[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39019-39024]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16047]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72534; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 98 To Adopt a Principles-
based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information
and Make Conforming Changes to Other Exchange Rules

July 3, 2014.
    On March 18, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to amend Rule 98. The proposed rule change was published for
public comment in the Federal Register on April 7, 2014.\3\ On May 21,
2014, the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action
on the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received one comment on
the proposal.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71837 (Apr. 1, 2014), 75
FR 19146.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72203, 79 FR 30667
(May 28, 2014).
    \5\ See E-mail from Dr. Leee Jackson, Esq. (Apr. 15, 2014)
(``Jackson Comment''). The Commission does not believe the Jackson
Comment raises any material or substantive issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background and Introduction

    The Exchange adopted Rule 98 in 1986, when NYSE specialist firms,
which had been independent member-owned entities, increasingly became
affiliates of larger member organizations. Because of the specialists''
position in the market, Rule 98 required an organizational separation
between a specialist and its affiliates. The purpose of that separation
was to eliminate or control conflicts of interest between the business
activities of affiliates of the specialist and the specialist's
responsibilities to the market and to any customer orders the
specialist represented as agent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 23768 (Nov. 3,
1986), 51 FR 41183 (Nov. 13, 1986) (SR-NYSE-85-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the NYSE amended Rule 98 to adopt a more flexible,
principles-based approach that among other things: (1) Redefined the
persons to whom the rule applied; (2) allowed DMM operations to be
integrated into better-capitalized member organizations; (3) permitted
a DMM unit to share non-trading-related services with its parent member
organization or approved persons; and (4) provided flexibility to
member organizations and their approved persons in conducting risk
management of DMM operations.\7\ The principal effect of the 2008
Amendments was that affiliates of a DMM unit that were walled-off from
the DMM unit were no longer prohibited from acting as an options market
maker in a security in which the affiliated DMM was registered.
However, the amended Rule 98 continued to prohibit the integrated unit
from coordinating market making between its DMM and its options market
maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58328 (Aug. 7,
2008), 34 FR 58328 (Aug. 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-45) (``2008
Amendments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to further amend Rule 98 in order to
provide DMM units with greater flexibility in structuring their
operations and to move further toward a principles-based approach and
away from prescribing particular structures for DMM units. Under this
proposed rule change, certain information barriers would continue to be
required (for example, between a DMM unit and an affiliated investment-
banking desk), and other required protections, in addition to
information barriers, would address the role of DMMs and the trading
floor in the NYSE's market. Proposed Rule 98 would, however, contain
fewer prescriptions relating to the structure of DMM units, and it
would instead--like similar rules relating to market-making firms on
other exchanges \8\--impose a more general requirement that a member
organization operating a DMM unit maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the
nature of the member organization's business, (i) to prevent the misuse
of material, non-public information by the member organization or
persons associated with it and (ii) to ensure compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations and with Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., NYSEArca Equities Rule 6.3 and BATS Rule 5.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the instant proposal should provide
member organizations operating DMM units with the means to better
manage risk across a firm--for example, by integrating DMM unit
positions and quoting information with other quotes and positions by
other units within the firm. The Exchange posits that a member
organization operating a DMM unit, in the context of risk management
\9\ and consistent with protections against the misuse of material non-
public information,\10\ should be able to consider the outstanding
quotes of the DMM unit as well as traded positions for purposes of
calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of Regulation SHO
\11\ and calculating intra-day net capital positions. Further, the
Exchange asserts that a member organization should be able to integrate
its DMM unit operations with its customer-facing operations because the
instant proposal, in tandem with existing NYSE conduct rules,\12\
FINRA's ongoing surveillances for manipulative conduct, and FINRA's
program to examine member firms that act as DMMs and to review and
approve their policies and procedures for complying with Rule 98,
should provide a regulatory framework that guards customer interests
and protects against the misuse of material non-public information,
while increasing the operational flexibility of member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5 (Risk Management Controls
for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access).
    \10\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78o(g). Section 15(g) of the Act
requires every registered broker or dealer to ``establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed,
taking into consideration the nature of such broker's or dealer's
business, to prevent the misuse . . . of material, nonpublic
information by such broker or dealer or any person associated with
such broker or dealer.''
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.200. Under Regulation SHO, determination of a
seller's net position is based on the seller's positions in the
security in all proprietary accounts. See Exchange Act Release No.
50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008, 48010 n.22 (Aug. 6, 2004); see
also Exchange Act Release No. 48709 (Oct. 29, 2003), 68 FR 62972,
62991 and 62994 (Nov. 6, 2003); Letter from Richard R. Lindsey,
Director, Division of Market Regulation, to Roger D. Blanc, Wilkie
Farr & Gallagher, SEC No-Action Letter, 1998 SEC No-Act. LEXIS 1038,
p. 5 (Nov. 23, 1998); Exchange Act Release No. 30772 (June 3, 1992),
57 FR 24415, 24419 n.47 (June 9, 1992); Exchange Act Release No.
27938 (Apr. 23, 1990), 55 FR 17949, 17950 (Apr. 30, 1990).
    \12\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 5320 (``Manning Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Amendments to Rule 98

    Proposed Rule 98(a)(1) provides that the rule shall apply to all
member organizations seeking to operate a DMM unit at the Exchange and
to any approved person that may provide services to a DMM unit.

