[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33003-33005]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75109; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Intermarket Order Routing

June 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on May 28, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14B regarding order routing
to other exchanges to include certain references to provisions of Rule
15c3-5 under the Act \3\ and make certain miscellaneous non-substantive
changes to the existing text of Rule 6.20. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided below. (additions are italicized; deletions are
[bracketed])
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (November 3,
2010), 75 FR 69792 (November 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules
* * * * *
Rule 6.14B. Order Routing to Other Exchanges
    The Exchange may automatically route intermarket sweep orders to
other exchanges under certain circumstances, including pursuant to Rule
6.14A

(``Routing Services''). In connection with such services, the following
shall apply:
    (a)-(g) No change.
    (h) Each routing broker is required to establish, document, and
maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory
procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory and
other risks of providing Trading Permit Holders and their customers
access to other exchanges, pursuant to Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange
Act. Pursuant to the policies and procedures developed by the routing
broker to comply with Rule 15c3-5, if an order or series of orders are
deemed by the routing broker to violate the applicable pre-trade
requirements of Rule 15c3-5, the routing broker will reject the
order(s) prior to routing and may seek to cancel any orders that have
been routed.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 No change.
* * * * *
Rule 6.20. Admission to and Conduct on the Trading Floor; Trading
Permit Holder Education
    (a)-(e) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 Only those Trading Permit Holders who have been approved to
perform a floor function are authorized to enter into transactions on
the floor. Such Trading Permit Holders include Floor Brokers who are
registered pursuant to Rule 6.71[, Board Brokers who are registered
pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.3] and Market-Makers registered pursuant to
Rules 8.2 and 8.3. While on the floor such floor Trading Permit Holders
shall at all times display a floor Trading Permit Holder's badge.
    .02-.10 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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

Market Access Rule

    The Commission adopted Rule 15c3-5 (also referred to herein as the
``Market Access Rule'') to require broker-dealers providing others with
access to an exchange or alternative trading system to establish,
document and maintain a system of risk management controls and
supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial,
regulatory, and other risks of providing such access.\4\ Broker-dealers
routing orders on behalf of exchanges or alternative trading systems
for the purpose of accessing other trading centers in compliance with
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS,\5\ or in compliance with a national market
system plan for listed options, are not required to comply with Rule
15c3-5 with regard to such routing services, except with regard to
paragraph (c)(1)(ii). Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) provides in relevant part
that the broker-dealer's risk management controls and supervisory
procedures be reasonably designed to systematically limit the financial
exposure of the broker or dealer that could arise as a result of market
access, including being reasonably designed to prevent the entry of
erroneous orders, by rejecting orders that exceed appropriate price or
size parameters, on an order-by-order basis or over a short period of
time, or that indicate duplicative orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5(b) and (c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Modify Rules Related to Routing Brokers

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14B to make explicit that
broker-dealers routing Exchange orders to other markets must establish,
document, and maintain a system of risk management controls and
supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial,
regulatory and other risks of providing Trading Permit Holders and
their customers access to other options exchanges and stock trading
centers (as applicable), pursuant to Rule 15c3-5 under the Act. The
proposed rule change would also state that pursuant to the policies and
procedures developed by the routing broker to comply with Rule 15c3-5,
if an order or series of orders are deemed by the routing broker to
violate the applicable pre-trade requirements of Rule 15c3-5, the
routing broker will reject the order(s) prior to routing and may seek
to cancel any orders that have been routed. To the extent that any
Exchange-affiliated routing broker determines, based on its procedures,
that an order should be rejected, the routing broker may also seek to
cancel orders that have already been routed away.

