[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15621-15624]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2010-0043]
RIN 2127-AK38

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Theft Protection and
Rollaway Prevention

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to a statutory mandate in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids
Transportation Safety Act of 2007, NHTSA is placing a requirement in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 that certain motor
vehicles with an automatic transmission that includes a ``park''
position manufactured for sale on or after September 1, 2010 be
equipped with a brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI). This
interlock must necessitate that the service brake pedal be depressed
before the transmission can be shifted out of ``park,'' and must
function in any starting system key position. The BTSI requirement
adopted by this final rule is identical in substance to the
Congressional requirement.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 29, 2010. Petitions for
reconsideration: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this
rule, your petition must be received by May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: If you submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the public docket. Anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Gayle Dalrymple, NVS-123, Office of Rulemaking, by telephone at (202)
366-0098, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal issues, you may contact David
Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-112, by telephone at (202)
366-2992, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may send mail to both of these officials at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Mandate and Background
II. Summary of the NPRM
III. Comments and Analysis
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

I. Statutory Mandate and Background

    On February 28, 2008, the ``Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation
Safety Act of 2007'' (the K.T. Safety Act, or ``Act'') was signed into
law.\1\ This Act relates to several aspects of motor vehicle safety
involving incidents where a person, frequently a child, could be hurt
in non-traffic situations. The K.T. Safety Act addresses safety
concerns related to, among other matters, power windows, rearward
visibility, and vehicles rolling away. The latter refers to incidents
that typically involve an unattended child managing to shift the
vehicle's transmission out of the ``park'' position when the child is
left in a vehicle with the vehicle's key. With a BTSI system, the brake
pedal must be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of
park. To reduce the occurrence of roll away incidents, the Act requires
that each vehicle that is less than 10,000 pounds ``gross vehicular
weight,'' excluding motorcycles and trailers, manufactured for sale
after September 1, 2010, that includes an automatic transmission with a
``park'' position, be equipped with a system that requires the service
brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of
``park'' (i.e., a BTSI system). The Act further requires the system to
function in any

starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted
out of ``park.'' The Act also requires that a violation of this
requirement be treated as a violation of a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 110-189, 112 Stat. 639 (Feb. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2006, prior to enactment of the K.T. Safety Act, the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) developed a voluntary
agreement requiring full implementation of a Brake Transmission Shift
Interlock not later than September 1, 2010.\2\ This agreement, signed
by many major automakers, also defined some of the key terms and
required that automakers disclose the percentage of their current
production vehicles equipped with BTSI systems, as well as when they
reached full compliance. The language of that agreement was
substantially the same as the BTSI requirement in the K.T. Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The announcement and text of this agreement are available on
the NHTSA website, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the NPRM

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 25,
2009,\3\ NHTSA proposed to incorporate the language of the K.T. Safety
Act into the text of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
114, Theft protection and rollaway prevention. Because Congress
mandated all vehicles be equipped with BTSI, no action was required by
NHTSA for the requirement to take effect. However, we believed it would
be helpful to manufacturers and other interested parties to group the
BTSI requirement with other rollaway provisions of FMVSS No. 114. That
is, the rollaway provisions of the FMVSSs would be easier to ascertain
and understand if the provisions were codified together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 42837 (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we proposed locating the BTSI requirement in paragraph
S5 of FMVSS No. 114. Additionally, we proposed a minor modification of
paragraph S3 of the standard, Applicability, to account for the minor
differences between the applicability of the BTSI requirement and the
applicability of FMVSS No. 114 generally.
    In addition to inserting the statutory requirement into the
standard, NHTSA offered for public comment four interpretations of the
statutory language:
     The last sentence of section 2(d)(1) of the Act states:
``This system shall function in any starting system key position in
which the transmission can be shifted out of `park'.'' We stated that
this sentence means that, no matter the starting system position the
key is in (e.g., ``lock,'' ``accessory,'' or ``start''), the
transmission must only shift out of ``park'' when the service brake is
depressed.
     We stated that the BTSI requirement applies to vehicles
with all keys,  i.e., a physical device or an electronic code, such as
those requiring the operator to enter a code or push a button to start
the vehicle.
     We understood the term ``gross vehicular weight'' in
section 2(e)(2) to mean ``gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).''
     The phrase ``manufactured for sale after September 1,
2010'' in section 2(d)(1) of the Act means ``manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010.''