    Proposed Rule 98(b) revises, deletes, and adds certain definitions
to provide member organizations operating a DMM unit with the
flexibility to integrate their DMM operations with other units of the
firm. Currently, Rule 98 defines the terms ``non-public order
information'' and ``DMM confidential information'' separately. Non-
public order information captures any information relating to order
flow at the Exchange--including verbal indications of interest made
with an expectation of privacy, electronic order interest, e-quotes,
reserve interest, and information about imbalances at the Exchange--
that is not publicly-available on a real-time basis via an Exchange-
provided datafeed, such as NYSE OpenBook,\13\ or otherwise publicly
available. ``DMM confidential information'' refers to principal or
proprietary trading activity of a DMM unit at the Exchange in the
securities allocated to it pursuant to Rule 103B, including the unit's
positions in those securities, decisions relating to trading or quoting
in those securities, and any algorithm or computer system that is
responsible for such trading activity and that interfaces with Exchange
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NYSE OpenBook provides aggregated limit-order volume that
has been entered on the Exchange at price points for all NYSE-traded
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace the term ``non-public
information'' with ``Floor-based non-public information.'' As discussed
in more detail below, the Exchange proposes to maintain restrictions in
proposed Rule 98(c)(3) to address the Floor-based activities of DMM
units, and it proposes to use the term ``Floor-based non-public order
information'' to identify the information those provisions are intended
to protect.\14\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the definition of
``DMM confidential information,'' arguing that proposed Rule 98(c)(2)
would sufficiently protect against the misuse of material non-public
information. Further the Exchange notes that, to the extent a DMM on
the Floor may have access to Floor-based non-public order information,
proposed Rule 98(c)(3) would continue to specify required protections
against the misuse of such information by the member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to this
definition that it believes better reflect how its systems currently
operate. Specifically, the Exchange asserts that concept of trading
in ``slow mode'' is duplicative of the remaining rule text, which
covers any order information that is made available to DMMs but that
is not available to other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the term ``DMM unit'' to mean a
trading unit within a member organization that is approved pursuant to
Rule 103 to act as a DMM unit, and it proposes to eliminate the
requirement that a DMM unit be an ``aggregation unit,'' which is
currently defined to mean any trading or market-making department,
division, or desk that meets the requirements of the definition of
``independent trading unit'' pursuant to Rule 200 of Regulation
SHO.\15\ The Exchange proposes to decouple the Rule 98 definition from
Regulation SHO, in part because the two rules have different regulatory
purposes.\16\ Similarly, the Exchange proposed to delete the term
``integrated proprietary aggregation unit'' because this term
contemplates a DMM unit being part of an aggregation unit that only
engages in proprietary trading activity, which, under the proposal,
would be an organizational structure that is permitted, but not
required. The Exchange also proposes to delete the definitions for
``DMM API,'' ``DMM account,'' ``customer-facing department,'' \17\ and
``non-trading related services.'' \18\ The Exchange asserts that the
terms ``DMM API'' and ``DMM account'' are obsolete as they were based
on NYSE Rule 104 before it was amended in 2008.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange proposes to delete rule provisions that
reference the terms ``aggregation unit'' and ``integrated
proprietary aggregation unit.'' See, e.g., Rule 98(c)(2)(B).
    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.200(f). Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO sets
forth the requirements for qualifying as an ``independent trading
unit'' for the purpose of order marking requirements under Rule 200.
The Commission notes that a member organization must comply with the
requirements of Regulation SHO regardless of how its operations are
structured for purposes of compliance with Rule 98.
    \17\ The Exchange asserts that, because the proposed rule
changes are intended to provide principles-based requirements for
the operation of a DMM unit, the amended rule would no longer need
to define terms, such as ``customer-facing department,'' that
support the current, more prescriptive rule text.
    \18\ Because these protections for Floor-based non-public order
information are retained in the proposed revisions to Rule 98 and
are applicable to approved persons pursuant to proposed amended Rule
98(a)(1), the Exchange asserts that current Rule 98(e), which
concerns the sharing of non-trading related services, is redundant
of existing regulatory requirements governing the operations of a
broker-dealer.
    \19\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the definitions of
``DMM'' and ``approved person'' as duplicative of the definitions
set forth in Rules 2(i) and 2(c). The Exchange proposes to make non-
substantive edits to the definition of ``related products'' and make
conforming amendments to Rule 2(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c) would govern the operation of a DMM unit.
Proposed Rule 98(c)(1) provides that a member organization will be
permitted to operate a DMM unit, provided that the member organization
has obtained prior written approval from the Exchange.\20\ The Exchange
notes that all member organizations currently operating DMM units
already have written policies and procedures to comply with Rule 98 in
its current form, and such policies and procedures have been approved
by NYSE Regulation.\21\ In addition, FINRA has an exam program that
reviews member organizations operating DMM units for compliance with
such policies and procedures. Because proposed Rule 98(a) would
continue to require Exchange approval of any policies and procedures to
protect against the misuse of material nonpublic information, if a
member organization chose to modify its DMM operations consistent with
proposed Rule 98, its revised policies and procedures would be subject
to Exchange review before implementation. In addition, the Exchange
represents that FINRA would continue to monitor a member organization's
compliance with those policies and procedures consistent with the
current exam-based regulatory program associated with Rule 98.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Pursuant to NYSE Rule 0, the term ``Exchange'' may also
mean FINRA staff working on behalf of the Exchange and NYSE
Regulation, Inc. pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The
Exchange also proposes to revise Rule 98(c)(1) to replace the term
``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' with the term ``Exchange.''
    \21\ FINRA currently approves Rule 98 procedures on behalf of
NYSE Regulation, Inc. pursuant to a regulatory services agreement.
    \22\ The Exchange represents that FINRA currently has
surveillances designed to monitor for manipulative activity, and the
Exchange asserts that, because DMM market-making activity is not
materially different from market-making on other exchanges, these
existing programs are reasonably designed to address any concerns
that may be raised by a DMM unit being integrated with market-making
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(2) specifies that a member organization seeking
approval to operate a DMM unit pursuant to Rule 98 must maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking
into consideration the nature of such member organization's business,
(i) to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such
member organizations or persons associated with such member
organization and (ii) to ensure compliance with applicable federal laws
and regulations and with Exchange rules.\23\ Proposed Rule 98(c)(2)
also provides examples of conduct that would constitute the misuse of
material, non-public information, including, but not limited to: (A)
trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related
products, while in possession of material-non-public information
concerning the issuer; (B)

