  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [Kimberly
Nesci;<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
TEMPLATE:

[IAB, S.L. (Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotecnologicas S.L.)]

[Insert petition number]

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[IAB, S.L. (Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotecnologicas S.L.)],
[Avda. Paret del Patriarca 11-B, Ap. 30, 46113 Moncada (Valencia),
SPAIN] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the
microbial pesticide  [Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03].

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [IAB, S.L.
(Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotecnologicas S.L.)] has submitted the
following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of
their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [IAB, S.L.
(Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotecnologicas S.L.)] and EPA has not
fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may
have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary
contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the
reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA’s position and not the
position of the petitioner.

I. [IAB, S.L. (Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotecnologicas S.L.)]
Petition Summary

	[Insert petition number]

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

	[Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical Powder, a Technical Grade
Active Ingredient (TGAI), is proposed for manufacturing use only, for
further formulation into registered end-use products.

	Mildore™ (1% ai) and Mildore™ Max (10% ai) are formulated end-use
products for use to control fungal pathogens on growing crops in
greenhouse and agricultural use sites, and in home and garden use
sites.]

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03 (CAS No. Not applicable).  Information
regarding the name, identity and composition has been submitted to EPA
and can be found in MRID No. 489693-01.  Bacillus subtilis is a
naturally occurring bacteria found in agricultural soils worldwide.  Per
EPA, Bacillus subtilis is a rod-shaped, gram-positive, aerobic, motile
bacterium which is ubiquitous in nature and has been recovered from
water, soil, air and decomposing plant residue (EPA Registration Review
Final Work Plan – Bacillus subtilis Case 6012).  Bacillus subtilis
strain IAB/BS03 is antagonistic to fungal plant pathogens through
nutrient competition, site exclusion and colonization (MRID No.
489693-01).]

	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. [NA - Remove]

	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [An analytical
method for residues is not applicable.  It is expected that, when used
as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03, would not result in
residues that are of toxicological concern.]

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

	[Studies to evaluate the safety to mammals were conducted on the
technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) and are summarized as follows:

1.	Acute Oral Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1100):  Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was not toxic in an acute oral study in female
rats that received a dose of 5,000 mg/kg test article by gavage (MRID No
489693-04).  There were no clinical signs of toxicity and no mortality
in any of the subjects during the study.  The acute oral LD50 for
Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was identified as >
5,000 mg/kg, which is EPA Toxicity Category IV.

2.	Acute Dermal Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1200): Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was not toxic in an acute dermal study in
albino rats that received a single dose of 2,000 mg/kg test article
moistened with 1.0 ml water applied to the skin (MRID No. 489693-05).
The treated area on each rat was covered with gauze and wrapped with a
veterinary bandage for 24 hours. After 24-hours the wrappings were
removed and the sites were gently washed.  There were no clinical signs
of toxicity or dermal irritation during the observation period and no
mortality during the study.  The acute dermal LD50 was determined to be
>2,000 mg/kg bw, which is EPA Toxicity Category III.

3.	Acute IV Toxicity/Pathogenicity Study in Rats (OCSPP 885.3050):

It has been demonstrated that Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03
Technical Powder is not toxic or infective to mammals in a guideline IV
toxicity/pathogenicity study (MRID No. 489693-03).  This study was
conducted to evaluate the acute intravenous toxicity and infectivity of
a microbial pest control agent (MPCA); Technical Product Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03, at a single high dose exposure and an adequate
post-exposure observation period.  The MPCA test substance or
inactivated MPCA test substance was injected into the tail vein of one
of two groups of rats at a high dose.  A control group (untreated) was
conducted concurrently.  The animals were observed frequently on day of
dosing for mortality and signs of pharmacologic and/or toxicologic
effects and once daily thereafter for 21 days.  Tissue and blood samples
taken at interim sacrifices from the group receiving the active test
substance were cultured to provide quantitative measurements of the test
microbe’s clearance pattern.

	The dose verification analysis of the test substance solution resulted
in a count of 1.4 x 108 CFU/mL or 1.4 x 107 CFU dosed per rat.  The Day
0 analysis of the inactivated test substance verified 0 CFU/mL of the
MPCA.  There was no mortality in any group during the study.  During
observations for clinical signs, all animals appeared normal for the
duration of the study.  The gross necropsy conducted at termination of
the study revealed no observable abnormalities, with the exception of
one MPCA group animal found with one white dot on liver.

Once clearance was established by two consecutive interim sacrifices
that showed less than 100 CFU/gram tissue of the test organism in the
organs plated, no further tissue samples were taken or cultured.  The
test organism was considered completely cleared from the Group III -
MPCA blood by Day 3.  The test organism was considered completely
cleared from the Group III - MPCA kidneys by Day 21.  The test organism
was considered completely cleared from the Group III - MPCA brain after
Day 21.  The test organism showed a pattern of clearance from the Group
III lungs, liver, spleen and mesenteric lymph nodes, but the test
organism had not cleared from the Group III cecum contents by Day 21.
The test substance, Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical Powder
was determined to be non-toxic to rats when injected intravenously at a
dose of 1.4 x 107 CFU/rat.

A reason for the lack of clearance of the organism in cecum contents was
investigated.  Based on an extensive literature search it was determined
that Bacillus subtilis is a transient resident of the gut and the
organism can act as a probiotic like common Lactobacillus – type
probiotics (MRID No. 489693-17).

 5.	Primary Eye Irritation (OCSPP 870.2400):  A primary eye irritation
study using Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical Powder was
conducted on rabbits by instilling 0.1g (2 X 109 CFU/animal) of test
article in the conjunctival sac of one eye of three rabbits (MRID No.
489693-06).  The other eye of each served as the untreated control. The
degree of ocular irritation was characterized and recorded at 1, 24, 48
and 72 hours after treatment.  The ocular conjunctivae reactions
observed during the study were slight to moderate and totally
reversible.  The test substance was identified as minimally irritating
to the eyes and assigned to Toxicity Category IV.

