[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72523-72527]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25663]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96352; File No. SR-IEX-2022-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)

November 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 4, 2022 the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``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

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\4\ the Exchange is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to provide Members \5\ the option of
having Discretionary Limit orders automatically cancel or re-price in
certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule filing is to amend IEX Rule
11.190(b)(7) to allow Users \6\ to attach an optional instruction to
any Discretionary Limit \7\ (``D-Limit'') order to either re-price or
cancel an order that was price adjusted during a period of quote
instability,\8\ if, ten (10) milliseconds after the most recent quote
instability determination \9\ that resulted in the order being price
adjusted, the order is resting at a price that is less aggressive than
the NBB \10\ (NBO \11\) for buy (sell) orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IEX Rule 1.160(qq). Users include both Members and
Sponsored Participants, see IEX Rule 1.160(ll), but the terms
``Member'' and ``User'' are used interchangeably in this filing.
    \7\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7).
    \8\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \11\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In October 2020,\12\ IEX introduced the D-Limit order type,\13\
which is designed to help protect liquidity providers from potential
adverse selection during periods of quote instability in a fair and
nondiscriminatory manner.\14\ A D-Limit order may be a displayed or
non-displayed limit order that upon entry and when posting to the Order
Book \15\ is priced to be equal to and ranked at the order's limit
price, but will be adjusted to a less-aggressive price during periods
of quote instability, as defined in IEX Rule 11.190(g).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See IEX Trading Alert 2020-029, available at https://iextrading.com/alerts/#/126.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89686 (August 26,
2020), 85 FR 54438 (September 1, 2020) (SR-IEX-2019-15) (``D-Limit
Approval Order'').
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87814 (December 20,
2019), 84 FR 71997, 71998 (December 30, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-15) (``D-
Limit Proposal'').
    \15\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
    \16\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(7) and 11.190(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, if the System \17\ receives a D-Limit buy (sell)
order during a period of quote instability (i.e., the Crumbling Quote
Indicator or ``CQI'' is on), and the D-Limit order has a limit price
equal to or higher (lower) than the quote instability determination
price level (``CQI Price''), the price of the order will be
automatically adjusted by the System to one (1) minimum price variation
(``MPV'') \18\ lower (higher) than the CQI Price.\19\ Similarly, when
unexecuted shares of a D-Limit buy (sell) order are posted to the Order
Book, if a quote instability determination is made and such shares are
ranked and displayed (in the case of a displayed order) by the System
at a price equal to or higher (lower) than the CQI Price, the price of
the order will be automatically adjusted by the System to a price one
MPV lower (higher) than the quote instability price level.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
    \18\ See IEX Rule 11.210.
    \19\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(A) and (B).
    \20\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a D-Limit order that has been subject to an automatic
price adjustment will not revert to the price at which it was
previously ranked and displayed (in the case of a displayed order).
Rather, once the price of a D-Limit order that has been posted to the
Order Book is automatically adjusted by the System, the order will
continue to be ranked and displayed (in the case of a displayed order)
at the adjusted price, unless subject to another automatic adjustment,
or if the order is subject to the price sliding provisions of IEX Rule
11.190(h).\21\ Whenever the price of a D-

Limit order is adjusted the order will receive a new time priority. If
multiple D-Limit orders are adjusted at the same time, their relative
time priority will be maintained. Further, when the price of a D-Limit
order is adjusted, the Member that entered the order receives an order
restatement message from the Exchange notifying the Member of the price
adjustment.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(E).
    \22\ A restatement message is an automated message from the
Exchange System informing the Member that the price of its order has
been adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX is proposing optional functionality that will facilitate the
ability of some Members to manage their use of D-Limit orders. Some
Members that use D-Limit orders have informed IEX that they cannot
readily configure their trading systems to receive, process, and
respond to the restatement messages IEX transmits to Members after each
price adjustment. They note that their trading systems are not
currently configured to ingest the D-Limit restatement messages (and,
in some cases, other restatement messages), and they would have to
devote significant resources to build the logic in order to ingest, and
respond to, the messages for this one order type. In these cases, the
Members are unable to track whether their D-Limit orders have been re-
priced, and if so, the price at which they are currently resting.
Without this information, IEX understands that such Members are
hindered in their ability to timely cancel or adjust the prices of
their resting D-Limit orders to meet their trading objectives. To
address this issue, some Members have requested that IEX provide
optional functionality allowing a D-Limit order that has been subject
to an automatic price adjustment to be automatically either canceled or
re-priced in certain circumstances. Specifically, this option would
allow the User to elect to automatically cancel or re-price the order
when, ten (10) milliseconds following the quote instability
determination that resulted in a price adjustment, it is resting at a
price less aggressive than the NBBO.
Proposal
    Based upon the Member feedback discussed above, IEX proposes to
modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7) to allow Users to submit a D-Limit order
with an optional cancel or re-price instruction. As proposed, if a D-
Limit order that is entered with the optional instruction was subject
to an automatic price adjustment pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(A)-
(D) and is resting at a price that is less aggressive than the NBBO ten
(10) milliseconds after the most recent quote instability determination
that resulted in the order being price adjusted, the order will either
be canceled or re-priced to the less aggressive of the order's limit
price or the NBB (for a buy order) or NBO (for a sell order), as
specified by the User.
    Additionally, displayed D-Limit orders that re-price to the NBB
(for a buy order) or the NBO (for a sell order) will be subject to
IEX's Display-Price Sliding rule,\23\ and will be displayed at the
``most aggressive permissible price'' without locking or crossing a
Protected Quotation \24\ of an away market, which means they will be
priced one MPV less aggressive than the locking \25\ or crossing \26\
price. Non-displayed D-Limit orders that re-price to the NBB (for a buy
order) or the NBO (or a sell order) will be subject to IEX's Non-
Displayed Price Sliding rule, which means they will be able to post at
the locking or crossing price.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(h)(1).
    \24\ See IEX Rule 1.160(bb).
    \25\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(h)(3)(A)(ii).
    \26\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(h)(3)(B)(ii).
    \27\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, IEX proposes to add a new subsection (E) to IEX Rule
11.190(b)(7), to provide as follows:

    (E) Cancel/Re-price Functionality. Users may attach an optional
instruction to a Discretionary Limit order to either re-price or
cancel an order that was price adjusted pursuant to subparagraphs
(A)-(D) above if the buy (sell) order is resting at a price that is
less aggressive than the NBB (NBO) ten (10) milliseconds after the
most recent quote instability determination, pursuant to paragraph
(g) of this IEX Rule 11.190, that resulted in the order being price
adjusted pursuant to subparagraphs (A)-(D) above, as set forth in
subparagraph (i) or (ii) below.
    (i) Re-price. A buy (sell) order with the optional re-price
instruction will be automatically re-priced to the less aggressive
of the order's limit price or the NBB (NBO).
    (ii) Cancel. An order with the optional cancel instruction will
be automatically canceled.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Proposed IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(E).

    IEX also proposes to renumber subparagraph (E) of IEX Rule
11.190(b)(7) as subparagraph (F) of the rule, and to amend the new
subparagraph (F) to reflect that price adjusted D-Limit orders will
remain at the adjusted price, ``unless subject to another automatic
adjustment pursuant to subparagraphs (C)-(D) above, or the optional re-
price functionality described in subparagraph (E), above.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Proposed IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining how long to wait before applying the optional cancel
or re-price functionality to a D-Limit order, IEX considered how long
it would take for a User to cancel or re-price a D-Limit order itself
after receiving and processing a restatement message. Specifically, IEX
selected a time frame that would not give Users utilizing the proposed
cancel or pre-price functionality any speed advantage over Users
handling the cancel or re-price process themselves. IEX notes that all
outbound messages sent from the Exchange to Users are subject to 37
microseconds of latency,\30\ and all inbound messages sent from Users
to the Exchange are subject to 350 microseconds latency, totaling 387
microseconds.\31\ This ``round trip'' latency is more than nine (9)
milliseconds less than the 10-millisecond time than the time frame
proposed by IEX to trigger the optional cancel or re-price
functionality as described herein. IEX believes that this time
differential is materially longer than the amount of time needed for a
User to ingest and process the restatement message and determine
whether to cancel or re-price its D-Limit order. The timing
differential is designed to ensure that orders canceled or re-priced by
IEX have no advantage over orders canceled or repriced by a User that
processed the restatement message. To the contrary, the Exchange would
cancel or re-price orders more slowly than orders canceled or re-priced
by a User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See IEX Rule 11.510(a).
    \31\ See IEX Rule 11.510(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, IEX considered the fact that each time the CQI
determines that a quote is unstable, that period of quote instability
can last as long as two (2) milliseconds but that most price changes
within the predicted direction happen within ten (10) milliseconds
after the determination.\32\ Thus, IEX believes that a ten (10)
millisecond waiting period before a D-Limit order that was subject to
an automatic price adjustment is canceled or re-priced, if the User
included the optional cancel or re-price instruction with the order, is
reasonable. As noted above, this amount of time is materially longer
than it would take for a User to adjust the terms of an order subject
to price adjustment on its own, but not so long a time period that it
would leave an impacted order at