trading in a security or related product, while in possession of
material non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the
security or related product; or (C) disclosing to another person or
entity any material, non-public information involving a corporation
whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an
underlying security or related product for the purpose of facilitating
the possible misuse of such material, non-public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Proposed Rule 98(c)(2) is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
6.3 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information) and
BATS Rule 5.5 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public
Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(3) pertains to restrictions on trading for
member organizations operating a DMM unit. Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(A)
would generally provide that a member organization shall protect
against the misuse of Floor-based non-public order information. The
rule would further specify that only the Floor-based employees of the
DMM unit and individuals responsible for the direct supervision of the
DMM unit's Floor-based operations may have access (as permitted
pursuant to Rule 104) to Floor-based non-public order information.
    Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(B) specifies the restrictions applicable to
employees of the DMM unit while on the trading floor. Proposed Rule
98(c)(3)(B)(i) provides that, while on the trading floor of the
Exchange, employees of the DMM unit, except as provided for in Rule
36.30, may trade only DMM securities and may do so only on or through
the systems and facilities of the Exchange, as permitted by Exchange
Rules. Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(B)(ii) would specify that, while on the
trading floor, Floor-based employees may not communicate with
individuals or systems responsible for making trading decisions for
related products or for away-market trading in DMM securities. Proposed
Rule 98(c)(3)(B)(iii) adds a new restriction that, while on the trading
floor, employees of the DMM unit shall not have access to customer
information or the DMM unit's position in related products.
    Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(C) would provide that a Floor-based employee
of a DMM unit who moves to a location off the trading floor of the
Exchange, or any person who provides risk management oversight or
supervision of the Floor-based operations of the DMM unit and becomes
aware of Floor-based non-public order information, shall not (1) make
such information available to customers, (2) make such information
available to individuals or systems responsible for making trading
decisions in DMM securities in away markets or related products, or (3)
use any such information in connection with making trading decisions in
DMM securities in away markets or related products. The proposed rule
would cover an individual that leaves the trading floor, as well as a
manager providing oversight or supervision of the Floor-based
operations of the DMM unit. The Exchange's proposed amendments to Rule
98 would replace the concept of a person having ``access to''
information with that of a person being ``aware of'' information,\24\
asserting that the change will clarify the governing standard for
member organizations and make Rule 98 generally more consistent with
federal rules.\25\ The Exchange also argues that a person cannot misuse
material, non-public information unless the person is ``aware of'' the
information. Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(C) would also maintain and
consolidate the Exchange's current ``wall-crossing'' provisions related
to a non-Floor based individual who becomes aware of Floor-based non-
public order information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The concept of a person having ``access to'' information is
incorporated into several subsections of current Rule 98. See, e.g.,
current Rule 98(c)(2)(E)(i), (d)(2)(B), and (f)(1)(A)(3).
    \25\ See 17 CFR 240.10b5-1(b) (specifying that a purchase or
sale of securities constitutes trading on the basis of material
nonpublic information when the person making the purchase or sale
was aware of the material nonpublic information when the person made
the purchase or sale).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(D) would provide that a DMM unit may make
available to a Floor broker associated or affiliated with an approved
person or member organization any information that the DMM would be
permitted under Exchange rules to provide to an unaffiliated Floor
Broker.
    Proposed Rule 98(c)(4) would provide that any interest entered by
the DMM unit in DMM securities at the Exchange must be entered through
systems that identify such interest as DMM interest. The Exchange
asserts that it is unnecessary to prescribe or require specific systems
that a DMM unit must use, but this rule would require that the DMM
unit's interest be identifiable and available for Exchange review
through the system that the DMM unit elects to use.
    Proposed Rule 98(c)(5) would require that a member organization
provide the Exchange with real-time unit position information for any
trading in DMM securities by the DMM unit and any independent trading
unit.\26\ The Exchange represents that this provision should enhance
its ability to monitor for Rule 104 compliance.\27\ For example, if a
DMM unit is part of an independent trading unit that engages in trading
on other markets in DMM securities, the member organization's real-time
position update would need to incorporate any away-market transactions
in DMM securities by that independent trading unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 98(d)(4) from the rule
both because the Exchange does not believe it needs to separately
identify DMM audit trail requirements and because Rule 132B no
longer exists.
    \27\ NYSE Rule 104 obligations relate to whether a DMM is long
or short and are applicable to the DMM unit's position in DMM
securities, together with any position of a Regulation SHO
independent trading unit of which the DMM unit may be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(6) would specify that a DMM unit may not
operate as a specialist or market maker on the Exchange or the NYSE MKT
LLC (``NYSE MKT'') equities or options trading floors in related
products, unless specifically permitted in Exchange rules.\28\ The
Exchange notes that a member organization that operates a DMM unit may
be a specialist or market maker on NYSE MKT, provided that it maintains
appropriate information barriers. Currently, Rule 98 permits an
integrated proprietary aggregation unit to engage in options market
making (electronic only), provided that the DMM unit is walled off from
the options market making trading desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Currently, the Exchange represents, the only time that a
DMM unit may engage in market making in a related products under
Exchange rules is on the NYSE MKT exchange, pursuant to NYSE MKT
Rule 504(b)(5)--Equities. NYSE does not have a similar exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(7) would maintain the existing requirement that
the member organization maintain information barriers between the DMM
unit and any investment banking or research departments. Proposed Rule
98(c)(7) would also continue to provide that no DMM or DMM unit may be
directly supervised or controlled by an individual associated with an
approved person or the member organization who is assigned to any
investment banking or research departments.
    Proposed Rule 98(d) would specify that DMM rules would only apply
to the DMM unit's quoting or trading in their DMM securities for their
own accounts at the Exchange. The Exchange represents that this
provision is intended to clarify that DMM rule restrictions are not
applicable to any customer orders routed to the Exchange by that member
organization as agent.
    The Exchange proposes to delete in its entirety Rule 98(e), which
concerns the sharing of non-trading related services. The Exchange
states that the focus of proposed Rule 98 on protecting against the
misuse of material non-public information obviates the need to specify
how a member organization or an