III. Comments and Analysis

    NHTSA received two comments in response to the NPRM. One comment,
from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, supported NHTSA's
proposal to include the BTSI requirement in FMVSS No. 114. A second
comment, from AIAM, also supported NHTSA's proposal, but requested that
the agency include a gear selection control override option that would
allow the vehicle to be shifted out of ``park'' without depressing the
service brake under certain limited conditions. AIAM stated its belief
that an override feature would not degrade safety, would promote
flexibility, and prevent consumer backlash. AIAM stated its belief that
Congress did not intend to require a rigid, inflexible interpretation
of the law, while maintaining the safety purpose of the device.
    We are not adopting AIAM's suggested override feature in this final
rule for the following reasons. First, it is not clear that an override
is permissible within the language of the K.T. Safety Act. AIAM noted
that the Act neither expressly prohibits nor requires an override
system and argued that NHTSA could implement an override. However, we
find no indication either in the text of the K.T. Safety Act or its
associated legislative history that Congress envisioned any exception
to the plain language of the Act. Furthermore, many Congressional
actions, including other portions of the K.T. Safety Act, require NHTSA
to undertake rulemaking in various areas of concern and permit a degree
of agency discretion in their implementation. In the case of BTSI,
Congress made this requirement self-effectuating and did not direct
that rulemaking be done, indicating that the agency is afforded less
leeway in the implementation of the requirement.
    Second, NHTSA is concerned that implementing an override would be
outside the scope of this rulemaking action. The August 25, 2009 NPRM
proposed only the incorporation of the statutory language into the
standard for the convenience of manufacturers and other readers of the
safety standards. The NPRM did not analyze or propose possible
mechanisms to adjust the statutory requirement, such as permitting an
override in a limited set of circumstances. Therefore, we believe it
would be outside the scope of this rulemaking to include such a change
to the BTSI requirement in this final rule.
    Third, while AIAM suggested that the lack of an override could
create a consumer backlash, they provided no information why this would
necessarily be so. In a supplement to its comments, AIAM stated that,
in some vehicles, if the battery is dead or at a low state of charge,
the shift selector control may not be moved from ``park'' even with the
service brake pedal depressed. AIAM provided no data on the number of
vehicles or model lines produced that operate this way, nor did AIAM
explain why a decision was made to operate these vehicles in this
fashion. In short, we are not convinced that an override feature is
necessary. We note that no commenter addressed the four interpretations
of the BTSI provision of the K.T. Safety Act. Accordingly, we adopt
those interpretations without further discussion.
    For the reasons discussed above and in the NPRM, and having
considered all of the comments received, NHTSA will adopt without
change the amendments proposed in the NPRM.

IV. Effective Date

    Section 30111(d) of title 49, United States Code, provides that a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard may not become effective before
the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or later than one year
after it is prescribed except when a different effective date is, for
good cause shown, in the public interest. In this instance, the K.T.
Safety Act prescribes the effective date of the BTSI requirement. The
inclusion of this mandate in the FMVSSs was solely for the convenience
of the reader. Therefore, good cause exists for this amendment to FMVSS
No. 114 to become effective before the 180th day after the publication
of this rule.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The agency has considered the
impact of this action under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979),
and has determined that it is not ``significant'' under them. This
rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866.
    Today's notice inserts the Congressional mandate into the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards for the convenience of users. It does
not impose any additional regulatory requirements. We also note that
most vehicles are already equipped with a BTSI system. The agency
concludes that the impacts of the changes are so minimal that
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule merely includes in the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards a requirement passed by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. No
substantive changes to the Act are being made in this final rule. Small
organizations and small government units would not be significantly
affected since this action will not affect the price of new motor
vehicles. For the vast majority of motor vehicle manufacturers, the
BTSI requirement merely codifies a voluntary pledge made by
manufacturers to install BTSI systems on all vehicles by September 1,
2010. For any vehicle manufacturers that do not already install a BTSI
system in their vehicles, NHTSA does not believe that installing such a
system will result in a significant economic impact on those entities.
This is because the addition of BTSI requires only a relatively simple
mechanical and/or electrical modification.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant either consultation with State and local officials or
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not
have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and the responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of
preemption in connection with today's final rule. The issue of
preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in two ways.
    First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative
law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation is unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: in some instances, State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of some of
the NHTSA safety standards. When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000).
    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure
of the regulatory text) and purpose of today's final rule and does not
foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it.
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of
state law, including state tort law.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in
court.

Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the agency.
    Although this final rule is part of a rulemaking expected to have a
positive safety impact on children, it is not an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order
13045.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is no
information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no
voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus
standards bodies pertaining to the BTSI requirement. However, we note
that currently, most automobile manufacturers incorporate a brake shift
transmission interlock in their vehicles. In 2006, most large vehicle
manufacturers agreed to a voluntary commitment to include a BTSI system
in their vehicles by September 1, 2010. Finally, due to the BTSI
provision in the K.T. Safety Act, all manufacturers will be required by
statute to include it in their vehicles by September 1, 2010. This
final rule incorporates the statutory requirement into FMVSS No. 114
and does not include any additional requirements for manufacturers.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not result in any expenditure by State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby amends 49 CFR part 571
as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.114 is amended by revising paragraphs S3 and S5 and
adding paragraph S5.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.114  Standard No. 114; Theft protection and rollaway
prevention.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to all passenger cars, and
to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not apply to walk-
in van-type vehicles. Additionally, paragraph S5.3 of this standard
applies to all motor vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.
* * * * *
    S5 Requirements. Each vehicle subject to this standard must meet
the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3. Open-body type vehicles are
not required to comply with S5.1.3.
* * * * *
    S5.3 Brake transmission shift interlock. Each motor vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less with an automatic transmission that
includes a ``park'' position shall be equipped with a system that
requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can
be shifted out of ``park.'' This system shall function in any starting
system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of
``park.'' This section does not apply to trailers or motorcycles.
* * * * *