6.	Primary Dermal Irritation (OCSPP 870.2500):  A primary dermal
irritation study using Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 Technical
Powder was conducted on rabbits by application of 0.5 g (1010CFU)/animal
of test article moistened with 0.5 ml of deionized water to clipped
sites on the dorsal skin three rabbits (MRID No. 489693-07).  The
contralateral dorsal skin of each rabbit served as the untreated
control. The treated area on each rabbit was covered with gauze and
loosely wrapped with a semipermeable membrane for 4 hours. After 4-hours
the wrappings were removed and the sites were gently washed to remove
the test substance.  The test sites were observed for erythema and edema
or other signs of dermal irritation at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after
removal of the wrappings.  Very slight erythema was observed through the
first 24 hours, but no edema was observed during the study and the
irritation was reversible by day 2.  No other signs of irritation were
reported during the study.  The test substance was identified as
slightly irritating and assigned to Toxicity Category IV.

7.	Hypersensitivity Incidents (OCSPP 885.3400):   The registrant has
noted that no incidents of hypersensitivity or any other adverse effects
have occurred through the research, development or testing of the active
ingredient and its related end-use product.  Should any incidents occur,
they will be reported per FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) (MRID No. 489693-17).

Literature searches have demonstrated that there are no reports of
ecological or human health hazards caused Bacillus subtilis strain. It
does not produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors
normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity.

The results of toxicity testing show there is no risk to human health
from the active ingredient.  Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is not
toxic, pathogenic, infective or irritating to mammals.]

D. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.

	i. Food. [Dietary exposure from use of Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03, as proposed, is minimal.  The intended use of Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is as a biological fungicide to growing
agricultural crops and home gardens for the purposes of disease control.

	The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human
health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03. There
are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this
strain of Bacillus subtilis. It does not produce recognized toxins,
enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian
invasiveness or toxicity.  The absence of acute toxicity or
pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of
this strain.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of
Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 in consumed drinking water would be
unlikely.  Potential exposure to surface water would be negligible and
exposure to drinking water (well or ground water) would be impossible to
measure. Bacillus subtilis occurs naturally in soils and has long been
identified in association with plant roots, organic material and
inorganic material in soils (MRID No. 489693-17).

The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is to growing
agricultural crops and home gardens for the purposes of disease control.
 The risk of the microorganism passing through the soil to ground water
is minimal to unlikely.  Additionally the fungus would not tolerate the
conditions water is subjected to in a drinking -water facility
(including:  chlorination, pH adjustments, high temperatures and/or
anaerobic conditions).

	The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human
health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03. There
are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this
strain of Bacillus subtilis. It does not produce recognized toxins,
enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian
invasiveness or toxicity.  The absence of acute toxicity or
pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of
this strain.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03 is to growing agricultural crops and home gardens for the
purposes of disease control.  Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
mitigates the potential for exposure to applicators and handlers of the
proposed products, when used in agricultural settings.  Bacillus
subtilis occurs naturally in soils and has long been identified in
association with plant roots, organic material and inorganic material in
soils (MRID No. 489693-17).

	The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human
health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03. There
are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by this
strain of Bacillus subtilis. It does not produce recognized toxins,
enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian
invasiveness or toxicity.  The absence of acute toxicity or
pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of
this strain.  Non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any
quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern.]

E. Cumulative Effects

	[It is not expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis
strain IAB/BS03 would result in residues that are of toxicological
concern. The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is to
growing agricultural crops and home gardens for the purposes of disease
control.  The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to
human health or the environment from Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03.
There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by
this strain of Bacillus subtilis. It does not produce recognized toxins,
enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian
invasiveness or toxicity.  The absence of acute toxicity or
pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of
this strain.]

F. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Acute toxicity studies have shown that Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03 is not toxic, pathogenic, infective or
irritating to mammals.  The intended use of Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03 is to growing agricultural crops and home gardens for the
purposes of disease control.  The results of toxicity testing indicate
there is no risk to human health or the environment from Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03. There are no reports of ecological or human
health hazards caused by this strain of Bacillus subtilis. It does not
produce recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally
associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity.  The absence of
acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the
benign nature of this strain.  There is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the general US population from exposure to this active
ingredient.]

	2. Infants and children. [As mentioned above, it is not expected that,
when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 would result in
residues that are of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable
certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03 from the proposed uses.]

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

	[To date there is no evidence to suggest that Bacillus subtilis strain
IAB/BS03 functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it
acts as an endocrine disrupter.]

H. Existing Tolerances

	[There is no US EPA tolerance or tolerance exemption for Bacillus
subtilis strain IAB/BS03.]

I. International Tolerances

	[A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not
established for Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03.]

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76133-76136]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number: USCG-2023-0135]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Key West, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone to be enforced
in the event of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other disasters in the
Florida Keys, FL. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the
waters of the Key West Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. This regulation
establishes actions to be completed by parties operating on and around
the navigable waterways of the Key West COTP zone. This may include the
owners and operators, and those in management and control positions of
regulated facilities, waterfront facilities, and vessels, prior to
landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other disasters
threatening the Florida Keys.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice November 6, 2023.
For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from
November 1, 2023, until November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0135 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
notification of enforcement, call or email Hailye Wilson, Sector Key
West Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-
8768; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OPA90 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Florida Keys has the potential to be affected by hurricanes,
tropical storms, and other disasters on a yearly basis, especially
between the months of June and November. The Key West COTP is
establishing a safety zone to provide for the safety of life during
such storms and events. In response, on May 2, 2023, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).\1\ There, we stated
why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to safety zone. During the comment period that ended
June 1, 2023, we received two comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 27421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the rapid formation of a tropical storm or
hurricane that would pose an imminent threat to vessels, persons,
structures, and shore areas.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The purpose of this rule is to protect the general maritime
public, to include vessel owners, vessel operators, and those in
management and control positions related to facilities and waterways
regulated by the Coast Guard, along with those in management and
control positions related to any land