Proposal To Modify Rule 6.20 To Make Miscellaneous, Non-Substantive
Changes

    The Exchange is also proposing certain non-substantive amendments
to Rule 6.20 pertaining to admissions to, and conduct on, the CBOE
trading floor and Trading Permit Holder education. In particular, the
Exchange is proposing in Rule 6.20.01 to eliminate reference to the
term ``Board Brokers'' as these market participants no longer exist.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S. C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S. C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that, by including specific
references to the existing requirements of Rule 15c3-5 under the Act
within the Exchange Rules, the Exchange is reiterating a routing
broker's obligation under Rule 15c3-5. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change will benefit Trading Permit Holders because it
provides clarity on the process

employed for away market routing consistent with the Market Access
Rule. The Exchange believes that the changes to conform the text of
Rule 6.14B (pertaining to options order routing to other exchanges will
simplify the Rules and make it easier to administer having consistent
provisions across both markets. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
miscellaneous, non-substantive changes to Rule 6.20 will simplify and
update the rules, and make them easier to read.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
is technical in nature in that is designed to reiterate existing
requirements under the Market Access Rule, which will provide clarity
on the process employed for away market routing and make the Market
Access Rule easier to administer consistently across markets. The
Exchange's other proposal to make other miscellaneous, non-substantive
changes to Rule 6.20 will simplify and update the Rules, and make them
easier to read. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange also notes that another exchange,
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), has substantially similar provisions in
its rules.\10\ To the extent that the proposed rule change may make
CBOE a more attractive venue for market participants on other
exchanges, such market participants may elect to become CBOE market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See EDGA Rule 11.11(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-053 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-CBOE-2015-053. 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-CBOE-2015-053 and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14136 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38658-38660]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0532]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Redwood City Fourth of July Fireworks; Redwood
Creek, Redwood City, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Redwood Creek in Redwood City, CA in support of
a fireworks display on July 4, 2022. The safety zone is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the
safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port San
Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. July 3, 2022 until 10:20 p.m.
July 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0532 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 rule,
call or email Petty Officer Shannon Curtaz-Milian, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector San Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive final details for this event until June 16, 2022. It is
impracticable to go through the full notice and comment rule making
process because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by July
3, 2022 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and to consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    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 contrary to public interest because action is
necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display
on Redwood Creek in Redwood City, CA on July 4, 2022.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San
Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Redwood City Fourth of July Fireworks on July 4, 2022, will be a safety
concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks vessel
during loading and staging, and anyone within a 850-foot radius of the
fireworks vessel starting 30 minutes before the fireworks display is
scheduled to commence and ending 30 minutes after the conclusion of the
fireworks display. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters around the fireworks vessel and during the fireworks
display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 a.m. on July
3, 2022 until 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2022, during the loading, staging,
and transit of the fireworks vessel in San Francisco Bay from Pier 50
to Redwood Creek, Redwood City, CA, and until 30 minutes after
completion of the fireworks display. During the loading, staging, and
transit of the fireworks vessel, scheduled to take place between 9 a.m.
on July 3, 2022 until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2022, until 30 minutes prior to
the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters around and under the fireworks vessel, from surface to
bottom, within a circle formed by connection of all points 100 feet out
from the fireworks vessel. The fireworks display is scheduled to start
from 9:30 p.m. and end at approximately 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2022, on
Redwood Creek in Redwood City, CA.
    The fireworks vessel will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its
transit to the display location. Movement of the vessel from Pier 50 to
the display location is scheduled to take place from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
on July 4, 2022, where it will remain until the conclusion of the
fireworks display.
    At 9 p.m. on July 4, 2022, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of
the 20-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size
and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks
vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by all
connecting points 850 feet from the circle center at approximate
position 37[deg]30'28.48'' N-122[deg]12'51.53'' W (NAD 83). The safety
zone will terminate at 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2022 or as announced via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    This regulation is necessary to keep persons and vessels away from
the immediate vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, transit, and
display site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or
the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or
remain in the restricted area. A ``designated representative'' means a
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal,
State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. This
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and transiting vessels.

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 Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone.
Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the
safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because
the local waterways users will be notified to ensure the safety zone
will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through
or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission
from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
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
temporary safety zone in the navigable waters around the loading,
staging, transit, and display of fireworks near Pier 50 in San
Francisco Bay and on Redwood Creek in Redwood City. 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; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1. 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-103 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-103   Safety Zone; Redwood City Fourth of July Fireworks;
Redwood Creek, Redwood City, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle
formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks vessel
during loading and staging at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA as well as
transit and arrival to Redwood Creek, Redwood City, CA. Between 9 p.m.
and 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2022, the safety zone will expand to all
navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connection all points 850 feet out from the fireworks vessel in
approximate position 37[deg]30'28.48'' N-122[deg]12'51.53'' W (NAD 83)
or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or Local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m.
on July 3, 2022 until 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2022.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during
which this zone will be enforced, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: June 22, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-13839 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61640-61642]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95985; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Temporarily
Waive Certain Port-Related Fees at Equity 7, Section 3