    Issued on: March 25, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-7078 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53450]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR13-57-000.
    Applicants: Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: Revised SOC Applicable
to Transportation Services to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130816-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: PR13-58-000.
    Applicants: Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: Storage Statement of
Operating Conditions to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130816-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: PR13-59-000.
    Applicants: Enable Illinois Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: IIT Name Change Filing
to be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130816-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: PR13-60-000.
    Applicants: Enable Illinois Intrastate Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: Cancellation of SOC to
be effective 8/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/16/13.
    Accession Number: 20130816-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1263-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska Negotiated Rate LPS RO to be effective 8/22/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130822-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1264-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska LPS RO to be effective 8/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130822-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1265-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Macquarie Negotiated Rate LPS RO to be effective 8/22/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130822-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1266-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Contractual ROFR to be effective 9/23/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130823-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1254-001.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Name Change Filing Amendment to be effective 8/16/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130822-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 23, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21081 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14030-14031]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1250-019]

City of Pasadena Water & Power Department;

    Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-
Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing
Process
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 1250-019.
    c. Date Filed: December 24, 2013.
    d. Submitted By: City of Pasadena Water & Power Department.
    e. Name of Project: Azusa Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the San Gabriel River, in Los Angeles County,
California. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Arturo Silva, Power Production
Superintendent, City of Pasadena Water and Power Department, 85 East
State Street, Pasadena, CA 91105-3418;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Shana Murray at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. City of Pasadena Water & Power Department filed its request to
use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 24, 2013. City of
Pasadena Water & Power Department provided public notice of its request
on December 23, 2013. In a letter dated March 6, 2014, the Director of
the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved City of Pasadena Water &
Power Department's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer,
as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and
the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating City of Pasadena Water &
Power Department as the Commission's non-federal representative for
carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. City of Pasadena Water & Power Department filed a Pre-
Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 1250. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by December 31,
2016.

    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

     Dated: March 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05419 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5060-5061]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88016; File No. SR-CTA-2019-02]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing of the Thirty-
First Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan

January 23, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 11, 2019,\3\ the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'')
Plan participants (``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan (``Plan'').\5\ This Amendment represents
the Thirty-First Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan (``Amendment'').
Under the Amendment, the Participants propose to amend the Plan to
align provisions governing the reporting of last sale prices in an
Eligible Security \6\ by the Processor \7\ during a Regulatory Halt \8\
with corresponding provisions under the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.\9\ The
Participants also propose a non-substantive amendment to update cross
references to the rules of NYSE and NYSE American in Section XI(a) of
the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, CTA/CQ Operating
Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 6, 2019.
    \4\ The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.; The Investors' Exchange LLC; Long-Term
Stock Exchange, Inc.; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX,
Inc.; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
American LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; and NYSE National, Inc.
(collectively, the ``Participants'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective). The most recent restatement of the Plan was in 1995. The
CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last
sale price information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a
``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.601, and a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under
the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
    \6\ Section VII(a) of the CTA Plan provides, in part, that the
term ``Eligible Securities'' shall mean ``(i) NYSE and AMEX. Any
common stock, long-term warrant or preferred stock registered or
admitted to unlisted trading privileges on the NYSE or the AMEX on
April 30, 1976; (ii) Other exchanges. Any common stock, long-term
warrant or preferred stock registered or admitted to unlisted
trading privileges on any other exchange which, on April 30, 1976,
substantially met the original listing requirements of the NYSE or
the AMEX for such securities; (iii) New listings. After April 30,
1976, any common stock, long-term warrant or preferred stock which
becomes registered on any exchange or is admitted to unlisted
trading privileges thereon and which at the time of such
registration or at the commencement of such trading substantially
meets the original listing requirements of the NYSE or the AMEX for
such securities, as the same may be amended from time to time; (iv)
Rights. Any right admitted to trading on an exchange which entitles
the holder thereof to purchase or acquire a share or shares of an
Eligible Security, provided that both the right and the Eligible
Security to the holders of which the right is granted are admitted
to trading on the same exchange.''
    \7\ The term ``Processor'' is defined in Section I(x) of the CTA
Plan as ``the organization designated as recipient and processor of
last sale price information furnished by Participants pursuant to
this CTA Plan, as Section V describes.''
    \8\ A ``Regulatory Halt'' is defined in Section Xl(a) of the CTA
Plan as a halt or suspension of trading in an Eligible Security by a
listing market ``because such listing market has determined (i) that
there are matters relating to such Security or the issuer thereof
which have not been adequately disclosed to the public, or (ii) that
there are regulatory problems relating to such Security which should
be clarified before trading therein is permitted to continue.''
    \9\ The Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for NASDAQ-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (the ``Nasdaq/UTP
Plan'') governs the collection, consolidation, processing, and
dissemination of last sale and quotation information for Network C
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\10\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendment. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement
of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the information
required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and
submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendment

    Section XI(a) of the Plan currently prohibits the Processor from
including any reports of last sale prices in an Eligible Security
during a Regulatory Halt, even if the Processor receives a report due
to a race condition or a late print where the trade occurred prior to
the Regulatory Halt. The Processor only disseminates these reports of
last sale prices after the Regulatory Halt is lifted or after the close
of the market. In particular, when a primary market initiates a
Regulatory Halt, it sends notifications to the Processor and other
Participants. A trade may occur at a Participant before that
Participant receives notification of the Regulatory Halt while a report
of the trade is made to the Processor after the Processor receives
notification of the Regulatory Halt. This race condition currently
results in a transaction occurring at a Participant while the Processor
delays the dissemination of the trade report.
    With respect to the UTP Plan, the Processor will immediately
disseminate such reports of last sale prices that occurred prior to the
Regulatory Halt but received by the Processor after the Regulatory
Halt. The Participants, in consultation with the Advisory Committee,
have deemed it appropriate to align the operation of the Plan with the
operation of the UTP Plan. As a result, the Participants are amending
the language of the Plan to permit the dissemination of reports of last
sale prices during a Regulatory Halt.
    In addition, while the primary aim of this Amendment is to address
situations associated with the race condition described above, it would
be impractical for the Processor to determine that a transaction
occurred either before or after a Participant received notification of
a Regulatory Halt, and therefore whether to immediately disseminate or
refrain from disseminating the trade report until permissible.
Consequently, the Participants believe that it is appropriate to place
the responsibility on the individual Participants to determine whether
or not a transaction should be printed during a Regulatory Halt, and
the Processor should simply act as a pass-through for the information
that it receives from the Participants. Therefore, the Amendment will
permit the Processor to disseminate any reports of last sale prices
received during a Regulatory Halt, without reference to the specific
race condition identified above.

    The Participants also proposes a non-substantive amendment to
update cross references to the rules of NYSE and NYSE American in
Section XI.(a) of the Plan. Currently, the Plan refers to NYSE Rule
123D and AMEX Rule 119 as the rules that set forth those exchange's
reopening procedures. The Participants propose to update those
references to NYSE Rule 7.35 Series and NYSE American Rule 7.35E, which
are the operative rules of those respective exchanges relating to
reopening procedures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85962 (May 29,
2019), 84 FR 26188 (June 5, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-05) (Order approving
NYSE trading rules relating to auctions, which will be implemented
beginning August 5, 2019); 80590 (May 4, 2017), 82 FR 21843 (May 10,
2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-01) (Order approving new NYSE American equity
trading rules, including auction rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance
with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan, as
applicable. The Participants also received feedback from the Advisory
Committee on aligning the operation of the Plan with the UTP Plan.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''). The Participants believe that aligning the operation of the
Plan with the UTP Plan with respect to dissemination of information
during Regulatory Halts reduces inefficiencies and confusion among
market participants with respect to the operation of the Plan and the
UTP Plan during a Regulatory Halt. Additionally, the Participants
believe that the amendment will serve to increase transparency in the
marketplace by disseminating reports of last sale prices closer in time
to when such transactions actually occurred.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section IV(c)(i) of the CQ Plan and Section IV(b)(i) of the CTA
Plan require the Participants to unanimously approve the amendments
proposed herein. They so approved it.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a) (Solely in Its Application to the
Amendments to the CTA Plan)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    As a result of the amendment, the Processor would be required to
disseminate reports of last sale prices for transactions received by
the Processor during a Regulatory Halt.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendment. Interested
persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments
concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment 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-CTA-2019-02 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-CTA-2019-02. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Amendment between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for website viewing and printing at
the principal office of the Plan. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA-
2019-02 and should be submitted on or before February 18, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01452 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65294-65296]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2000-N-0011]

Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is establishing
January 1, 2022, as the uniform compliance date for food labeling
regulations that are published on or after January 1, 2019, and on or
before December 31, 2020. We periodically announce uniform compliance
dates for new food labeling requirements to minimize the economic
impact of label changes.