a less competitive \33\ price for an extended period of time. Moreover,
based on informal feedback from Members that indicated they might use
the proposed functionality, IEX believes that this time frame is
consistent with their D-Limit trading strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g). In June 2022, for all CQI
determinations where the relevant quote moved in the predicted
direction, 67% did so within 10 milliseconds (i.e., to a lower price
for an NBB determination or a higher price for an NBO
determination). After 10 milliseconds, IEX observed significantly
diminishing returns with respect to the rate of capturing additional
quote moves and therefore believes that 10 milliseconds is a
reasonable cutoff for the cancel/re-price functionality.
    \33\ During periods of quote instability, D-Limit orders moved
to a price less aggressive than the NBB (NBO) for bids (offers) are
less likely to execute (although they could, for example, match with
a large Intermarket Sweep Order that clears out all liquidity
resting at more aggressive prices, see IEX Rule 11.190(b)(12)).
Under this proposal, 10 milliseconds after the last quote
instability determination, when the market for a particular security
is likely more stable, IEX will act on the User's instructions to
either re-price the D-Limit order to a more competitive price (the
NBB (NBO) for bids (offers)) or cancel the order back to the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example, demonstrates how this functionality would
work:
     Market is $10.10 x $10.20.
     Order A, a non-displayed D-Limit buy order with limit
price of $10.11 (and re-price instruction) arrives, and books at
$10.11.
     Order B, a displayed D-Limit buy order with limit price of
$10.08 (and re-price instruction) arrives, and books at $10.08.
     Order C, a non-displayed D-Limit buy order with limit
price of $10.10 (and cancel instruction) arrives, and books at $10.10.
     IEX makes a quote instability determination for the bid
with a CQI Price of $10.10.
     Orders A and C are price adjusted to $10.09, one MPV less
than the CQI Price. Order B continues to rest at $10.08.
     After 3 milliseconds, the NBB drops to $10.09. No changes
to Orders A, B, or C.
     After 3 more milliseconds, the NBB returns to $10.10. No
changes to Orders A, B, or C.
     After 4 more milliseconds (i.e., 10 milliseconds after the
most recent quote instability determination that resulted in Orders A
and C being price adjusted) the NBB remains at $10.10. Orders A and C
are now resting at a price less aggressive than the NBB and therefore
subject to re-pricing or cancellation pursuant to the User
instructions. Order A re-prices to $10.10 (the less aggressive of the
NBB or its limit price) and Order C cancels. Order B remains unchanged
because it was never subject to an automatic price adjustment and, even
though resting at a price less aggressive than the NBB, is not subject
to re-pricing notwithstanding its User instruction.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\34\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5),\35\ 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, and 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it is designed
to provide more flexibility and opportunities for Members to add both
displayed and non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange. As noted in the
Purpose section, the proposed rule change is responsive to informal
feedback from some Members, stating that they cannot readily configure
their trading systems to receive, process, and respond to D-Limit
restatement messages IEX transmits to Members after each price
adjustment. In these cases, the Members are unable to track whether
their D-Limit orders have been re-priced, and if so, the price at which
they are currently resting. Without this information, IEX understands
that such Members are hindered in their ability to timely cancel or
adjust the prices of their resting D-Limit orders to meet their trading
objectives. To address this issue, impacted Members have requested that
IEX provide optional functionality allowing a D-Limit order that has
been subject to an automatic price adjustment to be automatically
either canceled or re-priced in certain circumstances. Specifically,
this option would allow the User to elect to automatically cancel or
re-price the order when, ten (10) milliseconds following the most
recent quote instability determination that resulted in a price
adjustment, it is resting at a price less aggressive than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By providing additional functionality to enable Members to more
effectively manage D-Limit orders, IEX believes that the proposed rule
change will promote more aggressive pricing that may attract additional
liquidity to the Exchange and, to the extent it is successful in doing
so, will benefit all market participants, thereby supporting the
purposes of the Act 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. Specifically, for Users
that utilize the proposed optional re-price functionality, their D-
Limit orders will be priced at more aggressive prices that are more
likely to execute during periods of quote stability. Similarly, IEX
believes that Users that utilize the proposed optional cancel
functionality are more likely to resubmit some or all of those orders
with more aggressive prices following cancelation, which are also more
likely to execute during periods of quote stability.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act because it would be available to all Members on
a fair, equal and nondiscriminatory basis regardless of their
technological sophistication. Moreover, the proposal is designed to
incentivize the entry of additional D-Limit orders by providing the
additional optional functionality to support Members' ability to manage
such orders. To the extent that such incentive is successful, all
market participants, including takers of liquidity, will benefit.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the circumstances under which a D-Limit order will be adjusted
are narrowly tailored, transparent, and predictable, as described in
the Purpose section.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed functionality is
similar to existing functionality on IEX and other exchanges wherein
the price of an order is adjusted based on user instructions. These
include price sliding and cancellation provisions to address locked and
crossed markets, LULD bands,\36\ Regulation SHO,\37\ anti-
internalization, and pegged orders. As described more fully below, it
is well established that exchanges can permit market participants to
enter orders with a forward-looking instruction whereby the exchange
will re-price or cancel an order in the future, under specified
circumstances. IEX believes that the proposed rule change is
substantially similar to these existing functionalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See IEX Rules 11.190(h)(5) and 11.280(e)(5)(B) (displayed
and non-displayed limit orders priced above (below) the upper
(lower) Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') bands are automatically re-
priced to the upper (lower) LULD price band.
    \37\ See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(4) (short sale orders not marked
short exempt that cannot be executed or displayed in compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO are re-priced to a price equal to one MPV
above the current NBB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX and other exchanges accept certain types of users' order
instructions to prevent an incoming displayed order