approved person provides back-office support operations, such as
clearing, stock loan, and compliance, for the DMM unit. Rather, the
Exchange asserts that how a member organization or approved person
provides back-office operations to the DMM unit should not differ from
how such services are provided to other trading units within that
member organization or approved person. The Exchange also notes that,
if a person in the member organization or an approved person is
providing non-trading related services to the DMM unit and, as a result
of such relationship, becomes aware of Floor-based non-public order
information, such person would be subject to the wall-crossing
provisions of proposed Rule 98(c)(3)(C), which is applicable to any
person who is aware of such information. In addition, the Exchange
notes that the protections for Floor-based non-public order information
are retained in the proposed revisions to Rule 98 and are applicable to
approved persons pursuant to proposed amended Rule 98(a)(1). The
Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 36.30.
    As part of the proposed restructuring of Rule 98, current Rule
98(g) would be renumbered as proposed Rule 98(e), existing Rule 98(h)
would be renumbered as proposed Rule 98(f), and existing Rule 98(j)
would be renumbered as proposed Rule 98(g). The Exchange proposes
conforming changes to these sections, such as updating cross-references
and changing the rule's reference to ``the Division of Market
Surveillance'' and ``NYSE Regulation'' to a reference to ``the
Exchange.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Pursuant to Rule 0, the reference to the Exchange in this
rule may also mean FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 98 Former, as well as any
references thereto, because it is obsolete: All DMM firms operate
pursuant to the current Rule 98.\30\ In addition, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 105 to delete Rule 105(b)-(d) and the Guidelines for
DMM's Registered Security Option and Single Stock Futures Transactions
Pursuant to Rule 105 (``Rule 105 Guidelines'') and to make conforming
amendments to Rule 36.30.\31\ Rule 105 currently sets forth hedging
guidelines to permit a DMM to trade from the trading floor listed
options or single-stock futures that overlie DMM securities. Under Rule
98(f)(1), a DMM unit can obtain an exemption from the Rule 105
Guidelines to trade options or futures, provided that such trading is
conducted by a walled-off, off-Floor trading desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., NYSE Rules 98A Former, 99 Former, and
104T(a)(Former) and supplementary material .13 (Former), Rule 900,
Rule 98(a) and 105.
    \31\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 105(a) to clarify that
the restriction on pool dealing applies to the DMM unit for
securities registered to that unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed revisions to Rule 98, a DMM unit would no longer
need to apply for an exemption from Rule 105 trading restrictions
because, as discussed above, while on the trading floor, Floor-based
employees may trade only DMM securities (i.e., they may not trade in
related products) and may trade only on or through the systems and
facilities of the Exchange. Because there would not be any Floor-based
trading in listed options or single-stock futures, the Rule 105
Guidelines specifying how such Floor-based trading may occur would be
moot. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete these rules. To
conform other Exchange rules to this proposal, the Exchange also
proposes to delete section (b) from each of Rules 1300 (streetTRACKS
Gold Shares), 1300A (Currency Trust Shares), and 1300B (Commodity Trust
Shares). Each of these subsections cross-references Rule 105 Guidelines
subsection (m) and would similarly be mooted by proposed Rule
98(c)(2)(B)(i). The Exchange proposes further conforming amendments to
Rules 900(b) and (d).
    In addition, because DMM units no longer have customer
relationships, the Exchange proposes to delete in its entirety the DMM
Booth Wire Policy, which is set forth in Rule 123B and which is now
obsolete.

III. Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, 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.\32\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) \33\ in particular in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
    Generally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 in order to
provide DMM units with greater flexibility in structuring their
operations, moving further toward a principles-based approach and away
from prescribing particular structures. Under the proposed rule change,
certain information barriers would continue to be required,\34\ but
amended Rule 98 would generally contain fewer prescriptions than
current Rule 98 and would instead require that a member organization
operating a DMM unit maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of
the member organization's business, (i) to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information by the member organization or persons
associated with it and (ii) to ensure compliance with applicable
federal laws and regulations and with Exchange rules.\35\ The Exchange
represents that the instant proposed rule change prescribes specific
protections that reflect the unique role of DMMs and the trading floor
at the Exchange, while treating the off-floor market-making activity of
member organizations with DMM units similarly to the rules that govern
equity market makers on NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, and BATS.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \34\ See proposed Rules 98(c)(3) and 98(c)(7).
    \35\ See proposed Rule 98(c)(2).
    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60604 (Sept. 2,
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules)
(``NYSE Arca Order''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar. 2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003)
(Order approving amendments to BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the
misuse of material, non-public information, and noting that the
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and
Nasdaq) (``BATS Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In patricular, proposed Rule 98(a) provides that a member
organization will be permitted to operate a DMM unit provided that the
member organization has obtained prior written approval from the
Exchange. The Exchange represents that, although all member
organizations currently operating DMM units under Rule 98 have written
policies and procedures that have been approved by NYSE Regulation,
Inc., the policies and procedures of member organizations that choose
to modify their DMM operations consistent with proposed Rule 98 would
be subject to Exchange review prior to implementation. In addition, the
Exchange represents that FINRA would continue to monitor member
organizations for compliance with such policies and procedures
consistent with the current exam-based regulatory program associated
with Rule 98.