DATES: This rule is effective December 20, 2018. Submit electronic or
written comments by February 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2000-N-0011 for ``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling
Regulations.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management

Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip L. Chao, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-24), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We periodically issue regulations requiring
changes in the labeling of food. If the effective dates of these
labeling changes were not coordinated, the cumulative economic impact
on the food industry of having to respond separately to each change
would be substantial. Therefore, we periodically have announced uniform
compliance dates for new food labeling requirements (see, e.g., the
Federal Register of October 19, 1984 (49 FR 41019); December 24, 1996
(61 FR 67710); December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68145); December 23, 1998 (63
FR 71015); November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69666); December 31, 2002 (67 FR
79851); December 21, 2006 (71 FR 76599); December 8, 2008 (73 FR
74349); December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78155); November 28, 2012 (77 FR
70885); December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73201); and November 25, 2016 (81 FR
85156)). Use of a uniform compliance date provides for an orderly and
economical industry adjustment to new labeling requirements by allowing
sufficient lead time to plan for the use of existing label inventories
and the development of new labeling materials.
    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(k) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
    We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771
requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations
``shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination
of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.'' We
believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
    The establishment of a uniform compliance date does not in itself
lead to costs or benefits. We will assess the costs and benefits of the
uniform compliance date in the regulatory impact analyses of the
labeling rules that take effect at that date.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant economic impact
of a rule on small entities. Because the final rule does not impose
compliance costs on small entities, we certify that the final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $150 million, using the most current (2017) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. We do not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, we have concluded that the
rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as
defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism summary
impact statement is not required.
    This action is not intended to change existing requirements for
compliance dates contained in final rules published before January 1,
2019. Therefore, all final rules published by FDA in the Federal
Register before January 1, 2019, will still go into effect on the date
stated in the respective final rule. We generally encourage industry to
comply with new labeling regulations as quickly as feasible, however.
Thus, when industry members voluntarily change their labels, it is
appropriate that they incorporate any new requirements that have been
published as final regulations up to that time.
    In rulemaking that began with publication of a proposed rule on
April 15, 1996 (61 FR 16422), and ended with a final rule on December
24, 1996 (61 FR 67710) (together ``the 1996 rulemaking''), we provided
notice and an opportunity for comment on the practice of establishing
uniform compliance dates by issuance of a final rule announcing the
date. We received no comments objecting to this practice during the
1996 rulemaking, nor have we received comments objecting to this
practice since we published a uniform compliance date on November 25,
2016 (81 FR 85156). Therefore, we find good cause to dispense with
issuance of a proposed rule inviting comment on the practice of
establishing the uniform compliance date because such prior notice and
comment are unnecessary. Interested parties will have an opportunity to
comment on the compliance date for each individual food labeling
regulation as part of the rulemaking process for that regulation.
Consequently, FDA finds any further advance notice and opportunity for
comment unnecessary for establishment of the uniform compliance date.
Nonetheless, under 21 CFR 10.40(e)(1), we are providing an opportunity
for comment on whether the uniform compliance date established by this
final rule should be modified or revoked.
    In addition, we find good cause for this final rule to become
effective on the date of publication of this action. A delayed
effective date is unnecessary in this case because the establishment of
a uniform compliance date does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on affected parties. Instead, this final rule provides
affected parties with notice of our policy to identify January 1, 2022,
as the compliance date for final food labeling regulations that require
changes in the labeling of food products and that publish on or after
January 1, 2019, and on or before December 31, 2020, unless special
circumstances justify a different compliance date. Thus, affected
parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect.
Therefore, we find good cause for this final rule to become effective
on the date of publication of this action.
    The new uniform compliance date will apply only to final FDA food
labeling regulations that require changes

in the labeling of food products and that publish on or after January
1, 2019, and on or before December 31, 2020. Those regulations will
specifically identify January 1, 2022, as their compliance date. All
food products subject to the January 1, 2022, compliance date must
comply with the appropriate regulations when initially introduced into
interstate commerce on or after January 1, 2022. If any food labeling
regulation involves special circumstances that justify a compliance
date other than January 1, 2022, we will determine for that regulation
an appropriate compliance date, which will be specified when the final
regulation is published.

    Dated: December 13, 2018.
Scott Gottlieb,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2018-27429 Filed 12-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14252-14256]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88322; File No. SR-BX-2020-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct and
Clarify Rules 4702(b)(3)(B) and 4703(d)