or shore area immediately adjacent to those waterways in the COTP Key
West zone, in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, and other
natural disasters.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published May
2, 2023. The first commenter positively endorsed the Coast Guard's
establishment of this safety zone. They further recommended that small
entities and individuals who choose to reside in Florida assume all the
liability, risk and responsibilities associated with hurricanes. They
also recommended that tax-payer-funds not be expended to combat the
effects of climate change. The Coast Guard acknowledges these comments
and determined no recommended changes are needed in response to these
suggestions. Additionally, this commenter recommended the fossil fuel
industry, and their shareholders bear the cost associated with climate
change. With regards to this suggestion, the suggestion is outside the
scope of this rulemaking, which pertains to the establishment of a
safety zone to be subject to enforcement in the event of a hurricane,
tropical storm, and other disaster in the Florida Keys, FL.
    The second commenter raised several issues regarding the lack of
clarity in the proposed regulatory text and questioned whether the rule
is necessary. The rule is necessary to protect the general maritime
public in the COTP Key West zone, in the event of extreme weather or
other natural disasters. While the regulations in 33 CFR part 160,
subpart B, ``Control of Vessel and Facility Operations'' grants the
COTP the broad authority to direct the operations of vessels on the
navigable waters, and waterfront facilities, land structures or shore
areas immediately adjacent to the navigable waters, this rule is
intended to specifically streamline the COTP's actions and processes
for specific scenarios that may occur in the event of extreme weather
or other natural disasters.
    This rule is intended to inform the general maritime public, to
include vessel owners and operators, regulated facilities, and
waterfront facilities of the Coast Guard's expectations in the event of
a hurricane, tropical storm, or other disaster, thereby expediting the
enforcement of the safety zone, and providing more advanced notice of
the Coast Guard's expectations in the event of a hurricane, tropical
storm, or other natural disaster. The rule is also intended to provide
vessel owners and operators, along with the owners and operators of
regulated facilities and waterfront facilities with a deeper
understanding of how the Coast Guard intends to handle extreme weather-
related events so they can plan accordingly.
    To address the commenter's concerns regarding the regarding the
lack of clarity in the proposed regulatory text, the Coast Guard is
making the following changes in the final rule regulatory text in Sec.
165.707.
    The Coast Guard is adding three definitions for ``regulated
facilities,'' ``waterfront facilities,'' and ``authorized law
enforcement agencies'' in paragraph (a). The Coast Guard has the
authority to regulate facilities and land structure or shore area
immediately adjacent to navigable waters under certain, specific
statutory and regulatory frameworks. We are adding a definition for
``regulated facilities'' to clarify the regulated facilities covered by
this rule are those regulated under the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act,\2\ Maritime Transportation and Security Act,\3\ Clean Water
Act,\4\ and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.\5\ These statutes give the
Coast Guard the authority and jurisdiction to take certain actions on
certain regulated facilities that have a maritime nexus. We are adding
a definition for ``waterfront facilities'' to the regulatory text which
will include any land structure or shore area immediately adjacent to
the navigable waters of the Key West COTP zone. We also added a
definition for ``authorized law enforcement agencies'' to clarify that
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that have received
specific authorization from or are operating in concert with the Coast
Guard are authorized to conduct operations related to the safety,
security, and stability of the Key West COTP zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 46 U.S.C. 70001 et seq.
    \3\ 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq.
    \4\ 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    \5\ 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the commenter raised concerns related to
enforceability and notice requirements. The Coast Guard understands
that its regulations are not enforceable on the public without proper
notice. While the publication of this final rule document in the
Federal Register constitutes constructive notice of the requirements
within the regulations. However, there will be circumstances where
individuals are notified by the Coast Guard of an impending extreme
weather situation causing the need for the safety zone to be made
subject to enforcement. In those types of circumstances, the Coast
Guard will provide affected individuals with actual notice of the
safety zone prior to its enforcement or assessment of any fines or
penalties. In addition to changes made to the regulatory text in this
final rule in response to comment, we are making the following changes
to the regulatory text.
    In paragraph (a), we are adding ``regulated facilities, and
``waterfront facilities'' to clarify that regulated facilities and
waterfront facilities as defined in paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7)
respectively are covered by this safety zone when port conditions are
met in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) Port
Condition WHISKEY and (c)(2) Port Condition X-RAY. Additionally, in
paragraph (a), we are deleting ``during specified conditions'' because
the location of the safety zone is intended to be constant. When the
safety zone is subject to enforcement it will be determinate of
conditions set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of the
regulatory text. In paragraph (c)(1), we are deleting ``port
facilities'' and adding in its place, ``regulated facilities and
waterfront facilities'' for consistency as definitions for these terms
have been added in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7). In the event Port
Condition WHISKEY is set, all vessels, regulated facilities, and
waterfront facilities within the Key West COTP zone would have to
comply with the applicable regulations in (c)(1). Additionally, in
paragraph (c)(1), we removed the sentence, ``Vessels wishing to remain
in port are required to submit an application to the COTP prior to
setting Port Condition X-Ray.'' In its place, we are adding the
sentence, ``Oceangoing vessels greater than 300 gross tons (GT)
intending to remain in the port during Port Condition Whiskey must
contact the Key West COTP prior to the setting of port condition X-
Ray.'' We are taking this action to prevent vessel owners and operators
from having to generate additional documentation.
    In paragraph (c)(2), we are deleting ``port facilities'' and adding
in its place, ``regulated facilities and waterfront facilities'' for
consistency as definitions for these terms have been added in
paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7). In the event Port Condition X-RAY is set,
all vessels, regulated facilities, and waterfront facilities within the
Key West COTP zone would have to comply with the applicable regulations
in paragraph (c)(2). Additionally, in paragraph (c)(2), we are deleting
the sentence, ``The COTP may require additional precautions to ensure
the safety of the ports and waterways'' because it is