    Proposed Rule 98(c)(2) would replace the current, more prescriptive
approach of current Rule 98 and would provide member organizations
operating a DMM unit with greater organizational and operational
flexibility, while still requiring that member organizations comply
with their existing regulatory obligations. Specifically, proposed NYSE
Rule 98(c)(2) would require a member organization seeking approval to
operate a DMM unit to maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of
such member organization's business, (i) to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information by such member organizations or
persons associated with such member organization and (ii) to ensure
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations and with
Exchange rules. In addition, proposed Rule 98(c)(2) would specify that
conduct constituting the misuse of material, non-public information
includes, but is not limited to: (A) trading in any securities issued
by a corporation, or in any related product, while in possession of
material-non-public information concerning the issuer; or (B) trading
in a security or related product, while in possession of material non-
public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or
related product; or (C) disclosing to another person or entity any
material, non-public information involving a corporation whose shares
are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying
security or related product for the purpose of facilitating the
possible misuse of such material, non-public information. Although the
Exchange proposes to move to a more principles-based approach, and
although certain information barriers may no longer be required, the
Commission notes, and the Exchange acknowledges, that a member
organization's business model or business activities may dictate that
an information barrier or functional separation be part of the
appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and
regulations and with applicable Exchange rules.\37\ In addition, the
Commission notes that all member organizations of the Exchange are
subject to the requirements of Section 15(g) of the Act, regardless of
how their operations are structured.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This aspect of Exchange's proposal and of the Commission's
findings is consistent with similar rules at other exchanges. See
NYSE Arca Order at 46275 and BATS Order at 9459.
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g). Section 15(g) of the Act requires brokers
and dealers to ``establish, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the
nature of such broker's or dealer's business, to prevent the misuse
. . . of material, nonpublic information by such broker or dealer or
any person associated with such broker or dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that amended Rule 98 would delete the defined
term ``DMM confidential information'' and would replace the defined
term ``non-public information'' with the term ``Floor-based non-public
information.'' In the Commission's view, these definitional
modifications should not reduce investor protections or market
integrity. Instead, consistent with proposed Rule 98(c)(2) and Section
15(g) of the Act,\39\ member organizations will continue to have
obligations to implement reasonably designed policies and procedures to
prevent the misuse of material, non-public information, and they will
continue to be subject to Exchange rules regarding front-running,
limit-order display, and trading ahead, as well as FINRA surveillances
to detect violations of these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that proposed Rule 98(c)(2) is substantially
similar to and expressly based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.3 and BATS Rule 5.5.
NYSE's market structure, however differs from that of NYSE Arca and
BATS, in that the Exchange continues to have a physical trading floor.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate that
proposed Rule 98 continues to include certain prescriptions that
address the role of the DMM and the trading floor in its market.
Specifically, as described above, proposed Rule 98(c)(3) relates to
restrictions on trading for member organizations operating a DMM unit;
proposed Rule 98(c)(4) would provide that any interest entered by the
DMM unit in DMM securities at the Exchange must be entered through
systems that identify such interest as DMM interest; proposed Rule
98(c)(5) would require that a member organization provide the Exchange
with real-time unit position information for any trading in DMM
securities by the DMM unit and any independent trading unit; proposed
Rule 98(c)(6) would specify that a DMM unit may not operate as a
specialist or market maker on the Exchange or the NYSE MKT equities or
options trading floors in related products, unless specifically
permitted in Exchange rules; and proposed Rule 98(c)(7) would maintain
the existing requirement that the member organization maintain
information barriers between the DMM unit and any investment banking or
research departments.
    Under this proposed rule change, member organizations could
integrate DMM units with other trading operations within the member
organization, including, if applicable, a customer-facing operation.
The Commission notes that a DMM unit that is integrated with other
market-making operations would be subject to existing rules that
prohibit member organizations from disadvantaging their customers or
other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a member
organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public
information. For instance, NYSE Rule 5320 generally prohibits a member
organization from trading for its own account ahead of customer orders,
which means that a member organization operating both a DMM unit, which
engages in trading for its own account, and customer-facing operations
would need to comply with the Manning Rule \40\ or meet one of the
specified exceptions.\41\ Moreover, the Commission notes that (1) the
Exchange has represented that FINRA currently has surveillances
designed to monitor for manipulative activity, that DMM market-making
activity off the trading floor is not materially different from market-
making on other exchanges, and that, therefore, the existing regulatory
framework is reasonably designed to address any concerns that may be
raised by a DMM unit being integrated with market-making operations and
(2) the Exchange has represented that FINRA currently conducts a
program that approves and examines Rule 98 policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Manning Rule, supra, note 12.
    \41\ NYSE Rule 5320 further provides that, if a member
organization trades at a price for its own account ahead of the
customer order, it must execute the customer order up to the size
and at a price that is the same as, or better than, the price at
which the organization traded for its own account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act. The principles-based regulatory approach in the proposal
is substantially similar to the existing regulatory approach of NYSE
Arca and BATS, while also accounting for the market structure
differences (i.e., the role of DMM units and the trading floor on the
Exchange) that raise additional regulatory and policy considerations.
While proposed Rule 98 permits member organizations greater flexibility
in structuring their business and compliance operations, the rule
continues to require the maintenance of certain appropriate information
barriers,

and it clearly requires that all member organizations have policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Commission notes that such policies and procedures may
include the programming and operation of a member organization's
trading algorithms to protect against the misuse of material non-
public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the policies and procedures required
proposed Rule 98 will be subject to oversight by the Exchange and
review by FINRA, and the Commission emphasizes that a member
organization operating a DMM unit should be proactive in assuring that
its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business
and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable federal securities law and regulations and with applicable
Exchange and FINRA rules. Finally, the Commission notes that existing
Exchange rules also prohibit particular misuses of material, non-public
information--for example, front-running customer orders--and that FINRA
surveillances seek to detect violations of those rules.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2014-012), is hereby approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2014-16047 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Draft for public review with First Federal Register Notice B Has not been submitted to OMB April 2005 Table below represents costs in 2002 2005. Highlighted info is estimated cost for POTWs to implement their monitoring programs for the universe of small and large 301( h) POTWs. See footnotes a, b, c below. I've re calculated based on 2005 labor costs. Draft for public review with First Federal Register Notice B Has not been submitted to OMB April 2005 TABLE A 2. COST TO POTW AND STATE RESPONDENTS Activity Average Annual Burden Hours Hourly Cost Average Annual Cost COST TO POTW RESPONDENTS Application Revision 2,559 $ 55.20 a $ 141,257 Reapplication 4,218 $ 55.20 a $ 232,834 Monitoring Program 30,960 $ 14.74 b $ 456,350 Toxics Control Program 25,440 $ 14.74 b $ 374,986 TOTAL 63,177 $ 1,205,426 COST TO STATE RESPONDENTS Determination 1,410 20.30 c $ 28,623 Certification 470 20.30 c $ 9,541 TOTAL 1,880 $ 38,164 TOTAL POTW AND STATE RESPONDENTS 65,057 $ 1,243,590 a It is assumed that much of the reapplication and additional information is prepared by a contractor with specialized expertise and equipment. It is further assumed that the salary level of a contractor working on the 301( h) program is 15 percent higher than that of a GS 9, Step 10, or $ 57,412/ year. Thus, based on 2,080 working hours/ year, the average hourly salary of a contractor is $ 27.60/ hour. Assuming 100 percent overhead costs for the private sector, the labor cost for contractors is $ 55.20/ hour. ***

b It is assumed that the salary level of a typical local government employee working on the 301( h) program is a GS 5, Step 4, or $ 27,882. Based on 2,080 working hours/ year, the average hourly salary of a local employee is $ 13.40/ hour. Assuming 10 percent overhead costs, the labor cost for local government employees is $ 14.74/ hour. *

c It is assumed that the salary level of a typical State government employee working on the 301( h) program is a GS 9, Step 1, or $ 38,406/ year. Based on 2,080 working hours/ year, the average hourly salary of a State government employee is $ 18.46/ hour. Assuming 10 percent overhead costs, the labor cost for State government employees is $ 20.30/ hour. **