October 5, 2022.
    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 September 22, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to temporarily waive certain port-related
fees at Equity 7, Section 3, as described further below. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Equity 7,
Section 3 to provide a temporary fee waiver for newly added OUCH order
entry ports (production and Testing Facility environments) with the
updated version of the OUCH Order entry protocol,\3\ referred to as
``OUCH 5.0.'' The Exchange has proposed \4\ to introduce this new
upgraded version of the OUCH Order entry protocol that will enable the
Exchange to make functional enhancements and improvements to specific
Order Types \5\ and Order Attributes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The OUCH Order entry protocol is a proprietary protocol that
allows subscribers to quickly enter orders into the System and
receive executions. OUCH accepts limit Orders from members, and if
there are matching Orders, they will execute. Non-matching Orders
are added to the Limit Order Book, a database of available limit
Orders, where they are matched in price-time priority. OUCH only
provides a method for members to send Orders and receive status
updates on those Orders. See https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=OUCH.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95769 (September 14,
2022), 87 FR 57527 (September 20, 2022).
    \5\ An ``Order Type'' is a standardized set of instructions
associated with an Order that define how it will behave with respect
to pricing, execution, and/or posting to the Exchange Book when
submitted to the Exchange. See Equity 1, Section 1(e).
    \6\ An ``Order Attribute'' is a further set of variable
instructions that may be associated with an Order to further define
how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Exchange Book when submitted to the Exchange. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 3 to
provide a 30-day waiver of the OUCH production port fee for up to five
\7\ newly added OUCH ports with the updated version of the OUCH Order
entry protocol, OUCH 5.0. The fee waiver would be offered for a three-
month period, beginning on October 10, 2022. At the end of the three-
month period, users would no longer be eligible for the waiver. A user
may only receive the 30-day waiver once per port (up to a maximum of
five ports) within the three-month window. The Exchange proposes to
offer this temporary waiver to encourage new, prospective customers to
adopt and returning customers to migrate to the updated version of the
OUCH Order entry protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The fee waiver is limited to a maximum of five OUCH
production ports per Web Central Registration Depository (``CRD'')
membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 3 to
provide a 30-day waiver of the $300 Testing Facility fee for up to five
\8\ newly added OUCH Testing Facility ports with the updated version of
the OUCH Order entry protocol, OUCH 5.0. This fee waiver would be
offered for a three-month period, beginning on September 22, 2022. At
the end of the three-month period, users would no longer be

eligible for the waiver. A user may only receive the 30-day waiver once
per port (up to a maximum of five ports) within the three-month window.
The Testing Facility provides subscribers with a virtual System test
environment that closely approximates the production environment on
which they may test their automated systems that integrate with the
Exchange. For example, the Testing Facility provides subscribers a
virtual System environment for testing upcoming releases and product
enhancements, as well as testing firm software prior to implementation.
The Exchange proposes to offer this temporary waiver to encourage
customers to test the updated version of the OUCH Order entry protocol
free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The fee waiver is limited to a maximum of five OUCH Testing
Facility ports per CRD membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ 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, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its fee schedule are reasonable
in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities
transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that
market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide temporary
fee waivers for up to five newly added OUCH order entry ports
(production and Testing Facility environments) with the updated version
of the OUCH Order entry protocol, OUCH 5.0. The Exchange believes it is
important to provide users an opportunity to test OUCH 5.0 free of
charge. The temporary fee waivers would encourage users to test and
adopt the enhanced OUCH Order entry protocol.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary fee waivers are
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same
temporary fee waivers to all similarly situated members. The waivers
will reduce fees for and benefit all users that add OUCH 5.0 order
entry ports (production and Testing Facility environments) within the
three-month window.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participants at a competitive disadvantage. The
proposed change to temporarily waive fees for newly added OUCH 5.0
order entry ports (production and Testing Facility environments) will
apply uniformly to all similarly situated participants. The temporary
fee waivers are available to all users and would enable users to test
the OUCH enhancements at no cost.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary fee waivers will
not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution
services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition
both from the other live exchanges and from off-exchange venues, which
include alternative trading systems that trade national market system
stock.
    The proposed fee waivers are reflective of this competition
because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small
market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In
this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume only has
17-18% market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized
as having enough market power to burden competition. The proposed fee
waivers would facilitate adoption of enhancements to the Exchange's
System and Order entry protocols, which is pro-competitive because the
enhancements bolster the efficiency, functionality, and overall
attractiveness of the Exchange in an absolute sense and relative to its
peers. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members, participants, or competing
order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-Phlx-2022-37 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-Phlx-2022-37. 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 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2022-37 and should be submitted on or before November 2, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22081 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3627]
[DOCID:fr21ja09-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1211]

Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee
will meet in New Orleans, LA to discuss various issues relating to
navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related
waterways. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Thursday, February 5th, 2009 from 9
a.m. to 12 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is
finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations
should reach the Coast Guard on or before January 23, 2009. Requests to
have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before January 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the New Orleans Yacht Club, 403
North Roadway, West End, New Orleans, LA 70124. Send written material
and requests to make oral presentations to Sector Commander, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee, USCG Sector New Orleans, ATTN: Waterways
Management, 1615 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70112.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO3 David Chapman, Assistant to DFO
of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the February 5, 2009 Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Introduction of committee members.
    (2) Opening Remarks. Describe the second item on the agenda.
    (3) Approval of the September 25, 2008 minutes.
    (4) Old Business.
     (a) Captain of the Port status report.
     (b) VTS update report.
     (c) Subcommittee/Working Groups update reports.
    (5) New Business.
    (6) Adjournment.

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please
notify the DFO no later than January 23, 2009. Written material for
distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than
January 23, 2009. If you would like a copy of your material distributed
to each member of the committee in advance of a meeting, please submit
25 copies to the DFO no later than January 23, 2009.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: December 29, 2008.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-1130 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12695-12698]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0845; FRL-8814-3]

Tetraethoxysilane, Polymer with Hexamethyldisiloxane; Tolerance
Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of tetraethoxysilane, polymer with
hexamethyldisiloxane, minimum number average molecular weight (in AMU)
2,500 (CAS Reg. No. 104133-09-7) when used as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide chemical formulation under 40 CFR 180.960. Wacker Chemical
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of tetraethoxysilane, polymer
with hexamethyldisiloxane, on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 17, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 17, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket

identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0845. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Sunderland, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0845, in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 17, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0845, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2010 (75 FR 864) (FRL-8801-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 9E7634) filed
by Wacker Chemical Corporation, 3301 Sutton Rd., Adrian, MI 49221-9397.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane, minimum number
average molecular weight (in AMU) 2,500, (CAS No. 104133-09-7). That
notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate

exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Tetraethoxysilane, polymer with
hexamethyldisiloxane, conforms to the definition of a polymer given in
40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to
identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 2,500 daltons is greater than
1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane, meets
the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR
723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no
mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal
exposure to tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that tetraethoxysilane, polymer with
hexamethyldisiloxane could be present in all raw and processed
agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational
non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane is 2,500 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane conform to the
criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for
risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' For the purposes
of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that tetraethoxysilane,
polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane has a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances, based on the anticipated absence of mammalian
toxicity. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of tetraethoxysilane,
polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane, EPA has not used a safety factor
analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional
tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of tetraethoxysilane, polymer with
hexamethyldisiloxane.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptor

    EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to
determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active
and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in humans that is similar
to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such
endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.'' Following
recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis
for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone
systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted
EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use
FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
    When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols
being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane

may be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better
characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane, nor have any
CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops
at this time.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of
tetraethoxysilane, polymer with hexamethyldisiloxane, from the
requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts or local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 8, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec. 180.960, in the table, add alphabetically the following
polymers to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Tetraethoxysilane, polymer with             CAS Reg. No. 104133-09-7
 hexamethyldisiloxane, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in AMU) 2,500.
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-5691 Filed 3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18431-18433]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0197]

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Unmanned Aircraft
System Demonstration for Support of Coast Guard Missions in the Arctic