overly vague and may cause undue confusion for owners and operators of
vessels and regulated facilities.
    In paragraph (c)(3), we clarified we are only limiting cargo
operations at ``regulated facilities.'' We also removed some the
language that went into specifics of cargo operations. Removing the
language made the regulatory text more succinct, as the initial
language contained unnecessary redundancies. We also clarified that
only facilities regulated under the MTSA will be required to operate in
accordance with their security plan.
    In paragraph (c)(4), we are removing the words ``are suspended''
and replacing it with, ``must cease all cargo operations'' because the
phrase ``are suspended'' may be confusing in this context. By using the
phrase ``must cease all cargo operations'' we are making it clear to
the regulated parties that cargo operations must stop when Port ZULU is
set.
    In paragraph (c)(6), we are revising the text to clarify that the
Coast Guard Sector Key West will notify the maritime community, ``to
the furthest extent practicable'' of the periods which the safety zone
in paragraph (a) will be subject to enforcement via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners or by on-scene designated representatives.
    We are deleting paragraph (c)(7) because it is duplicative of what
is contained in paragraph (c)(6). The information previously described
in (c)(8) was thereby moved to (c)(7).
    Lastly, we are making non-substantive editorial changes and
revising terminology for consistency throughout the final rule
regulatory text.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the necessity to
protect life and port infrastructure during a hurricanes, tropical
storms, and other disasters. The absence of a safe harbor in the
Florida Keys precludes large vessels from accessing adequate facilities
to weather a substantial storm or natural disaster within the Key West
COTP zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the
rule would allow vessels to seek permission to remain in port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that would prohibit entry in certain waters of the Key West
COTP for

the duration needed to ensure safe transit of vessels and industry
post-hurricane, post-storm, and post-emergency. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.707 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.707  Safety Zone; Hurricanes, Tropical Storms and Other
Disasters in Florida Keys.

    (a) Regulated Areas. All navigable waters, regulated facilities,
and waterfront facilities within the Key West Captain of the Port
(COTP) zone, Key West, Florida (as described in 33 CFR 3.35-40).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Authorized Law Enforcement Agencies means Federal, State, and local
law enforcement agencies that have received specific authorization from
or are operating in concert with the Coast Guard to conduct operations
related to the safety, security and stability of the Key West COTP
zone.
    Designated Representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders,
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, State, and local officers
designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    Port Condition WHISKEY means a condition set by the COTP when
weather advisories indicate sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47
knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make
landfall at the port within 72 hours.
    Port Condition X-RAY means a condition set by the COTP when weather
advisories indicate sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47 knots)
from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make landfall
at the port within 48 hours.
    Port Condition YANKEE means a condition set by the COTP when
weather advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/
34-47 knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to
make landfall at the port within 24 hours.
    Port Condition ZULU means a condition set by the COTP when weather
advisories indicate that sustained gale force winds (39-54 mph/34-47
knots) from a tropical or hurricane force storm are predicted to make
landfall at the port within 12 hours.
    Regulated Facilities means shoreside facilities regulated by the
Coast Guard under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act,\6\ Maritime
Transportation and Security Act,\7\ Clean Water Act,\8\ and the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990,\9\ and regulations in 33 CFR parts 105, 154,
156, and 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 46 U.S.C. 70001 et seq.
    \7\ 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq.
    \8\ 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    \9\ 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Waterfront Facilities means any land structure or shore area
immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the Key West COTP zone.
    (c) Regulations--(1) Port Condition WHISKEY. All vessels, regulated
facilities, and waterfront facilities within the Key West COTP zone
must exercise due diligence in preparation for potential storm impacts.
All regulated facilities and waterfront facilities must begin removing
all debris and securing potential flying hazards. Oceangoing vessels
greater than 300 gross tons (GT) must make plans to depart no later
than the setting of Port Condition Yankee unless authorized by the
COTP. Oceangoing vessels greater than 300 GT intending to remain in
port must contact the COTP prior to the setting port condition X-Ray.
    (2) Port Condition X-RAY. All vessels, regulated facilities, and
waterfront facilities within the Key West COTP zone must ensure that
potential flying debris is removed or secured. Hazardous materials/
pollution hazards must be secured in a safe manner and away from
waterfront areas. Vessels greater than 300 GT without an approval to
remain in port must depart prior to the setting of Port Condition
YANKEE. Vessels with the COTP's permission to remain in port must
implement their pre-approved mooring arrangement. Regulated facilities
must prepare to terminate all cargo operations.
    (3) Port Condition YANKEE. Affected ports are closed to inbound
vessel traffic. All oceangoing vessels greater than 300 GT must have
departed designated ports within the Key West COTP zone. Regulated
facilities must terminate all cargo operations, not associated with
storm preparations, unless specifically authorized by the COTP. All
MTSA regulated facilities must continue to operate in accordance with
their approved Facility Security Plans and comply with the requirements
of the MTSA.
    (4) Port Condition ZULU. The port is closed to all vessel traffic
except as specifically authorized by the COTP. Regulated facilities
must cease all cargo operations, including bunkering and lightering.
Waivers may be granted except for when Cargo of Particular Hazard or
Certain Dangerous Cargo are involved.
    (5) Emergency Restrictions for Other Disasters. Any natural or
other disasters that are anticipated to affect the Key West COTP zone
will result in the prohibition of regulated facility operations and
vessel traffic transiting or remaining in the affected port.
    (6) Safety Zones Notice. Coast Guard Sector Key West will notify
the maritime community, to the furthest extent practicable, of the
periods during which the safety zone described in paragraph (a) will be
subject to enforcement via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (7) Exception. This regulation does not apply to authorized law
enforcement agencies operating within the regulated area.