* 2005 GS 5, step 4 = $ 31484/ yr.; $ 15.14/ hr. + 10% overhead ($ 1.51) = $ 16.65/ hr. X 30960 hrs = $ 515,484; $ 16.65 X 25440 hrs = $ 423,576 ** 2005 GS 9, step 1 = $ 43365/ yr. $ 20.85 / hr + 10 percent overhead ($ 2.09) = $ 22.94 / hr X 1410 hrs = $ 32345; $ 22.94 / hr X470 hrs = $ 10,782 *** 2005 GS 9, step 10 = $ 56371/ yr.; $ 27.10 / hr X 15 percent ($ 4.07) = $ 31.17/ hr + 100percent overhead ($ 31.17) = $ 62.34/ hr X 2559 = $ 159,528; $ 62.34 / hr X 4218 = $ 262,950


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28540-28543]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80952; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6896 and
Chapter IX, Section 9

June 16, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 8, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 adopt Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9
(Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution) to establish the
procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged
to Industry Members.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth herein, or in the Consolidated
Audit Trail Funding Fees Rule, the CAT Compliance Rule Series or in
the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX,
Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC,\4\ NASDAQ
PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc.\5\ (collectively,
the ``Participants'') filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section
11A of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
thereunder,\7\ the National Market System Plan Governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\8\ The
Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
under the Exchange Act. The Plan was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2016,\9\ and approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016.\10\ The Plan is designed to create,
implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') that would
capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS
Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time
of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or
execution in a single consolidated data source. The Plan accomplishes
this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (the ``Company''), of which each
Participant is a member, to operate the CAT.\11\ Under the CAT NMS
Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company (``Operating Committee'')
has discretion to establish funding for the Company to operate the CAT,
including establishing fees that the Participants will pay, and
establishing fees for Industry Members that will be implemented by the
Participants (``CAT Fees'').\12\ The Participants are required to file
with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such CAT Fees
applicable to Industry Members that the Operating Committee
approves.\13\ Accordingly, the Exchange has filed a proposed rule
change with the SEC to adopt the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees,
which will require Industry Members that are Exchange members to pay
the CAT Fees determined by the Operating Committee.\14\ The Exchange
submits this rule filing to adopt Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9
(Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution) to establish the
procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged
to Industry Members. The proposed rules are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC and International
Securities Exchange, LLC have been renamed Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq
MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC, respectively. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 80248 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (March 21,
2017); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80326 (March 29, 2017),
82 FR 16460 (April 4, 2017); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80325 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16445 (April 4, 2017).
    \5\ National Stock Exchange, Inc. has been renamed NYSE
National, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79902
(January 30, 2017), 82 FR 9258 (February 3, 2017).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted
an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27, 2016),
81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (November 15, 2016),
81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016) (``Approval Order'').
    \11\ The Plan also serves as the limited liability company
agreement for the Company.
    \12\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80655 (May 11,
2017), 82 FR 22692 (May 17, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-044) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Definitions
    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9 sets
forth the definitions for Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9.
Paragraph (a)(1) of Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9 states
that, for purposes of Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9, the terms
``CAT NMS Plan'', ``Industry Member'', ``Operating Committee'', and
``Participant'' are defined as set forth in the Rule 6810 and Chapter
IX, Section 8(a) (Consolidated Audit Trail--Definitions), respectively,
and the term ``CAT Fee'' is defined as set forth in the Consolidated
Audit Trail Funding Fees. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add
paragraph (a)(2) to Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9. New
paragraph (a)(2) would define the term ``Subcommittee'' to mean a
subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT
NMS Plan. This definition is the same substantive definition as set
forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.
(2) Fee Dispute Resolution
    Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan requires Participants to adopt
rules requiring that disputes with respect to fees charged to Industry
Members pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan be determined by the Operating
Committee or Subcommittee. Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan also states
that decisions by the Operating Committee or Subcommittee on such
matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without prejudice to the
right of any Industry Member to seek redress from the SEC pursuant to
SEC Rule 608 or in any other appropriate forum. The Exchange proposes
to adopt paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9.
Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9 states
that disputes initiated by an Industry Member with respect to CAT Fees
charged to such Industry Member pursuant to the Consolidated Audit
Trail Funding Fees, including disputes related to the designated tier
and the fee calculated pursuant to such tier, shall be resolved by the
Operating Committee, or a Subcommittee designated by the Operating
Committee, of the CAT NMS Plan, pursuant to the Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures adopted pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and set forth in
paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9.
Decisions on such matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without
prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to seek redress
from the SEC or in any other appropriate forum.
    The Operating Committee has adopted ``Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures'' governing the manner in which disputes regarding CAT Fees
charged pursuant to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees will be
addressed. These Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures, as they relate to
Industry Members, are set forth in paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 6896
and