from locking or crossing an away market's Protected Quotation. While
all exchanges have rules designed to prevent an incoming displayed
order locking or crossing an away market's Protected Quotation, as
required by Regulation NMS, some exchanges also provide users with
various options for price adjusting or canceling an order that would
otherwise lock or cross an away market. For example, MEMX LLC
(``MEMX'') and MIAX PEARL LLC (``PEARL'') allow users to specify that a
displayed order subject to price sliding will be cancelled upon entry
to avoid crossing the market, instead of being re-priced.\38\
Additionally, MEMX and PEARL offer an optional ``multiple price
sliding'' instruction for displayed orders. If one of their members
does not opt in to ``multiple price sliding'', MEMX or PEARL will
adjust the order's price two times to prevent a lock or cross of an
away market Protected Quotation, after which time it will cancel the
order if a third re-pricing is required by changes in the NBBO.\39\ But
if the User includes the ``multiple price sliding'' instruction, both
MEMX and PEARL will continue to adjust the price indefinitely as
required by NBBO changes.\40\ This logic also applies to displayed
orders that are priced outside of the LULD Bands. Based on a user's
instructions, MEMX or PEARL will cancel an order priced outside of the
LULD bands, re-price the displayed order up to two times and cancel the
order if a third re-pricing is required by changes in the NBBO (if the
order does not have a ``multiple price sliding'' instruction), or
continue to adjust the order's price.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See MEMX Rule 11.6(j)(A)(i) and PEARL Rule 2614(g)(1)(C).
    \39\ See supra note 38.
    \40\ See supra note 38.
    \41\ See MEMX Rule 11.16(e)(5)(B) and PEARL Rule 2622(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, IEX and other exchanges permit entry of a non-displayed
order with a minimum quantity instruction to cancel remaining, which
means a partial execution will result in the order being canceled if
the number of shares remaining do not satisfy the order's minimum
quantity requirement.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See,  e.g., IEX Rule 11.190(b)(11)(G)(i); see also MEMX
Rule 11.6(f); PEARL Rule 2614(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, some exchange order types allow a user to submit an
order with specific instructions about how much the order's price can
be adjusted to match with contra-side interest. For example, Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') has a discretionary order type that is a
displayed or non-displayed limit order with a user submitted
``discretionary price,'' which is a non-displayed offset amount at
which the user is willing to buy or sell.\43\ The aggressiveness of the
user-selected discretionary price will impact the likelihood that a
discretionary order will execute. Similarly, Cboe EDGX Exchange Inc.
(``EDGX'') offers a midpoint discretionary order (``MDO'') with
optional quote depletion protection (``QDP'').\44\ A MDO behaves like
IEX's Discretionary Peg order type \45\ in that the order is usually
able to exercise discretion up to the Midpoint Price.\46\ However, EDGX
users may submit their MDO orders with the optional QDP instruction,
which will prevent the MDO from exercising any discretion for a period
of two milliseconds after the best bid (offer) displayed on EDGX's
order book is executed for less than one round lot.\47\ Therefore, the
EDGX user submitting the MDO order can instruct the exchange to not let
the order execute at more aggressive prices under specific market
conditions unknown to the user at the time the order was submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(10).
    \44\ See EDGX Rule 11.8(g).
    \45\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10).
    \46\ See IEX Rule 1.160(t).
    \47\ See EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(10). By contrast an IEX Discretionary
Peg order will never exercise discretion during a period of quote
instability as defined in IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, pegged orders such as Midpoint Peg \48\ and Primary Peg
\49\ orders, which peg to the Midpoint Price \50\ and one MPV less
aggressive than the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders, respectively, are
examples of an IEX User instructing the Exchange to re-price orders in
response to future changes in the NBBO. IEX believes that the proposed
optional re-pricing functionality is analogous because, as with pegging
orders, the re-pricing is to the best bid or best offer. And IEX notes
that several other exchanges have displayed order types that are pegged
to the NBBO and thus subject to price adjustments as the NBBO
changes.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(9).
    \49\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(8).
    \50\ See IEX Rule 1.160(t).
    \51\ See, e.g., Cboe EDGA, Inc. Equity (``EDGA'') Rule 11.8(e)
and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4703(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes that these examples described above demonstrate there
is precedent for exchanges providing an ability for market participants
to enter orders with a forward-looking instruction whereby the exchange
will re-price or cancel an order in the future, under specified
circumstances. IEX further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with these exchanges' rule-based practices. As proposed, an
IEX Member would simply be able to optionally instruct the Exchange to
re-price or cancel a D-Limit order under specified circumstances.
    Accordingly, based on the forgoing, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change raises any novel issues not already
considered by the Commission.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness with other
markets by further enhancing IEX's D-Limit order type functionality. As
discussed in the Purpose section, the proposal is designed to
incentivize the entry of additional liquidity providing orders on IEX
by offering Members the flexibility of including an optional
instruction to either cancel or re-price a D-Limit order that has been
price adjusted during a period of quote instability, if 10 milliseconds
after the most recent quote instability determination that resulted in
a price adjustment, the order is priced less aggressively than the NBB
(NBO) for buy (sell) orders. By giving more opportunities to Members to
make their D-Limit orders more competitive (if not canceled) after a
period of quote instability ends, IEX believes this proposal will
enhance opportunities for price discovery and increase the overall
displayed (and non-displayed) liquidity profile on the Exchange, to the
benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members
would be eligible to include the optional cancel or re-price
instruction on any or all of their D-Limit orders in the same manner.
Moreover, the proposal would provide potential benefits to all Members
to the extent that there is more liquidity available on IEX as a result
of increased use of D-Limit orders attributable to the ability to enter
such orders with optional cancellation or re-pricing instructions.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days of such
date (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 shall: (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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2022-10 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-IEX-2022-10. 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 offices 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-IEX-2022-10, and should be submitted on
or before December 16, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25663 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57169]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Wendt-Bristol Health Services Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