Jason D. Ingram,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Key West.
[FR Doc. 2023-24471 Filed 11-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68084-68086]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78950; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

September 27, 2016.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 September 15, 2016, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule''). While changes to the Fee Schedule
pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated these changes to be operative on October 1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'') to offer two (2) additional Limited Service MIAX
Express Interface (``MEI'') Ports to Market Makers.
    Currently, MIAX assesses monthly MEI Port Fees on Market Makers
based upon the number of MIAX matching engines \3\ used by the Market
Maker. Market Makers are allocated two (2) Full Service MEI Ports \4\
and two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports \5\ per matching engine to which
they connect. The Exchange currently assesses the following MEI Port
fees: (i) $5,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 5 option classes
or up to 10% of option classes by volume; (ii) $10,000 for Market Maker
Assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes
by volume; (iii) $14,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 40
option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (iv) $17,500
for Market Maker Assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50%
of option classes by volume; and (v) $20,500.00 for Market Maker
Assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by
volume up to all option classes listed on MIAX.\6\ In each of the
foregoing categories, the stated fee applies if the less of the two
applicable measurements is met. For example, a Market Maker that wishes
to make markets in just one symbol would require the two (2) MEI Ports
in a single matching engine; a Market Maker wishing to make markets in
all symbols traded on MIAX would require the two (2) MEI Ports in each
of the Exchange's matching engines. The Exchange also currently charges
$50 per month for each additional Limited Service MEI Port per matching
engine for Market Makers over and above the two (2) Limited Service MEI
Ports per matching engine that are allocated with the Full Service MEI
Ports. The Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports, and the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports all include access to MIAX's
primary and secondary data centers and its disaster recovery center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will
be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single
designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not be
assigned to multiple matching engines.
    \4\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker quotes, eQuotes, and quote purge
messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are also capable
of receiving administrative information. Market Makers are limited
to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine.
    \5\ Limited Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not
Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited Service MEI Ports
are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market
Makers initially receive two Limited Service MEI Ports per matching
engine.
    \6\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally added the Limited Service MEI Ports to
enhance the MEI Port connectivity made available to Market Makers, and
subsequently made additional Limited Service MEI Ports available to
Market Makers.\7\ Limited Service MEI Ports have been well received by
Market Makers since their addition. The Exchange now proposes to offer
to Market Makers the ability to purchase an additional two (2) Limited
Service MEI Ports per matching engine over and

above the current two (2) additional Limited Service MEI Ports per
matching engine that are available for purchase by Market Makers. The
Exchange proposes to charge the same amount that it currently charges,
$50 per month, for each extra Limited Service MEI Port per matching
engine. The Exchange proposes making a corresponding change to footnote
31 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule to specify that Market Makers will
now be limited to purchasing four (4) additional Limited Service MEI
Ports per matching engine, for a total of six (6) per matching engine.
All other fees related to MEI Ports shall remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70137 (August 8,
2013), 78 FR 49586 (August 14, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-39); see also
Exchange Act Release No. 70903 (November 20, 2013), 78 FR 228
(November 26, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this amendment to the Fee Schedule is to provide
Market Makers with greater and improved technical flexibility to
connect additional Limited Service MEI Ports to independent servers
that host their eQuote and purge functionality. The Exchange believes
that the offering of additional ports will help Market Makers mitigate
the risk of using the same server for all of their Market Maker quoting
activity. By using the additional Limited Service MEI Ports for risk
purposes, Market Makers can place purge functionality on a different
server than the Market Maker quoting server (via the Limited Service
MEI Ports), which provides them a failsafe for getting out of the
market in case they have an issue with the quote server. Market Makers
can also use the extra Limited Service MEI Ports to submit eQuotes.
Since eQuotes are frequently generated by a different algorithm that
determines when to respond to an auction message, the Exchange believes
that the offering of additional ports will further enable Market Makers
to connect to a different server that processes auctions and eQuotes
rather than forcing them to use their Market Maker Standard quote
server as a gateway for communicating eQuotes to MIAX.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The
Exchange also 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 customers, issuers,
brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because only Market Makers that decide that they
need the extra Limited Service MEI Ports will be charged the additional
fee. The Exchange further believes that the availability of the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it further enhances Market Makers' access to the
MIAX System and consequently enhances the marketplace by helping Market
Makers to better manage risk, thus preserving the integrity of the MIAX
markets, all to the benefit of and protection of investors and the
public as a whole.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ because the additional
Limited Service MEI Ports are available to all Market Makers and the
proposed fees assessable for the additional Limited Service MEI Ports
apply equally to all Market Makers regardless of type, and access to
the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange designed the fee rates in order to provide objective
criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business models to be
assessed a MEI Port fee and to have technical connectivity that best
matches their quoting activity on the Exchange and the offering of
additional Limited Service MEI Ports comports with this objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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. The Exchange
believes that the proposal increases both intermarket and intramarket
competition by enabling Market Makers to enhance their connectivity to
the Exchange in a manner that is designed to provide Market Makers of
different sizes and business models to be assessed a MEI Port fee and
to have technical connectivity that best matches their quoting activity
on the Exchange and the offering of additional Limited Service MEI
Ports comports with this objective. The Exchange believes that the
proposal will increase competition amongst Market Makers of different
sizes and business models by encouraging Market Makers to connect
additional Limited Service Ports to independent servers that host their
eQuote and purge functionality and thereby increase such functionality.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and in order to attract market
participants to use its services. The Exchange believes that the
proposal reflects this competitive environment because it increases the
Exchange's fees in a manner that continues to encourage market
participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange, to provide
liquidity, and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose
is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from
the improved market liquidity.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder.
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 should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2016-33 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-MIAX-2016-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-33 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23751 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74544-74547]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23940]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98798; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Delete Legacy
Disciplinary Rules 475, 476, 476A, and 477 and Make Conforming Changes
to Rule 41, Rules 8001, 8130(d), 8320(d), 9001, 9216(b)(1), 9810(a),
and 781 of the Office Rules, Rules 2A, 12E, 3170(a)(3), 902NY and Adopt
a New Rule 600 and Make Conforming Changes to Rules 3170(C)(3), and
Adopt a New Rule 601