Chapter IX, Section 9. Specifically, the Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures provide the procedure for Industry Members that dispute CAT
Fees charged to such Industry Member pursuant to one or more of the
Participants' Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees Rules, including
disputes related to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant
to such tier, to apply for an opportunity to be heard and to have the
CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member reviewed. The Procedures are
modeled after the adverse action procedures adopted by various
exchanges,\15\ and will be posted on the Web site for the CAT NMS Plan
Web site.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Chapter X of BATS BZX Exchange, Inc. (Adverse
Action); and Chapter X of NYSE National, Inc. (Adverse Action).
    \16\ The CAT NMS Plan Web site is www.catnmsplan.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these Procedures, an Industry Member that disputes CAT Fees
charged to such Industry Member and that desires to have an opportunity
to be heard with respect to such disputed CAT Fees must file a written
application with the Company within 15 business days after being
notified of such disputed CAT Fees. The application must identify the
disputed CAT Fees, state the specific reasons why the applicant takes
exception to such CAT Fees, and set forth the relief sought. In
addition, if the applicant intends to submit any additional documents,
statements, arguments or other material in support of the application,
the same should be so stated and identified.
    The Company will refer applications for hearing and review promptly
to the Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee pursuant to
Section 4.12 of the CAT NMS Plan with responsibility for conducting the
reviews of CAT Fee disputes pursuant to these Procedures. This
Subcommittee will be referred to as the Fee Review Subcommittee. The
members of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to the
provisions of Section 4.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan regarding recusal and
Conflicts of Interest. The Fee Review Subcommittee will keep a record
of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will hold hearings promptly. The Fee
Review Subcommittee will set a hearing date. The parties to the hearing
shall furnish the Fee Review Subcommittee with all materials relevant
to the proceedings at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing.
Each party will have the right to inspect and copy the other party's
materials prior to the hearing.
    The parties to the hearing will consist of the applicant and a
representative of the Company who shall present the reasons for the
action taken by the Company that allegedly aggrieved the applicant. The
applicant is entitled to be accompanied, represented and advised by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will determine all questions concerning
the admissibility of evidence and will otherwise regulate the conduct
of the hearing. Each of the parties will be permitted to make an
opening statement, present witnesses and documentary evidence, cross
examine opposing witnesses and present closing arguments orally or in
writing as determined by the Fee Review Subcommittee. The Fee Review
Subcommittee also will have the right to question all parties and
witnesses to the proceeding. The Fee Review Subcommittee must keep a
record of the hearing. The formal rules of evidence will not apply.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee must set forth its decision in writing
and send the written decision to the parties to the proceeding. Such
decisions will contain the reasons supporting the conclusions of the
Fee Review Subcommittee.
    The decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to
review by the Operating Committee either on its own motion within 20
business days after issuance of the decision or upon written request
submitted by the applicant within 15 business days after issuance of
the decision. The applicant's petition must be in writing and must
specify the findings and conclusions to which the applicant objects,
together with the reasons for such objections. Any objection to a
decision not specified in writing will be considered to have been
abandoned and may be disregarded. Parties may petition to submit a
written argument to the Operating Committee and may request an
opportunity to make an oral argument before the Operating Committee.
The Operating Committee will have sole discretion to grant or deny
either request.
    The Operating Committee will conduct the review. The review will be
made upon the record and will be made after such further proceedings,
if any, as the Operating Committee may order. Based upon such record,
the Operating Committee may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in
part, the decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee. The decision of the
Operating Committee will be in writing, will be sent to the parties to
the proceeding and will be final.
    The Procedures state that a final decision regarding the disputed
CAT Fees by the Operating Committee, or the Fee Review Subcommittee (if
there is no review by the Operating Committee), must be provided within
90 days of the date on which the Industry Member filed a written
application regarding disputed CAT Fees with the Company. The Operating
Committee may extend the 90-day time limit at its discretion.
    In addition, the Procedures state that any notices or other
documents may be served upon the applicant either personally or by
leaving the same at its, his or her place of business or by deposit in
the United States post office, postage prepaid, by registered or
certified mail, addressed to the applicant at its, his or her last
known business or residence address. The Procedures also state that any
time limits imposed under the Procedures for the submission of answers,
petitions or other materials may be extended by permission of the
Operating Committee. All papers and documents relating to review by the
Fee Review Subcommittee or the Operating Committee must be submitted to
the Fee Review Subcommittee or Operating Committee, as applicable.
    The Procedures also note that decisions on such CAT Fee disputes
made pursuant to these Procedures will be binding on Industry Members,
without prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to seek
redress from the SEC or in any other appropriate forum.
    Finally, an Industry Member that files a written application with
the Company regarding disputed CAT Fees in accordance with these
Procedures is not required to pay such disputed CAT Fees until the
dispute is resolved in accordance with these Procedures, including any
review by the SEC or in any other appropriate forum. For these
purposes, the disputed CAT Fees means the amount of the invoiced CAT
Fees that the Industry Member has asserted pursuant to these Procedures
that such Industry Member does not owe to the Company. The Industry
Member must pay any invoiced CAT Fees that are not disputed CAT Fees
when due as set forth in the original invoice.
    Once the dispute regarding CAT Fees is resolved pursuant to these
Procedures, if it is determined that the Industry Member owes any of
the disputed CAT Fees, then the Industry Member must pay such disputed
CAT Fees that are owed as well as interest on such disputed CAT Fees
from the original due date (that is, 30 days after receipt of the
original invoice of such CAT Fees) until such disputed CAT

Fees are paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime
Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by
applicable law.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires,
among other things, that the Exchange rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealer [sic],
and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets or clarifies Section 11.5 of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members
in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving
the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \19\ To the extent that this
proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies
specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that
this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the
SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Approval Order at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \20\ requires that Exchange rules not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
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. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule
change implements Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan approved by the
Commission, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its
regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. Similarly, all national
securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing this proposed rule to
implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not
a competitive rule filing and, therefore, it does not raise competition
issues between and among the exchanges and FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-059 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-NASDAQ-2017-059. 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-NASDAQ-2017-059, and should
be submitted on or before July 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12987 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16733]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following Closed Meeting during
the week of March 31, 2008:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 31, 2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; and
    Adjudicatory matters.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 25, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6371 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 55352]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0056; FRL-9934-08-OW]

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology: Assumable Waters Subcommittee; Notice of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Subcommittee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92-463, EPA is giving notice of two upcoming public meetings of the
Assumable Waters Subcommittee convened under the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The Assumable
Waters Subcommittee will provide advice and recommendations as to how
the EPA can best clarify assumable waters for dredge and fill permit
programs pursuant to Clean Water Act section 404(g)(1). The EPA is
undertaking this effort to support states and tribes that wish to
assume the program. Similar to the parent NACEPT, the subcommittee
represents a diversity of interests from academia, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and local, State, and tribal governments.
Meeting agendas and materials will be posted at www2.epa.gov/cwa-404/assumable-waters-sub-committee.

DATES: The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will hold two-day public
meetings on:
     October 6-7, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the
William Jefferson Clinton Building in Washington, DC.
     December 1-2, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the
One Potomac Yard Building in Arlington, VA.

ADDRESSES:
     William Jefferson Clinton Building, Room B305 North, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     One Potomac Yard, Ground Floor, 2777 Crystal Dr.
Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Bachle, Designated Federal
Officer, via Email at: Assumable, by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, via postal
service at: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide
written comments to the Assumable Waters Subcommittee should be sent to
Laura Bachle via Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by September 25,
2015, for the October meeting and by November 16, 2015, for the
December meeting. The meetings are open to the public, with limited
seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the
public wishing to attend should contact Laura Bachle via Email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> by September 25,
2015, for the October meeting and by November 16, 2015, for the
December meeting. Public comments will heard from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30
p.m. on October 7, 2015, and December 2, 2015.
    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or
accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to
Laura Bachle at the email address or phone number listed above. To
ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for
accommodations at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: September 9, 2015.
Benita Best-Wong,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2015-23143 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16883-16884]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3303-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Missouri (FEMA-3303-EM), dated January 30, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective January 28, 2009.

