstrators approximately 450 yards from Pier 66. The
Coast Guard would like to clarify any confusion regarding this
regulation and previous years' regulations by emphasizing that the
safety zone in this regulation extends only 100 yards from Pier 66,
enforced 30 minutes prior to, during and 30 minutes following the
parade of ships and aerial demonstration. The evolution of the safety
zone for this annual event has resulted in smaller safety zones to
better accommodate all waterway users while promoting safety on
navigable waters. In addition, during this event each Navy ship has a
Naval Vessel Protection Zone (NVPZ; 33 CFR 165 Subpart G) surrounding
it. The NVPZ is a moving zone around each Navy ship that establishes a
100 yard no entry zone and 500 yard no wake zone. This may result in a
combined exclusion area of the NVPZ and the 100 yard safety zone during
times of a close approach and departure from the pier. The coupling of
these zones could result in the appearance of a larger zone being
enforced; however, they are two separate zones. Similarly, another
comment stated that the proposed zone was enforced for five days in
2010 instead of the published few hours. The zone that was enforced for
multiple days in 2010 was the NVPZ around the USS KIDD that was moored
at Pier 66 for the duration of Fleet Week. The 100 yard safety zone
which will be permanently established by this Final Rule will only be
enforced for a few hours on the day of the Parade of Ships.
    One comment stated if the public is genuinely at risk, then the
fleet should conduct its naval celebration somewhere else. The public
is only at risk if located within this safety zone while this event is
taking place; therefore it is reasonable to place temporary vessel
movement restrictions in this area for this short period of time to
ensure maritime safety.
    One comment stated the revised proposed rule is essentially the
same as the first proposed rule. The Coast Guard introduced changes to
this regulation in the SNPRM to include revisions to the enforcement
dates, times and location for this safety zone in response to the 70
comments received on the NPRM. The reasons for issuance and the safety
concerns mitigated by this rule remain unchanged.
    One comment requested acknowledgement of their comment be sent via
mail to the sender. The Coast Guard understands and empathizes with
your concern; however, public comments made via regulations.gov are
posted, publicly accessible and result in a tracking number, thereby
providing notice of receipt of your comment. Additionally, the Coast
Guard cannot accept the administrative burden associated with
notification of individual receipt of comments, especially when
notification has already been provided via this Web site.
    Two comments stated that the www.regulations.gov Web site would not
accept the video file format desired for submission of videotape
footage. Comments may be submitted in numerous ways. Although
regulations.gov did not support the file format for the video comment,
other means remained available to submit the video to the docket. Four
methods for submitting comments have been detailed in both the NPRM and
the SNPRM: the Federal eRulemaking Portal, fax, mail and hand delivery.
    One comment stated that mailing videos to the address provided in
the proposed rule does not necessarily mean the videos would be entered
into the record. The APA requires all received public comments and
documents to be entered into the docket and responded to via subsequent
rulemaking documents in the regulatory process.
    One comment stated the Coast Guard failed to follow-through on
personally contacting a citizen to notify them of publication of this
regulation. The Coast

Guard has complied with the APA in drafting and informing the public of
this regulation. We exceeded these requirements by issuing a press
release to notify and solicit public participation and comment on the
SNPRM.
    Two comments stated the proposed rule was not narrowly tailored to
meet a legitimate government interest. The revisions made in the SNPRM
including refinement to limit the time of enforcement of this safety
zone has resulted in the most minimal zone in size and duration to
adequately provide safety for all waterway users during this event.
Additional narrowing of the zone would adversely affect efficient
staging of the on-scene patrol vessels to enforce this safety zone
thereby decreasing the effectiveness of this zone to ensure safety.

Initial Enforcement

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1330 on
August 3, 2011. The zone will be active from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. and be
enforced thirty minutes prior to, during, and thirty minutes following
the Parade of Ships which will occur at approximately 2 p.m.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

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. This rule is not a significant regulatory
action because it is short in duration and minimal in size.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit the safety zone during times of annual enforcement. This
safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone will be
activated and thus subject to enforcement for a short duration and is
minimal in size.
    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), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

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).