October 25, 2023.
    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 October 13, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to (1) delete legacy disciplinary Rules 475,
476, 476A, and 477 of the Office Rules as obsolete and make conforming
changes to Rule 41 of the General Rules, Rules 8001, 8130(d), 8320(d),
9001, 9216(b)(1), 9810(a), and 781 of the Office Rules, Rules 2A, 12E,
and 3170(a)(3) of the Equities Rules, and Rule 902NY of the Options
Rules; (2) adopt a new Rule 600 of the Office Rules incorporating the
substantive violations currently in Rule 476(a) without change and make
conforming changes to Rules 3170(C)(3)--Equities and 9217 of the Office
Rules; and (3) adopt a new Rule 601 of the Office Rules similar to Cboe
Exchange, Inc. Rule 13.11, Supplementary Material .01. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 proposes to (1) delete legacy disciplinary Rules 475,
476, 476A, and 477 of the Office Rules as obsolete and make conforming
changes to Rule 41 of the General Rules, Rules 8001, 8130(d), 8320(d),
9001, 9216(b)(1), 9810(a), and 781 of the Office Rules, Rules 2A, 12E,
and 3170(a)(3) of the Equities Rules, and Rule 902NY of the Options
Rules; (2) adopt a new Rule 600 of the Office Rules incorporating the
substantive violations currently in Rule 476(a) without change and make
conforming changes to Rules 3170(C)(3)--Equities and 9217 of the Office
Rules; and (3) adopt a new Rule 601 of the Office Rules setting forth
sanctions guidelines similar to Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Rule
13.11 (Judgment and Sanctions), Supplementary Material .01.
Background and Proposed Rule Change
    In 2016, the Exchange adopted rules relating to investigation,
discipline, and sanctions, and other procedural rules based on the
rules of its affiliate New York Stock Exchange LLC and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').\3\ The Exchange represented
in that filing that when the transition to the new disciplinary rules
was complete and there were no longer any member organizations or
persons subject to Rules 475, 476, 476A, and 477 of the Office Rules,
the Exchange would submit a proposed rule change that would delete such
rules (except for the listed offenses under Rule 476(a)).\4\ The
Exchange represents that the transition to the new disciplinary rules
is complete and there are no longer any member organizations or persons
subject to Rules 475, 476, 476A, and 477, and that those rules can
therefore be deleted as obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77241 (February 26,
2016), 81 FR 11311 (March 3, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30) (``Release
No. 77241'') (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Adopting Investigation, Disciplinary, Sanction,
and Other Procedural Rules Modeled on the Rules of the New York
Stock Exchange LLC and Certain Conforming and Technical Changes).
    \4\ See id., 81 FR at 11318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes conforming changes to the following rules
that contain references to one or more of the rules proposed to be
deleted:
General Rules
     Rule 41 (Failure to Pay Exchange Fees)
Office Rules
 Rule 9216(b)(1) (Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent; Procedure
for Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules)
 Rule 9810(a) (Initiation of Proceeding), and
 Rule 781 (Insolvency)
Equities Rules
 Rules 2A (Jurisdiction)
 Rule 12E (Arbitration), and
 Rule 3170(a)(3) (Tape Recording of Registered Persons by
Certain Firms)
Options Rules
 Rule 902NY (Admission and Conduct on the Options Trading
Floor)

    The following rules in the General Rules reflecting the transition
from the legacy disciplinary rules to the current rule set would be
deleted in their entirety:
     Rule 8130(d) (Retention of Jurisdiction);
     Rule 8320(d) (Payment of Fines, Other Monetary Sanctions,
or Costs; Summary Action for Failure to Pay); Rule 8001 (Effective Date
of Rule 8000 Series); and
     Rule 9001 (Effective Date of Rule 9000 Series).
    Section 9A of the Office Rules titled ``Legacy Disciplinary Rules''
where Rules 475, 476, 476A, and 477 are currently set forth would also
be deleted.
    Section 9B of the Office Rules where the Rule 8000 and Rule 9000
Series are currently set forth would become Section 10. The remaining
headings--current Sections 10 (Advertising), 11 (Wires and Other Means
of Communication), 12 (Reports), 13 (Secondary Distributions), 14
(Special Offerings and Special Bids), 15 (Exchange Distributions and
Exchange Acquisitions), and 16 (Proxies)--would be renumbered.