September 26, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Wendt-Bristol Health Services Corp. (``Wendt-Bristol'') because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2000.
Wendt-Bristol is quoted on the Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC
Markets, Inc. under the ticker symbol WMDB.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
September 26, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 9, 2008.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23086 Filed 9-26-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64381-64384]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25212]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87552; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List To Revise the Step Up Tier 2 Adding Credit in Tape
A Securities

November 15, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 1, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise the Step Up
Tier 2 Adding Credit in Tape A securities. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective November 1, 2019. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise the Step Up
Tier 2 Adding Credit in Tape A securities.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing orders by offering further incentives for member
organizations to send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
November 1, 2019.
Competitive Environment
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 19% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity

order flow. More specifically, for the month of September 2019, the
Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions)
in Tapes A, B and C securities was only 9.3%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
order flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange,
member organizations can choose from any one of the 13 currently
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly,
competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to
orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established incentives for its member organizations who submit orders
that provide liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed fee change is
designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange by lowering
the adding requirement in order for member organizations to qualify for
the November 2019 Step Up Tier 2 Adding Credit, thereby incentivizing
member organizations to step up their liquidity-providing orders on the
Exchange on all tapes.
Proposed Rule Change
    Currently, a member organization that sends orders, except Mid-
Point Liquidity Orders (``MPL'') and Non-Displayed Limit Orders, that
add liquidity (``Adding ADV'') in Tape A securities would receive a
credit of $0.0029 if:

 The member organization quotes at least 15% of the National
Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') \10\ in 300 or more Tape A securities on a
monthly basis, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 1.1(q) (defining ``NBBO'' to mean the national
best bid or offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The member organization's Adding ADV as a percentage of NYSE
consolidated average daily volume (``CADV''),\11\ excluding any orders
by a Designated Market Maker (``DMM''), is at least two times more than
the member organization's July 2019 Adding ADV as a percentage of NYSE
CADV, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The terms ``ADV'' and ``CADV'' are defined in footnote * of
the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The member organization's Adding ADV as a percentage of NYSE
CADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, exceeds that member
organization's Adding ADV in July 2019 taken as a percentage of NYSE
CADV as follows:
 For the billing month of October 2019, an Adding ADV,
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.35% of NYSE
CADV over that member organization's July 2019 Adding ADV taken as a
percentage of NYSE CADV.
 For the billing month of November 2019, an Adding ADV,
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.70% of NYSE
CADV over that member organization's July 2019 Adding ADV taken as a
percentage of NYSE CADV.
 For the billing month of December 2019 and for every month
thereafter, an Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that
is at least 1.05% of NYSE CADV over that member organization's July
2019 Adding ADV taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV.