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

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-8381 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13508-13511]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0929]
RIN 1625-ZA29

Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to Title 33
of the CFR to reflect the realignment of boundaries shared among Sector
Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie. This action
is taken to rebalance workload and span of control among Ninth District
sector commands. These changes affect internal Coast Guard organization
and functioning only and will have no substantive effect on mariners or
other members of the public.

DATES: This final rule is effective at 12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0929 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0929 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District Resources Planning
Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final 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 rule involves ``agency organization''
or 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)(A), the Coast Guard finds that with respect to
this rule the requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) does not apply because these changes merely involve agency
organization. Also, the Coast Guard finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this
rule because it is unnecessary. Comments are unnecessary because they
would not change the Coast Guard's internal delegation of authority or
duties among the Ninth District's sector commands nor would they
provide expertise regarding Coast Guard functions.
    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 because these changes affect
internal Coast Guard organization and functioning only and will have no
substantive effect on the public.

Background and Purpose

    On July 2, 2007, in order to reflect the establishment of the new
system of sector commands, the Coast Guard extensively revised 33 CFR
part 3. That revision included various changes to the Coast Guard's
internal organization to include the reassignment of Station Charlevoix
and Station Alpena from Group Sault Ste. Marie to Sectors Lake Michigan
and Detroit, respectively. That reassignment was done in order to have
all units on Lake Michigan assigned to one sector and all units on Lake
Huron assigned to another. The Coast Guard has decided, however, to
further adjust sector boundaries to provide a more balanced workload
and span of control among Ninth District sectors. An effect of this
boundary adjustment is that Stations Charlevoix and Alpena will be
reassigned to Sector Sault Ste. Marie.
    In addition to balancing workload and span of control, this
realignment will also enhance planning and coordination with our
maritime partners. Specifically, these changes will align Ninth
District sectors more closely with Customs and Border Protection,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency,
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, and the Tri-County 911 Center
servicing Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Emmet counties. This alignment is
expected to improve cooperation, consistency, and efficiency in
maritime security, safety, and environmental response. This rule is not
intended or expected to require any new actions on the part of the
public.

Discussion of Rule

    Generally, this rule expands Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Area of
Responsibility (AOR). Its new AOR will encompass Grand Traverse Bay,
other northern portions of Lake Michigan, and additional portions of
northern Lake Huron. To accomplish this realignment, this rule amends
33 CFR 3.45-15, 3.45-20, and 3.45-45, which define the boundaries of
Sector Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie
respectively.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. As this rule involves internal agency
organization and non-substantive changes, it will not impose any costs
on the public.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and
therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
    Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed this rule for
potential economic impacts on small entities. We found that that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction. This rule concerns Coast Guard
internal functions and organization in that it redefines certain sector
boundaries. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 3

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 3 as follows:

PART 3--COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION
ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).

0
2. Revise Sec.  3.45-15 to read as follows:

Sec.  3.45-15  Sector Lake Michigan Marine Inspection Zone and Captain
of the Port Zone.

    Sector Lake Michigan's office is located in Milwaukee, WI. The
boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain
of the Port Zone include all navigable waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a
point at latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00'' W,
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W;
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00''
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
90[deg]00'00'' W; thence south to latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N; thence
east to the Ohio-Indiana border at latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude
84[deg]48'12'' W; thence north along the Ohio-Indiana border to the
intersection of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border at latitude
41[deg]41'59'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'22'' W; thence east along the
Ohio-Michigan border to latitude 41[deg]42'13'' N, longitude
84[deg]30'00'' W; thence north to the start point.

0
3. Revise Sec.  3.45-20 to read as follows:

Sec.  3.45-20  Sector Detroit Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the
Port Zone.

    Sector Detroit's office is located in Detroit, MI. The boundaries
of Sector Detroit's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone
include all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land
areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a point at
latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'12'' W on the Ohio-
Indiana boundary, proceeding east to longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence
north to the international boundary in Lake Erie at latitude
41[deg]40'36'' N, longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence north along the
international boundary to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N in Lake Huron;
thence due west to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00''
W; thence south to the Michigan-Ohio boundary at latitude
41[deg]42'13'' N; thence west along the Michigan-Ohio boundary to the
Ohio-Michigan-Indiana boundary at latitude 41[deg]41'46'' N, longitude
84[deg]48'22'' W; thence south along the Ohio-Indiana boundary to the
starting point.

0
4. Revise Sec.  3.45-45 to read as follows:

Sec.  3.45-45  Sector Sault Ste. Marie Marine Inspection Zone and
Captain of the Port Zone; Marine Safety Unit Duluth.

    Sector Sault Ste. Marie's office is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
MI. A subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Duluth, is located in
Duluth, MN.
    (a) Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone comprise all navigable waters of the United States and
contiguous land areas within an area starting from a point at latitude
44[deg]43'00'' N on the international boundary within Lake Huron;
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W;
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00''
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at
latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north
along the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at
latitude 49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east
along the international boundary to the starting point; and in
addition, all the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) The boundaries of the MSU Duluth Marine Inspection and Captain
of the Port Zones comprise all navigable

waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within an area
starting at a point latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 88[deg]30'00''
W, proceeding west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at latitude
46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north along the
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the Minnesota-
North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at latitude
49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east along the
international boundary to a point at latitude 47[deg]59'23'' N,
longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence south to a point near Manitou Island
Light at latitude 47[deg]25'09'' N, longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence
southwest to a point near the shore of Lake Superior at latitude
46[deg]51'51'' N, longitude 87[deg]45'00'' W; thence southwest to the
point of origin.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-5731 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56777]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4023-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Connecticut; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Connecticut (FEMA-4023-DR), dated September 2, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Stephen M.
DeBlasio Sr., of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gary Stanley as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23445 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P