    Finally, Rule 478T, currently marked ``Deleted'', would be removed
as obsolete.
    In connection with the deletion of Rule 476, the Exchange also
proposes two new Rules that would be located in a new Section 18 titled
``Offenses and Sanctions Guidelines.''
    First, the Exchange would adopt new Rule 600 titled ``Other
Offenses'' that would, consistent with its filing adopting its current
disciplinary rules modeled on the NYSE and FINRA rules, retain the
listed offenses in Rule 476(a)(1)-(11) without substantive change.
Proposed Rule 600 would provide that a member, member organization,
principal executive, approved person, registered or non-registered
employee of a member or member organization or person otherwise subject
to the jurisdiction of the Exchange violates the provisions of the Rule
if it commits any of the enumerated offenses, which would be transposed
from Rule 476(a) in the same order and without changes except for Rule
476(a)(8), which is marked ``Reserved.'' The Exchange further proposes
conforming changes to the following rules to replace references to Rule
476(a) with references to Rule 600: Rules 3170(C)(3)--Equities (Tape
Recording of Registered Persons by Certain Firms) and Rule 9217
(Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Rule 9216(b)).
    Second, the Exchange would adopt new Rule 601 titled ``Sanction
Guidelines'' that would incorporate sanctions guidelines similar to
Cboe Rule 13.11, Supplementary Material .01, in place of the Sanction
Guidelines in Rule 476, Supplementary Material .10.
    The current Sanction Guidelines in Rule 476.10 were adopted
pursuant to the provisions of Section IV.B.i of the Commission's
September 11, 2000 Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings
Pursuant to Section 19(h)(1) of the Act (the ``2000 Order''), which
required the Exchange to adopt rules establishing, or modifying
existing, sanctioning guidelines such that they are reasonably designed
to effectively enforce compliance with options order handling rules,
including the duty of best execution with respect to the handling of
orders after the broker-dealer routes the order to such respondent
exchange, limit order display, priority, firm quote, and trade
reporting rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45412 (February 7,
2002), 67 FR 6770 (February 13, 2002) (Notice); 45566 (March 15,
2002), 67 FR 13379 (March 22, 2002) (SR-Amex-2001-68) (Order). See
generally Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43268 (September 11,
2000), Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-10282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike other exchanges subject to the 2000 Order,\6\ the Exchange
incorporated specific fine ranges in its sanctions guidelines for
violations (other than minor rule violations) setting forth the
principal considerations to be applied to the resolution of
disciplinary matters. The specific fine ranges incorporated into the
guidelines have remained static and, in many instances, set forth
recommended fine levels for rules that have been superseded and
deleted.\7\ For the remaining operative rules, such as Rule 16
(Business Conduct), 995NY (Prohibited Conduct) and 975NY (Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors), the
fine ranges have largely been eclipsed as the disciplinary landscape
evolves.\8\ In short, the Exchange believes that, more than two decades
after they were adopted, the monetary sanctions ranges are no longer
necessary or useful in determining appropriate sanctions in a given
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45427
(February 8, 2002), 67 FR 6958 (February 14, 2002) (Notice); 45571
(March 15, 2002), 67 FR 13382 (March 22, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2001-71)
(Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
To Incorporate Certain Principal Considerations in Determining
Sanctions and To Incorporate in the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation
Plan Violations of the Exchange's Order Handling Rules).
    \7\ These rules include former Rules 958A, 111, 126, 155, 950,
and 958. For instance, Rule 958A governing application of the firm
quote rule was superseded by Rule 970NY in 2008 and deleted in 2009.
Similarly, Section 900NY replaced former Rules 950 (Rules of General
Applicability) and 958 (Options Transactions of Registered Traders)
in 2008 and were also deleted in 2009. See generally Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR 9843
(March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Establish Rules
for the Trading of Listed Options); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 59454 (February 25, 2009), 74 FR 9461 (March 9, 2009) (SR-
NYSEALTR-2009-17) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC To Delete Certain
Rules Governing the Trading of Listed Options).
    \8\ For example, the guideline for Rule 16 violations is $1,000
to $5,000. In 2013, a respondent consented to a $50,000 fine for a
violation of Rule 16. See SG Americas Securities (NYSE American
Matter No. 13-NYSEMKT-4). In 2020, the fine for a similar violation
was $95,000--nearly 20 times the top of the guideline range. See
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (NYSE American Matter No. 2017-11-
00111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange accordingly believes that adopting a new rule that
continues to reflect a principles-based approach to sanctions
guidelines applicable to all options rules that does not contain
specific recommended fine ranges for a subset of rules would modernize
and update the rule in important respects while continuing to provide
flexible guidelines for determining appropriate remedial sanctions
consistent with the intention of the original rule.\9\ The principles-
based guidelines contained in Cboe Rule 13.11 that the Exchange
proposes to adopt are similar to those set forth in the current
guidelines. However, because Cboe Rule 13.11 takes a more streamlined
approach, the Exchange believes the proposed rule more clearly and
succinctly sets forth current relevant considerations regarding the
adjudication of disciplinary actions. Further, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule would be consistent with the 2000 Order because
the proposal would closely track approved Cboe Rule 13.11 that was also
adopted to satisfy the Commission's order. Indeed, by modernizing and
updating the Exchange's sanctions guidelines, proposed Rule 601 would
further enhance its disciplinary processes consistent with the 2000
Order. Finally, the proposed rule would promote regulatory consistency
across options exchanges in determining appropriate remedial sanctions
for violations of options rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 67 FR at 6771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like current Rule 476.10, proposed Rule 601 would not apply to the
equities market.\10\ As such, Rule 601 would carry forward the current
practice under Rule 476.10 whereby the various bodies with
responsibility for the adjudication of disciplinary actions, including
Hearing Panels, Hearing Officers, the Committee for Review (``CFR''),
and the Board of Directors (``Board''), defined in the proposed Rule
collectively as ``Adjudicatory Bodies,'' \11\ would consider relevant
Exchange precedent or such other precedent as they deem appropriate in
determining sanctions imposed against ATP Holders or ATP Firms and
their covered persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 6, supra.
    \11\ The Exchange proposes to add two terms to the definition of
``Adjudicatory Bodies'': ``Extended Hearing Panels,'' which are
provided for in the Exchange's disciplinary rules, and Chief
Regulatory Officer (``CRO''), given the CRO's role in the
disciplinary and settlement processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of the proposed Rule, with the following exceptions,
would be substantially the same as Cboe Rule 13.11.01:
     First, the second paragraph in the proposed Rule would
transpose the updated definition of ``Adjudicatory Bodies'' \12\ from
the second paragraph of