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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.),
of the Instruction. This rule involves a safety zone extending 100
yards from Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA which will be activated and thus
subject to enforcement, 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes following
scheduled annual parade of ships events. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Section 165.1330 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1330  Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66,
Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliott Bay, WA within a box
encompassed by the points, 47[deg]36.719' N, 122[deg]21.099' W;
47[deg]36.682' N, 122[deg]21.149' W; 47[deg]36.514' N, 122[deg]20.865'
W; and 47[deg]36.552' N, 122[deg]20.814' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor,
or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or Designated Representative, thirty minutes prior
to the beginning, during and thirty minutes following the conclusion of
the Parade of Ships. For the purpose of this rule, the Parade of Ships
includes both the pass and review of the ships near Pier 66 and the
aerial demonstrations immediately following the pass and review. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local
agencies as needed.
    (c) Authorization. In order to transit through this safety zone,
authorization must be granted by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound,
or their Designated Representative. All vessel operators desiring entry
into this safety zone shall gain authorization by contacting either the
on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16, or Coast
Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Requests shall indicate the reason why
movement within the safety zone is necessary and the vessel's arrival
and/or departure facility name, pier and/or berth. Vessel operators
granted permission to enter this safety zone will be escorted by the
on-scene patrol until no longer within the safety zone.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule is enforced annually during the
parade of ships which typically occurs on a Wednesday during the last
week of July or the first week in August from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.
unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-12675 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 20628]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Operating Committee
Meeting

April 12, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-04-12.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Business Issues
Committee Meeting

April 13, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-04-13.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning
Working Group Meeting

April 19, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/committees/meeting_materials/index.jsp?com=bic_espwg.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning
Working Group Meeting

April 26, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-04-26.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Management Committee

April 27, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-04-27.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-120.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-1942.
New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08074 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8326-8327]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-712-000]

AES ES Westover, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

February 18, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AES ES Westover, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 9, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any

FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3629 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1410-1412]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00070]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71226; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-164]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Further Describe the Application of Fees Assessed for Connectivity to
the Carteret Test Environment under Rule 7030(d)

January 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 23, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes a proposed rule change to further describe
the application of fees assessed pursuant to Rule 7030(d)(1)(C).
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized. Proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

7030. Other Services

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Nasdaq Testing Facilities
    Nasdaq operates two testing environments. One is located in
Ashburn, Virginia and the other in Carteret, New Jersey. Unless
otherwise noted, reference to the ``Nasdaq Testing Facility'' or
``NTF'' applies to both environments.
    (1) The following fees are assessed for access to the Nasdaq
Testing Facility:
    (A) Subscribers that conduct tests of the computer-to-computer
interface (CTCI) and the Financial Information Exchange (FIX) interface
to ACT and ACES access protocols through the Nasdaq Testing Facility
(NTF) shall pay the following charges:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
$285/hour.........................  For Active Connection testing during
                                     the normal operating hours of the
                                     NTF;