March 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 26, 2020, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 a proposal to correct and clarify Rules
4702(b)(3)(B) and 4703(d).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 4702 and 4703 to correct and
clarify its various descriptions of the circumstances in which the
Exchange will cancel certain types of midpoint pegged Orders \3\ after
they post to the Exchange Book \4\ and the National Best Bid and
National Best Offer (``NBBO'') or the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
subsequently shifts.\5\ The Exchange intended for these descriptions to
be consistent and comprehensive, but upon review, they are somewhat
discordant and confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Rule 4701(e), the term ``Order'' means an
instruction to trade a specified number of shares in a specified
System Security submitted to the System by a Participant. An ``Order
Type'' is a standardized set of instructions associated with an
Order that define how it will behave with respect to pricing,
execution, and/or posting to the Exchange Book when submitted to the
System. An ``Order Attribute'' is a further set of variable
instructions that may be associated with an Order to further define
how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Exchange Book when submitted to the System.
    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 4701(a)(1), the ``Exchange Book'' refers to
a montage for Quotes and Orders that collects and ranks all Quotes
and Orders submitted by Participants. The term ``Quote'' means a
single bid or offer quotation submitted to the System by a Market
Maker or Equities ECN and designated for display (price and size)
next to the Participant's MPID in the Exchange Book. See Rule
4701(d).
    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 4703(d), the terms ``Inside Bid'' and
``Inside Offer'' mean the price to which an Order is pegged for
purposes of Rule 4703. The term ``Midpoint'' means the midpoint of
the NBBO or the Inside Bid and Inside Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, the Exchange restated its Rules that describe its Order
Types (Rule 4702) and Attributes (Rule 4703).\6\ Among the topics that
the restated Rules described were the circumstances in which the
Exchange cancels orders priced at the Midpoint of the NBBO (the Inside
Bid and the Inside Offer) or priced at their limit price when the NBBO
(the Inside Bid and the Inside Offer) changes after the order posts to
the Exchange Book. The Exchange described these circumstances in two
different provisions of its Rules pertaining to Orders with Midpoint
pegging (``Midpoint-Pegged Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-75291 (June 24,
2015), 80 FR 37698 (July 1, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in Rule 4702(b)(3)(B), the Exchange states as follows in
describing the cancellation of a Non-Displayed Order with a Midpoint
Pegging Order Attribute assigned to it:
    If a Non-Displayed Order entered through OUCH or FLITE is assigned
a Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute, and if, after being posted to the
Exchange Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order is no
longer at the Midpoint between the NBBO, the Non-Displayed Order will
be cancelled back to the Participant. In addition, if a Non-Displayed
Order entered through OUCH or FLITE is assigned a Midpoint Pegging
Attribute and also has a limit price that is lower than the midpoint
between the NBBO for an Order to buy (higher than the midpoint between
the NBBO for an Order to sell), the Order will nevertheless be accepted
at its limit price and will be cancelled if the midpoint between the
NBBO moves lower than (higher than) the price of an Order to buy
(sell).

Second, in describing the Midpoint Pegging Attribute, Rule 4703(d)
explains when the Exchange will cancel an Order with this Attribute
enabled:

    An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE with Midpoint Pegging will
have its price set upon initial entry to the Midpoint, unless the Order
has a limit price that is lower than the Midpoint for an Order to buy
(higher than the Midpoint for an Order to sell), in which case the
Order will be ranked on the Exchange Book at its limit price.
Thereafter, if the NBBO changes so that: the Midpoint is lower than
(higher than) the price of an Order to buy (sell), the Pegged Order
will be cancelled back to the Participant.
    The Exchange intended for these two Rules to be substantively
identical. That is, the Rules should have provided for the Exchange to
cancel Midpoint-Pegged Orders in the same circumstances when entered
through OUCH or FLITE. Upon review, however, the Exchange has
determined that the Rules provide somewhat opaque descriptions of the
circumstances in which a change in the NBBO/Inside Bid and Inside Offer
will and will not result in the cancellation of a Midpoint-Pegged
Order. Each Rule states that the Exchange will cancel an Order to buy
(sell) if, after entry, the NBBO/Inside Bid and Inside Offer shifts so
that the Midpoint is lower (higher) than the price of the buy (sell)
Order. However, these descriptions in the Rules do not clearly
distinguish between Midpoint-Pegged Orders that post to the Exchange
Book at the Midpoint of the NBBO/Inside Bid and Inside Offer (i.e.,
orders with limit prices more aggressive than the Midpoint) from those
Orders that post to the Book at their limit prices (i.e., orders with
limit prices at or less aggressive than the Midpoint). In the former
case, any post-entry shift in the Midpoint of the NBBO/Inside Bid and
Inside Offer will result in cancellation of the Order. In the latter
case, however, a post-entry shift in the Midpoint of the NBBO/Inside
Bid and Inside Offer will result in cancellation only if the Midpoint
shifts lower than (higher than) the limit price of an Order to buy
(sell). If the Midpoint is higher than (lower than) the limit price of
an Order to buy (sell) upon Order entry, and it remains so after
shifting, then the Order will remain on the Book at its limit price.
The Exchange believes that this result is implicit in the notion that
these Order Types may post to the Exchange Book at their limit prices
when the Midpoints are higher (lower) than the limit prices of Orders
to buy (sell). Nevertheless, the Rules do not describe this scenario
expressly.
    Similarly, the Rules do not distinguish the particular
circumstances in which a crossed Inside Bid and Inside Offer will and
will not result in a cancellation of an Order. The Midpoint Pegging
Attribute rule simply states that the Exchange will cancel Orders when
the Inside Bid and Inside Offer becomes crossed after these Orders are
posted to the Exchange Book. However, the Exchange will only cancel a
Midpoint-Pegged Order that is ranked at its limit price where the
Inside Bid and Inside Offer become crossed, such that the Midpoint of
the crossed quotation remains equal to or higher (lower) than the limit
price of the Order to buy (sell), and a new sell (buy) Order is
received at a price that locks or crosses the limit price of the
resting Midpoint-Pegged Order. If an Order to buy (sell) posts to the
Exchange Book at its limit price, and the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
subsequently become crossed but the Midpoint remains equal to or higher
than (lower than) the limit price of the Order (and there are no
contra-side orders that lock or cross the Order), then the Exchange
will not cancel the Order. Likewise, if a Midpoint-Pegged Order is
ranked at the

Midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside Offer and the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer becomes crossed but the Midpoint does not change, then the
Exchange will not cancel the order unless a new Order is received at a
price that locks or crosses the Midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer.
    To address the foregoing issues and to increase clarity, the
Exchange proposes to amend and restate Rules 4702(b)(3)(B) and 4703(d),
as follows.
    First, the Exchange proposes to delete entirely the language of
Rule 4702(b)(3)(B) excerpted above. This language, which again
describes the behavior of a Non-Displayed Order with a Midpoint Pegging
Attribute enabled, is duplicative of the general description of the
behavior of a Midpoint Pegging Attribute in Rule 4703(d). The Exchange
believes that the concept described in these two Rules is best stated
only once to avoid unintended discrepancies. In this instance, the
Exchange believes that the language is most appropriate for inclusion
in Rule 4703(d).
    Second, the Exchange proposes to restate the relevant language of
Rule 4703(d) as follows:
    An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE with Midpoint Pegging will
have its price set upon initial entry to the Midpoint, unless the Order
has a limit price, and that limit price is lower than the Midpoint for
an Order to buy (higher than the Midpoint for an Order to sell), in
which case the Order will be ranked on the Exchange Book at its limit
price. The price of the Order will not thereafter be adjusted based on
changes to the Inside Bid or Offer. However, an Order with Midpoint
Pegging entered through OUCH or FLITE will be cancelled back to the
Participant after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book if any
of the following conditions are met:
     There is no Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer;
     The Order to buy (sell) is entered with a limit price
above (below) the Midpoint and is ranked at the Midpoint; thereafter
the Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer change so that the Midpoint changes
and the Order is no longer at the Midpoint;
     The Order to buy (sell) is entered at a limit price that
is equal to or less than (greater than) the Midpoint and is ranked at
its limit price; thereafter, the Inside Bid and/or Inside Offer change
so that the Midpoint is lower (higher) than the limit price of the
Order;
     The Order to buy (sell) is entered at a limit price that
is equal to or less than (greater than) the Midpoint and is ranked at
its limit price; thereafter, the Inside Bid and Inside Offer become
crossed, such that the Midpoint of the crossed Quotation remains equal
to or higher (lower) than the limit price of the Order, and then a new
sell (buy) Order is received at a price that locks or crosses the limit
price of the resting Order marked for Midpoint Pegging; or
     The Order to buy (sell) is entered at a limit price that
is greater than (less than) the Midpoint and is therefore ranked at the
Midpoint; thereafter, the Inside Bid and Inside Offer become crossed
but the Midpoint does not change, and then a new sell (buy) Order is
received at a price that locks or crosses the Midpoint of the Inside
Bid and Inside Offer.
    The Exchange believes that the restated language is more precise
than the existing language because it specifies that the Exchange will
cancel an Order with Midpoint Pegging that posts to the Exchange Book
at its limit price, when the Inside Bid and Inside Offer later shift,
only when the Inside Bid and Inside Offer shift so that the Midpoint of
the Inside Bid and Inside Offer becomes lower (higher) than the limit
price of an Order to buy (sell). Again, where the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer shift after the Order posts such that the Midpoint of the Inside
Bid and Inside Offer remains or becomes higher (lower) than the limit
price of an Order to buy (sell), cancellation of the Order is
unnecessary because the Order can simply remain on the Exchange Book at
its limit price. The restated language is also more precise because it
specifies that for an Order with Midpoint Pegging with a limit price
that is more aggressive than the Midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside
Offer, any change to the Midpoint will result in cancellation of the
Order.
    Likewise, the restated language is more precise than the existing
language in that the restated language specifies that the Exchange will
cancel an Order with Midpoint Pegging to buy (sell) that posts at its
limit price, when the Inside Bid and Inside Offer subsequently become
crossed and the Midpoint of the crossed Inside Bid and Inside Offer
remains equal to or higher (lower) than the limit price of the Order to
buy (sell), only when a new sell (buy) Order is received at a price
that locks or crosses the limit price of the resting Order. The
restated language also specifies that the Exchange will cancel an Order
with Midpoint Pegging to buy (sell) that posts at the Midpoint of the
Inside Bid and Inside Offer, when the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
subsequently become crossed and the Midpoint of the crossed Inside Bid
and Inside Offer remains the same, only when the Exchange receives a
new sell (buy) Order at a price that locks or crosses the Midpoint of
the Inside Bid and Inside Offer. Other than in these two circumstances,
cancellation of an Order simply because the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
cross is unnecessary because the Order need not be re-priced. When an
Order to buy (sell) is ranked at its limit price, and the Inside Bid
and Inside Offer become crossed while the Midpoint remains at or above
(below) the limit price, the crossed market does not impact the Order,
which can still rest on the Exchange Book at its limit price because
the Inside Bid and Inside Offer could uncross prior to the Order
executing. Likewise, when an Order to buy (sell) is ranked at the
Midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside Offer, and the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer become crossed but the Midpoint does not change, the
crossed market also does not impact the Order, which can continue to
rest on the Exchange Book at the Midpoint because the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer could uncross (with the Midpoint still remaining
unchanged) prior to the Order executing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposal will protect investors by amending Rules 4702 and 4703
so that they will describe more clearly what the Rules currently imply
with respect to the circumstances in which the Exchange will not cancel
Midpoint-Pegged Orders. That is, the Exchange believes that concept of
a limit price fairly implies that the Exchange has no need to and thus,
it does not presently, cancel a Midpoint-Pegged Order to buy (sell)
when such an Order is posted at its limit price and the Inside Bid and
Inside Offer shifts thereafter but the Midpoint remains above (below)
the limit price; however, Rule 4702(a)(3)(B) merely states that any
post-entry shift in the Midpoint will result in the cancellation of a
Midpoint-Pegged Order. To avoid confusion, the proposal clarifies that
the Exchange will cancel a Midpoint-Pegged Order posted at its limit
price if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer shifts after entry such that
the Midpoint becomes lower (higher) than the limit price. In this
circumstance,