    In addition, a member organization that meets these requirements,
and thus qualifies for the $0.0029 credit in Tape A securities, would
be eligible to receive an additional $0.00005 per share if trades in
Tapes B and C securities against the member organization's orders that
add liquidity, excluding orders as a Supplemental Liquidity Provider
(``SLP''), equal to at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined.
    The Exchange proposes to lower the Adding ADV requirement for the
billing month of November 2019. Specifically, in order to qualify for
the Step Up Tier 2 Adding Credit of $0.0029 for the current billing
month, a member organization would need to have an Adding ADV,
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.35% of NYSE
CADV over that member organization's July 2019 Adding ADV taken as a
percentage of NYSE CADV. The other requirements for qualifying for the
Step Up Tier 2 Adding Credit and the additional credit would remain
unchanged.
    For example, member organization A has an Adding ADV of 12 million
shares when NYSE CADV (Tape A) was 3.0 billion, or 0.40% of NYSE CADV
in all Tape A securities, in the baseline month of July 2019 (the
``Baseline Month''). Member organization A also has an Adding ADV of
0.75% of US CADV in Tape A securities in November 2019.
    Based on the foregoing, member organization A would meet the 0.35%
step up requirement for November 2019 but fall short of the two times
Adding ADV as a percentage of NYSE CADV requirement in order to qualify
for the proposed tier. In order to qualify for the proposed rate in
November 2019, member organization A would need at least 0.80% share of
NYSE CADV in November 2019, or 2 times the 0.40% Adding ADV in Baseline
Month.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes the non-substantive change of
deleting the Adding ADV requirements for the October 2019 billing month
from the rule.
    The purpose of this proposed change is to incentivize member
organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in Tape A
securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality
of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional price
improvement opportunities for incoming orders. As noted above, the
Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it
relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add liquidity to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much order flow member organizations
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. There is
currently 1 firm that qualified for the proposed higher Step Up Tier 2
Adding Credit for the October 2019 billing month, but the Exchange
believes that at least 7 additional member organizations could qualify
for the tier if they so choose. However, without having a view of
member organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would result in any member organization directing orders to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the new tier.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that
market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).

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

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders which provide liquidity on an Exchange, member organizations can
choose from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges
to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to
exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an
exchange to compete for order flow.
    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. As
noted, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) for the month of September 2019, in Tapes A, B and C
securities was only 9.3%.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 8 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed lower Adding
ADV requirements to qualify for the Step Up Tier 2 for the November
2019 billing month would provide an incentive for member organizations
to route additional liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange in Tape
A securities. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, particularly for attracting non-marketable
order flow that provides liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to provide a higher credit for orders that
provide additional liquidity.
    As previously noted, 1 member organization qualify for the Step Up
Tier 2 Adding Credit for the October 2019 billing month but without a
view of member organization activity on other exchanges and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether the
proposed rule change would result in any member organization qualifying
for the tier. The Exchange believes the proposed lower Adding ADV
requirement is reasonable as it would provide an additional incentive
for member organizations to direct order flow to the Exchange and
provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for
the higher credit, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on
the Exchange.
The Proposal is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants.
    The Exchange believes that a lower Adding ADV requirement in order
to qualify for the Step Up Tier 2 credit for the November 2019 billing
month is equitable because the lower requirement could attract
additional order flow, thus improving market quality for all market
participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more
liquidity to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and
price discovery.
    As noted, 1 member organization has qualified for the Step Up Tier
2 Adding Credit, but without a view of member organization activity on
other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any member
organization qualifying for the tier. The Exchange believes the
proposed lower Adding ADV requirement for the November 2019 billing
month is reasonable as it would provide an additional incentive for
member organizations to direct their order flow to the Exchange and
provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for
the higher credit, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on
the Exchange.
    The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on
any particular category of market participant. All member organizations
would be eligible to qualify for the Step Up Tier 2 Adding Credit in
November 2019 if they maintain or increase their Adding ADV over their
own baseline of order flow. The Exchange believes that lowering the
Adding ADV requirement will make it more likely that additional member
organizations will qualify for the credit for the current billing
month, thereby continuing to attract order flow and liquidity to the
Exchange and providing additional price improvement opportunities on
the Exchange that benefit investors generally. As to those market
participants that would not qualify for the adding liquidity credit
even with the lower Adding ADV requirement, the proposal will not
adversely impact their existing pricing or their ability to qualify for
other credits provided by the Exchange.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, member
organizations are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
a lower Adding ADV requirement in order to qualify for the per share
step up credit, as the proposed credit would be provided on an equal
basis to all member organizations that add liquidity by meeting the new
proposed Step Up 2 Tier's requirement. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is
reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality
associated with higher volume. Finally, the submission of orders to the
Exchange is optional for member organizations in that they could choose
whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of
its activity in this regard.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for member organizations. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change furthers the

Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed changes are designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would continue to incentivize market
participants to direct displayed order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange by providing
more trading opportunities and encourages member organizations to send
orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which
benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The proposed credits
would be available to all similarly-situated market participants that
meet the revised Adding ADV requirement for November 2019, and, as
such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted,
the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) for the month of September 2019, in Tapes A, B and C
securities was only 9.3%.\18\ In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on intermarket competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See note 8 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
change is designed to provide the public and investors with a Price
List that is clear and consistent, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2019-59 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-NYSE-2019-59. 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-NYSE-2019-59 and should be submitted on
or before December 12, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25212 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39543-39544]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0124]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requirements Under
the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, as
Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
9, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title ``Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health
Education Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act--(OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Tobacco Control Act
(Public Law 111-31) into law. The Smokeless Tobacco Act (15 U.S.C.
4402), as amended by section 204 of the Tobacco Control Act, requires
that manufacturers, packagers, importers, distributors, and retailers
(in limited circumstances) of smokeless tobacco products include one of
four specified health warning label statements on product packages and
in advertisements.\1\ The Smokeless Tobacco Act, as amended, also
requires smokeless tobacco product manufacturers, importers,
distributors, and certain retailers to submit a plan to FDA specifying
the method to rotate, display, and distribute the specified health
warning label statements required to appear in advertising and
packaging. FDA is required to review each plan submitted and approve
the plan if it provides for rotation, display, and distribution of
warnings in compliance with the requirements of the Smokeless Tobacco
Act. To the best of FDA's knowledge, all of the affected companies have
previously submitted similar plans to the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), which had authority to implement the requirements of the
Smokeless Tobacco Act prior to the Tobacco Control Act's amendments.
However, because the requirements of the Smokeless Tobacco Act have
been revised and because FDA now has authority to implement the
Smokeless Tobacco Act, each affected company will be required to submit
a new plan to FDA instead of FTC. The Tobacco Control Act's amendments
to the Smokeless Tobacco Act are effective on June 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The warnings themselves disclose information completely
supplied by the Federal Government. As such, the disclosure does not
constitute a ``collection of information'' as it is defined in the
regulations implementing the PRA, nor, by extension, do the
financial resources expended in relation to it constitute paperwork
``burden.'' (See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 7, 2007, FTC published a 30-day notice (72 FR 44138)
announcing an opportunity for public comment and that the information
collection would be sent to OMB for review. Based on FTC's previous
experience with the submission of rotational plans and FDA's experience
with smokeless tobacco companies (e.g., correspondence associated with
user fees under section 919 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act), FDA estimates that there
are 14 companies affected by this information collection. To account
for the entry of new smokeless tobacco companies who may be affected by
this information collection, FDA is estimating the total number of
respondents to be 20.
    When FTC originally implemented the rotational plan requirements in
1986, the Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc., indicated that the six
companies it represented would require 700-800 hours in total (133
hours each) to complete an initial rotational plan, involving multiple
brands, multiple brand varieties, and multiple forms of both packaging
and advertising. When FTC requested an extension of their PRA clearance
in 2007, FTC decreased the estimate for submitting an initial plan from
143 hours to 60 hours, accounting for increased computerization and
improvements in electronic communication over the subsequent 20 years
since the Smokeless Tobacco Act was enacted. FDA believes the estimate
of 60 hours to complete an initial rotational plan continues to be
reasonable. However, because the requirements of the new Smokeless
Tobacco Act are unfamiliar to industry, FDA is increasing the time
estimate for submitting initial plans to 100 hours.
    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12552), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received on this
information collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          No. of          Annual Frequency       Total Annual          Hours per
                     Activity                           Respondents         per Response           Responses           Response           Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of rotational plans for health warning                   20                     1                  20                 100               2,000
 label statements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: July 2, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-16805 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62256-62258]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-1018]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance Channel, Eureka, CA,
Noyo River Entrance Channel, Ft. Bragg, CA, and Crescent City Harbor
Entrance Channel, Crescent City, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the
navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance Channel, of
Eureka, CA, Noyo River Entrance Channel, of Fort Bragg, CA, and
Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, of Crescent City, CA to
safeguard navigation safety during extreme environmental conditions.
These safety zones are established to protect the safety of vessels
transiting the areas from the dangers associated with extreme breaking
surf and high wind conditions occurring in the Humboldt Bay Bar and
Entrance Channel, Noyo River Entrance Channel, and Crescent City Harbor
Entrance Channel. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zones
without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or their
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 3,
2018 until March 31, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from November 27, 2018 until December 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2018-1018. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