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Conoco
Phillips Company (COP) to evaluate unmanned aircraft system (UAS)
capabilities, benefits, risks and technical limitations of operating
UAS from land and/or off a Coast Guard Cutter in a maritime
environment. The Coast Guard will conduct flight testing and evaluation
of UASs under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant
real-world maritime operational scenarios, such as ice operations,
marine environmental monitoring, marine safety, search and rescue, and
potentially other Coast Guard mission sets. While the Coast Guard is
currently considering partnering with COP, the agency solicits public
comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in
the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other
potential non-Federal participants, who have the interest and
capability to bring similar contributions to this type of research, to
consider submitting proposals for consideration for similar CRADAs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before April 20, 2015.
    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast
Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before April 27,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
     Online--http://www.regulations.gov following Web site
instructions.

     Fax--202-493-2251.
     Mail or hand deliver--Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hours
for hand delivery are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact LT Keely Higbie,
Project Official, Surface Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center (RDC), 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
toll free 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on this
notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket
Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0197 and
should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all
comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that
any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR
3316, Jan. 17, 2008).
    Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x
11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management
Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at
the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under
ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).\1\ A CRADA promotes
the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as
well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent
with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party
or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research
resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statute confers this authority on the head of each
Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the
Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation
No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that
CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have
a specific purpose and should not be confused with other types of
agreements such as procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements.
    Under the proposed CRADA, the Coast Guard would collaborate with
one non-Federal participant. Together, the RDC and the non-Federal
participant would identify and investigate the potential of the UAS to
contribute to the Coast Guard's mission effectiveness and determine the
utility of the UAS to support Coast Guard operations and assets at sea.
    The RDC, with the non-Federal participant, will develop a
demonstration test plan and evaluate the UAS using quantitative and
qualitative measures under a wide variety of simulated but realistic
and relevant real-world maritime operational scenarios The
demonstration would be conducted both on land and/or on a cutter
operating in an Arctic maritime environment over a period of
approximately 14 days.
    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the
proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Develop the demonstration test plan to be executed;
    (2) Provide the cutter that the system will be installed on;
    (3) Determine the electromagnetic compatibility of the system on
the cutter to determine if safe flight operations can be accomplished;
    (4) Conduct a Privacy Threshold Analysis as required for the
demonstration to be conducted;
    (5) Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment as required for the
demonstration to be conducted;
    (6) Coordinate spectrum approval for the system to be used
    (7) Develop, route, and receive an ``interim authority to test''
approval, authorizing the installation of the system onboard the
cutter;
    (8) Develop the interface control document, engineering change
proposal, and technical data package as required to install the system
onboard the cutter;
    (9) Coordinate and receive interim flight clearance for the
demonstration to be executed;
    (10) Provide airspace coordination and de-confliction for execution
of the demonstration test plan;
    (11) Develop the communications plan to be used for the
demonstration;
    (12) Analyze demonstration test plan data in accordance with the
CRADA demonstration test plan; and
    (13) Develop the demonstration final report, which will document
the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this
CRADA work.
    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions
under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Provide UAS equipment, including air vehicles, land based
ground control stations, forward eyes for the cutter, and all other
equipment required to conduct the demonstration as described in the
demonstration test plan;
    (2) Provide operators for UAS equipment;
    (3) Provide UAS technical data;
    (4) Provide shipping for all UAS equipment to and from the cutter
and other appropriate locations to be used under the CRADA;
    (5) Install and remove the system and all UAS equipment from the
cutter;
    (6) Provide an approved certificate of authorization from the
Federal Aviation Administration for the UAS equipment; and
    (7) Required travel, associated personnel, and other expenses.
    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants
all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard
will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development
costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this
notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be
unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding
cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select
proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:

    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to
meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
    (2) How well they address the following criteria:
    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party
contributions described; and
    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party
contributions described.
    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering COP for participation in
this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that COP has
demonstrated its ability to operate UAS in an Arctic maritime
environment, and its UAS's widespread use throughout the Department of
Defense. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants
from this or future similar CRADAs.
    This is a technology demonstration effort. Since the goal of this
CRADA is to identify and investigate the potential of the UAS to
contribute to Coast Guard mission effectiveness in an Arctic maritime
environment, non-Federal CRADA participants will not be excluded from
any future Coast Guard procurements based solely on their participation
in this CRADA. Special consideration will be given to small business
firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located
in the U.S.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Captain Dennis C. Evans, USCG,
Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-07848 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19534-19535]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57623; File No. SR-BSE-2008-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 5, To Amend the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Related To
Obvious Error Procedures