cancellation is warranted because the Order would need to be re-priced,
and a Midpoint-Pegged Order entered using OUCH or FLITE cannot be re-
priced. Similarly, if a Midpoint-Pegged Order posts to the Exchange
Book at the Midpoint of the Inside Bid and Inside Offer and then the
Midpoint shifts in either direction, the Order will be cancelled
because it would need to be re-priced, and again, OUCH or FLITE do not
allow for re-pricing to occur.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is helpful to investors to
clarify the circumstances in which the Exchange does and does not
cancel Midpoint-Pegged Orders in a crossed market. Rule 4703(d) states
generally that the Exchange will cancel Midpoint-Pegged Orders if the
Inside Bid and Inside Offer become crossed. However, as discussed
above, the Exchange does not need to, and thus it does not presently,
cancel Midpoint-Pegged Orders in all such instances. Although
cancellation is warranted to prevent Orders from actually executing in
a crossed market,\9\ the Exchange does not believe that cancellation is
warranted simply because the markets cross if there remains a
possibility that the markets will uncross prior to an execution
occurring. Thus, the Exchange proposes that it will not cancel a
Midpoint-Pegged Order to buy (sell) when the Order is ranked at its
limit price and the Inside Bid and Inside Offer become crossed
thereafter (and the Midpoint remains equal to or more aggressive than
its limit price), but no new sell (buy) Order is received that locks or
crosses the limit price of the resting Midpoint-Pegged Order. Unless or
until the Exchange receives a new Order that locks or crosses the limit
price of the resting Midpoint-Pegged Order while the market remains
crossed, cancellation is unnecessary because the Midpoint-Pegged Order
can continue to rest at its limit price and the market may uncross
before the Midpoint-Pegged Order executes. Likewise, as was also
discussed above, the Exchange proposes that it will not cancel a
Midpoint-Pegged Order that is ranked at the Midpoint of the Inside Bid
and Inside Offer where the market becomes crossed, provided that while
the market is crossed, the Midpoint of the crossed Inside Bid and
Inside Offer does not change, and the Exchange does not receive a new
Order that would lock or cross the Midpoint. Again, cancellation is
unnecessary in this scenario because the Midpoint-Pegged Order can
continue to rest at the Midpoint while the market is crossed and
because the market may uncross (with the Midpoint remaining unchanged)
prior to execution of the Order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-79290 (Nov. 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184, 81186 (Nov. 17, 2016) (stating that the
``midpoint of a crossed market is not a clear and accurate
indication of a valid price'' and that cancellation in a crossed
market ``would avoid mispriced executions'').
    \10\ If at any point after the Midpoint-Pegged Order posts to
the Exchange Book at the Midpoint, the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
changes so that the price of the Order is no longer at the Midpoint,
then the order must be cancelled because orders entered through OUCH
or FLITE cannot be re-priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange intends for the
proposal to improve the precision with which the Rules describe the
circumstances in which it will cancel Midpoint-Pegged Orders after
entry, as described above. The Exchange does not expect that these
changes will have any impact whatsoever on competition.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2020-003 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-BX-2020-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File

Number SR-BX-2020-003, and should be submitted on or before April 1,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04913 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P