APA Administrative Procedure Act
COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' In this case, the delay associated with rulemaking
procedures is impracticable. The Coast Guard was informed on November
16, 2018 of forecasted extreme environmental conditions occurring near
three respective locations of California likely to exceed the maximum
environmental limits of the 47-foot Motor Lifeboat employed as the
primary rescue asset in each area. These three locations include: The
Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance Channel, near Eureka, CA, the Noyo River
Entrance Channel, near Fort Bragg, CA, and the Crescent City Harbor
Entrance Channel, of Crescent City, CA. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service forecasts up to
25-foot breaking seas in the area through 29 November, 2018 and expects
a higher probability of breaking seas of 20 feet or more through
December 2018 and January 2019. The hazardous conditions associated
with these extreme environmental conditions will occur before the
rulemaking process could be completed.
    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. The Coast Guard was informed of
forecasted extreme environmental conditions including 20 foot breaking
seas occurring near three respective locations of California on
November 16, 2018. These three locations include: The Humboldt Bay
Entrance Channel, near Eureka, CA, the Noyo River Entrance Channel,
near Fort Bragg, CA, and the Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, of
Crescent City, CA. The hazardous conditions associated with these
extreme environmental conditions will occur before the rulemaking
process would be completed. Additionally, the observed on scene
conditions are equal to, and likely to exceed, the maximum
environmental limits of the 47 foot Motor Lifeboat employed as the
primary rescue asset in the area. Because of the dangers posed by these
extreme environmental conditions and the resulting limited availability
of rescue assets, these safety zones are necessary to provide for the
safety of mariners transiting the area. For the safety concerns noted,
it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect
immediately.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. Notable hazards associated with the extreme environmental
conditions have been observed in the Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance
Channel near Eureka, CA, the Noyo River Entrance Channel, near Fort
Bragg, CA, and the Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, of Crescent
City, CA. These safety zones establish temporary restricted areas on
the navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance Channel near
Eureka, CA, the Noyo River Entrance Channel, near Fort Bragg, CA, and
the Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, of Crescent City, CA. These
restricted areas are necessary to mitigate the risks associated with
vessels transiting the area while extreme environmental conditions
exist on scene.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce, independent of each other, three
respective safety zones in the navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar
and Entrance Channel near Eureka, CA, the Noyo River Entrance Channel,
near Fort Bragg, CA, and the Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, of
Crescent City, CA, when the COTP determines that the on scene
conditions are hazardous and unsafe for vessel transits, typically
expected to be 20 foot breaking seas at each location. Enforcement will
be announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. These safety zones are
effective from November 27, 2018, through March 31, 2019.
    The effect of the temporary safety zones is to restrict navigation
in the vicinity of the Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance Channel, Noyo
River Entrance Channel, and Crescent City Harbor

Entrance Channel while the hazardous conditions associated with extreme
environmental conditions exist, and until the Coast Guard deems the
safety zone is no longer needed. Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the COTP, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
restricted areas during times of enforcement. These regulated areas are
needed to keep vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the
hazardous conditions associated to ensure the safety of transiting
vessels in each respective area.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone.
Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the
safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because
the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice
to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact.
The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the
vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time while hazardous conditions exist, and (ii) the maritime public
will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is
categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to

coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received
without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or
vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.959 in numerical order under the undesignated center
heading ``Ninth Coast Guard District'' to read as follows:

Sec.  165-959  Safety zones; Humboldt Bay Bar and Entrance, Noyo River
Entrance, and Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel Closures, Humboldt
Bay, Eureka, CA.

    (a) Location. The safety zones are established in:
    (1) The navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the
Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel, of Humboldt Bay, CA;
    (2) The navigable waters of the Noyo River Entrance Channel as
defined by the Area contained seaward of the Line of Demarcation with
northern boundary of the line originating in approximate position
39[deg]25'41'' N, 123[deg]48'37'' W and extending 1,200 yards at
bearing 290[deg] T & southern boundary of the line originating in
approximate position 39[deg]25'38'' N, 123[deg]48'36'' W & extending
1,200 yards at 281[deg] T, in Fort Bragg, CA; and
    (3) The navigable waters of the Crescent City Harbor Entrance
Channel, as defined by the area contained seaward of the line
originating in approximate position 41[deg]44'36'' N, 124[deg]11'18'' W
bearing 237[deg] T and extending out to 1 NM of the Line of Demarcation
in Crescent City, CA.
    (b) Enforcement period. The zones described in paragraph (a) of
this section will be effective from November 27, 2018 through March 31,
2019. The zones described in paragraph (a) will be enforced when the
COTP determines that the on scene conditions are hazardous and unsafe
for vessel transits, typically expected to be 20 foot breaking seas at
each location. Enforcement will be announced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. The COTP will notify the maritime community of periods during
which these zones will respectively be enforced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or at a Coast Guard unit or a Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety
zones.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, entry into, transiting or anchoring within these safety
zones are prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel or Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel
safety zones during times of enforcement shall contact Station Humboldt
Bay on VHF-FM channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER> between 6:30 a.m. and 10
p.m., or to Sector Humboldt Bay on VHF-FM channel 16 or at (707) 839-
6113 if between 10 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Vessel operators desiring to
enter or operate within the Noyo River Entrance Channel safety zone
during times of enforcement shall contact Station Noyo River on VHF-FM
channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER> between 6:30 a.m. and 10 p.m., or to
Sector Humboldt Bay on VHF-FM channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER> if
between 10 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the safety zones must comply with all directions
given to them by the COTP or a designated representative.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Marie B. Byrd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2018-26105 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P