current Rule 476.10(A) and the last two sentences of the third
paragraph of current Rule 476.10(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, references to ``Cboe Options Trading Permit
Holders'' in Cboe Rule 13.11.01 would be replaced with ``ATP Holders or
ATP Firms'' to reflect the Exchange's membership.
     Third, in proposed Rule 601(d), the Exchange would omit
the second sentence in Cboe Rule 13.11.01(d), which is duplicative of
the first sentence that the Exchange would retain.
     Fourth, in proposed Rule 601(e), the Exchange would omit
the first sentence of Cboe Rule 13.11.01(e), which provides that
``Aggregation of violations may be appropriate in certain instances for
purposes of determining sanctions,'' as redundant of the second
sentence of Cboe Rule 13.11.01(e), which the Exchange would retain.
     Fifth, in proposed Rule 601(f), the Exchange would omit
the first sentence of Cboe Rule 13.11.01(f), which provides that ``The
Hearing Panel or the CRO, as applicable, should evaluate
appropriateness of disgorgement and/or restitution,'' as redundant of
the sentence of Cboe Rule 13.11.01(f), which the Exchange would retain.
    Finally, consistent with the Exchange's desire to adopt
streamlined, principles-based sanctions guidelines along the lines set
forth in Cboe Rule 13.11.01, the Exchange would not carry forward the
specific recommended monetary and non-monetary sanctions applicable to
certain specific rule violations found in current Rule 476.10.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(7) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it provides fair
procedures for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members,\15\ the denial of membership to any person seeking membership
therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated with a
member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of
any person with respect to access to services offered by the Exchange
or a member thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \15\ Under the Exchange's equities rules, the equivalent to the
term ``member'' in this context is ``member organization.''
References to ``member'' and ``member organization'' as those terms
are used in the rules of the Exchange include ATP Holders. See Rules
18, 24 & 900.2NY(5). See Release No. 77241, 81 FR 11318, notes 25-
26, & 11334, n. 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that deletion of the obsolete
legacy disciplinary rules now that there are no longer any member
organizations or persons subject to those rules, and making conforming
changes to the rules referencing those legacy disciplinary rules, would
increase the clarity and transparency of the Exchange's rules and
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction,
regulators, and the investing public could more easily navigate and
understand the Exchange Bylaws and rules. The Exchange further believes
that the proposed amendments would not be inconsistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be
harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency and
clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
    The Exchange further believes that retaining the substantive
offenses in Rule 476(a) without change is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by permitting the
Exchange to continue to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities with respect to the substantive provisions currently
enumerated in Rule 476(a). For the same reasons, retention of those
provisions would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that adopting sanction guidelines
similar to Cboe Rule 13.11.01 with only non-substantive, conforming
changes that do not contain specific recommended fine ranges for a
subset of rules would continue to permit the Exchange to impose
sanctions consistently and fairly by reference to a streamlined rule,
thereby continuing to provide fair procedures for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with members, the denial of membership
to any person seeking Exchange membership, the barring of any person
from becoming associated with a member, and the prohibition or
limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to
services offered by the Exchange or a member thereof pursuant to
Section 6(b)(7) \16\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would provide flexible and appropriate
principles-based guidelines applicable to all options rules for
determining remedial sanctions consistent with the intention of the
Exchange's current sanctions guidelines rule.\17\ However, the Exchange
believes that dispensing with recommended fine ranges would modernize
and update the rule in important respects. As noted, there are
currently fine ranges for numerous rules that have been superseded or
deleted, and the fine ranges for the remaining operative rules do not
reflect more recent regulatory considerations and fine levels.
Moreover, by adopting Cboe Rule 13.11's more streamlined approach to
sanctions guidelines, the Exchange believes the proposed rule would
more clearly and succinctly set forth the current relevant
considerations regarding the adjudication of disciplinary actions.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule would also be
consistent with the 2000 Order because the proposal would closely track
approved Cboe Rule 13.11 that was adopted to satisfy the same
Commission order. Indeed, the Exchange believes that by modernizing and
updating its sanctions guidelines, proposed Rule 601 would further
enhance its disciplinary processes consistent with the 2000 Order and
further ensure that the Exchange implements the most appropriate
disciplinary mechanisms for violations and a fair process in
determining same. Finally, the proposed rule would promote regulatory
consistency and uniformity across options exchanges in determining
appropriate remedial sanctions and the imposition of penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 67 FR at 6771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned solely with deleting obsolete rules and making related and
conforming changes.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-49 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-NYSEAMER-2023-49. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-49 and should be submitted on or
before November 21, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23940 Filed 10-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43493]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1601]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Annual Reporting for Custom Device
Exemption

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Annual Reporting for Custom Device
Exemption'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 14, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Annual Reporting for
Custom Device Exemption'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0767.
The approval expires on July 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 21, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-17482 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14181-14182]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 14, 2009 starting at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force
meeting. The agenda will include:
     Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
     Review/Approve Summary of December 16, 2008 PMC Meeting,
RTCA Paper No. 028-09/PMC-700.
     Publication Consideration/Approval.

     Final Draft, New Document, Minimum Operational Performance
Standards for Global Positioning System/Aircraft Based Augmentation
System Airborne Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 072-09/PMC-701, prepared by
SC-159.
     Final Draft, New Document--Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) for Aircraft Surveillance Applications (ASAS), RTCA
Paper No. 073-09/PMC-702, prepared by SC-186.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-272A, User Requirements for
Aerodrome Mapping Information, RTCA Paper No. 074-09/PMC-703, prepared
by SC-217.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-291, Interchange Standards for
Terrain, Obstacle, and Aerodrome Mapping Data, RTCA Paper No. 075-09/
PMC-704, prepared by SC-217.
     Final Draft, Change 1 to DO-270, Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for the Aeronautical Mobile-
Satellite(R)Service (AMS(R)S) as Used in Aeronautical Data Links, RTCA
Paper No. 076-09/PMC-705, prepared by SC-215.
     Action Item Review
     SC-203--Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)--Discussion--
Status Review.
     SC-214--Standards for Air Traffic Data Communications
Services--Discussion--Status--Review/Approve Terms of Reference and
Discussion of 4DTRAD.
     PMC Ad Hoc--Interrelationships between Communication,
Navigation and Surveillance Committee activities--Discussion--Review
Integration and Coordination Committee recommendation.
     SC-220--Automatic Flight Guidance and Control--
Discussion--Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     DO-222--Inmarsat AMS(R)S--Discussion--Status--Review/
Approve Terms of Reference.
     DO-218--Future ADS-B/TCAS Relationships--Discussion--
Status
     DO-217--Terrain and Airport Databases--Discussion--
Status--Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     Discussion
     Airport Surface Wireless Link--Discussion--Possible New
Special Committee.
     Special Committee Chairman's Reports.
     Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production, Date
and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2009.
Meredith Gibbs,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E9-6993 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8517]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01786]

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

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 wholesale markets of ISO New England Inc.:
    Integrating Markets and Public Policy:

January 25, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST), Doubletree Hotel, 5400
Computer Drive, Westborough, MA 01581
February 16, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EST), Doubletree Hotel, 5400
Computer Drive, Westborough, MA 01581

    Further information may be found at www.nepool.com/IMAPP.php.
    The discussion at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket Nos. EL13-33 and EL 14-86, Environment Northeast et al. v.
Bangor Hydro-Electric Company et al.
Docket No. EL16-19, ISO New England Inc. Participating Transmission
Owners Administrative Committee
Docket No. RP16-618, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER12-1650, Emera Maine
Docket No. ER14-1639, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER13-2266, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER15-1429, Emera Maine
Docket No. ER16-551, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER16-1904, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER16-2451, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. EL16-120, New England Power Generators Association, Inc. v.
ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER17-337, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER17-472, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER17-680, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER17-774, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER17-795, ISO New England Inc.

    For more information, contact Michael Cackoski, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6169 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01786 Filed 1-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P