April 4, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On January 29, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'')
Rules related to Obvious Error procedures. On February 21, 2008, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. On February 22, 2008,
the Exchange submitted Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and withdrew
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the proposal. On February 26, 2008, the
exchange withdrew Amendment No. 4 and submitted Amendment No. 5 to the
proposal.\3\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 5,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2008.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 5 replaced and superseded the original filing
and all previous amendments in their entirety.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57383 (February 26,
2008), 73 FR 11452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    BOX has an established process whereby, in the event that a
suspected Obvious Error has occurred during trading on the BOX market,
a request for review may be made by one or both of the parties
involved. To request a review of a suspected Obvious Error under
current BOX rules, one or both of the parties involved must notify the
Market Regulation Center (``MRC'') of the existence of a suspected
erroneous transaction. The MRC would then initiate a review process. If
the MRC determines that the transaction does in fact represent an
Obvious Error, the transaction would either be adjusted or

busted. Depending on the parties involved in the transaction, the
adjustments would either be set according to pre-determined increments
or by mutual agreement between the parties.
    The proposed rule change would require that one or both parties
contact the BOX Market Operations Center (``MOC''),\5\ instead of the
MRC, to request a review of a suspected erroneous transaction. The MOC
would then be required to promptly notify the MRC, since the MRC would
continue to be the body that makes adjust or bust decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This proposed rule change would also add the MOC to the
definitions section of the BOX Rules. See Section 1 of Chapter I of
the BOX Rules. The remainder of the changes to the definition
section fall into two categories. The first is switching the current
Sections 31 and 32 so that they are in alphabetical order. The
second is, after inserting the MOC as a definition, renumbering the
remaining definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change also would provide an additional avenue of
relief for non-BOX market makers, resulting in the Obvious Error Rules
applying not only to BOX Market Makers, but also to market makers on
other exchanges whose orders are designated with a market maker account
type in the BOX Trading Host. Under current BOX Rules, only BOX Market
Makers and non market maker Options Participants may request a review
of a suspected erroneous transaction. Under the proposed rule change,
non-BOX market makers also may request a review of a suspected
erroneous transaction. Moreover, only BOX Market Makers involved in an
erroneous transaction with another BOX Market Maker currently may avail
themselves to the pre-determined obvious error Theoretical Price plus
or minus adjustment levels. The proposed rule change would maintain and
expand the choices available to a non-BOX market maker involved in an
erroneous transaction. Specifically, a non-BOX market maker, like BOX
Market Makers today, would have the choice of agreeing with the counter
party to bust the transaction, agreeing to adjust to an agreed upon
price for the transaction, or now having the transaction adjusted to
the pre-determined levels.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would establish an additional
course of action if it is determined that an Obvious Error has
occurred. The current BOX Rules allow for an adjustment in the
transaction price to the pre-determined levels where both parties to
the transaction are BOX Market Makers. If at least one party to the
transaction is a market maker on BOX, the BOX rules call for the
transaction to be busted, unless both parties agree to an adjustment
price and notify the MRC. The proposed rule change would: (1) provide
that the transaction would be busted absent an agreement to an adjusted
price only when neither party is a market maker; and (2) allow the non
market maker party to elect to have the transaction busted or the price
adjusted to a pre-determined level, when one party to the transaction
is not a market maker and the other party is a market maker.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \6\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
that the proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are
executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the
price of the executed trade indicates an ``obvious error'' may exist,
suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the
trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the
transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an
``obvious error'' has occurred should be based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures.
    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is based on
specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective
procedures. Specifically, expanding the application of BOX's Obvious
Error rule to non-BOX market makers would extend the specific and
objective criteria and procedures applicable to BOX Market Makers to
non-BOX market makers. In addition, under the proposed rule change, an
obviously erroneous transaction that is not busted would be adjusted to
objective, pre-established numerical Obvious Error adjustment
increments.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2008-05), as modified by
Amendment No. 5, is hereby approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.56
[FR Doc. E8-7511 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P