No Charge.........................  For Idle Connection testing;
$333/hour.........................  For Active Connection testing at all
                                     times other than the normal
                                     operating hours of the NTF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Subscribers that conduct tests of all Nasdaq access protocol
connections not included in paragraph (A) above or of market data
vendor feeds through the Nasdaq Testing Facility shall pay $300 per
port, per month.
    (C) Subscribers to the Nasdaq Testing Facility located in Carteret,
New Jersey shall pay a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for
connection to the NTF. The hand-off fee includes either a 1Gb or 10Gb
switch port and a cross connect to the NTF. Subscribers shall also pay
a one-time installation fee of $1,000 per hand-off, which is waived for
all installations ordered prior to March 31, 2014.
    The connectivity provided under this rule also provides
connectivity to the other test environments of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC.
    (2)-(6) No 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, NASDAQ 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Rule 7030(d) to more fully
describe the application of the newly-adopted fee \3\ assessed for
direct connectivity to the Testing Facility \4\ test environment
located in Carteret, New Jersey (``Carteret''). The Testing Facility
provides subscribers with a virtual Exchange System test environment
that closely approximates the production environment and on which they
may test their automated systems that integrate with the Exchange. The
Exchange recently developed a test environment located in Carteret that
provides Exchange equity trade testing functionality. The new test
environment was developed together with equity test environments of the
Exchange's sister exchanges, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC, also located at Carteret, New Jersey (collectively with NASDAQ,
the ``Equity Markets'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70851 (November 13,
2013), 78 FR 69485 (November 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-137).
    \4\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TestingFacility for a description of the Testing
Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to add language to Rule 7030(d)(1)(C)
that was erroneously omitted when the fee was originally adopted.\5\
The new rule text explains that a firm that is a member of more than
one of the Equity Markets may access the test environments of each of
the Equity Markets of which it is a member through a single
connectivity subscription under the rule. The Exchange notes that each
of the Equity Markets has identical installation and hand-off fees for
Carteret connectivity and these fees relate to the physical connection
to the hardware infrastructure that houses all three test environments
of the Equity Markets. Members of the Equity Markets must separately
pay port fees to connect to the individual test environments of the
Equity Markets of which it is a member within the hardware
infrastructure housing them.\6\ Therefore, a firm that is a member of
multiple Equity Markets is not charged the Carteret connectivity fees
for a hand-off under each of the identical rules of such markets, but
rather is assessed a single market's Carteret connectivity fees.
Consequently, a member firm of NASDAQ using the Carteret test
environment may be assessed the connectivity fees under another Equity
Markets' rules of which it is a member, yet pay the NASDAQ port fee to
connect to the Exchange's test environment. Similarly, a member firm
may subscribe to Carteret connectivity under NASDAQ Rule 7030(d)(1)(C)
and not have an obligation to pay the same fee under the rules of the
other Equity Markets of which it is a member, but have an obligation to
pay those markets' port fees. The Exchange notes that, in adopting the
identical fee for Carteret connectivity, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. included
rule text consistent with the rule text proposed herein.\7\
Accordingly, the Exchange is adding rule text to Rule 7030(d)(1)(C) to
reflect that the connectivity provided by the rule also provides access
to the test environments of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 3.
    \6\ NASDAQ Rule 7030(d)(1)(B), Phlx Pricing Schedule Chapter
VIII Testing Facilities subparagraph (a), and BX Rule 7030(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71035 (December 11,
2013), 78 FR 76344 (December 17, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-058).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\
in particular. The Exchange believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customer, issuers, brokers and dealers. The Exchange is proposing to
add clarifying language to the rule, which was erroneously omitted when
the rule was adopted and further describes the application of the rule.
Moreover, the proposed new rule text is consistent with the identical
rule of BX and how fees are assessed under that rule. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest to avoid potential market participant
confusion that may be caused by the omission of the proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change clarifies how fees will be assessed to a firm that
is a member of more than one of the Equity Markets and makes clear that
a member firm may gain access to the test environments of the other
Equity Markets through a subscription under the rule. Members of
multiple Equity Markets are assessed the same fee for Carteret
connectivity and must pay the port fees of each of the Equity Markets
to gain access to such markets' test environments. As a consequence,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change is
impactful to competition in any respect.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Exchange notes that such waiver will allow the Exchange to
immediately add language to its rule text that was incorrectly omitted
from a previous rule change, thereby clarifying its rules and avoiding
potential market participant confusion.\17\ The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as the proposal is
designed to avoid potential investor confusion regarding the Exchange's
rules and provide clarification to the public. For these reasons, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SR-NASDAQ-2013-164, Item 7.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-164 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-NASDAQ-2013-164. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NASDAQ-2013-
164, and should be submitted on or before January 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00070 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12281-12282]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2023-C-0544]

Innophos, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Innophos, Inc., proposing
that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe
use of tricalcium phosphate in poultry (chicken thigh), icing, white
chocolate candy melts, doughnut sugar, and sugar for coated candies.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on February 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Morissette, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 3C0324), submitted by
Innophos, Inc., 259 Prospect Plains Road, Building A, Cranbury, New
Jersey 08512. The petition proposes to amend the color additive
regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73), ``Listing of Color Additives
Exempt from Certification,'' to provide for the safe use of tricalcium
phosphate in (1) poultry (chicken thigh), (2) icing, (3) white
chocolate candy melts, (4) doughnut sugar, and (5) sugar for coated
candies.
    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to
remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to
replace macronutrients in food. If FDA determines a categorical
exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a
categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental
assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: February 22, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-03955 Filed 2-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P