[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54273-54274]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-42, OMB Control No. 3235-0047]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 204-3

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 204-3 (17 CFR
275.204-3) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.'' (15 U.S.C.
80b). Rule 204-3, the ``brochure rule,'' requires advisers to deliver
their brochures and brochure supplements at the start of an advisory
relationship and to deliver annually thereafter the full updated
brochures or a summary of material changes to their brochures. The rule
also requires that advisers deliver amended brochures or brochure

supplements (or just a statement describing the amendments) to clients
only when disciplinary information in the brochures or supplements
becomes materially inaccurate.
    The brochure assists the client in determining whether to retain,
or continue employing, the adviser. The information that rule 204-3
requires to be contained in the brochure is also used by the Commission
and staff in its enforcement, regulatory, and examination programs.
This collection of information is found at 17 CFR 275.204-3 and is
mandatory.
    The respondents to this information collection are certain
investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has
estimated that compliance with rule 204-3 imposes a burden of
approximately 3.9 hours annually based on advisers having a median of
92 clients each. Our latest data indicate that there were 14,777
advisers registered with the Commission as of March 31, 2022. Based on
this figure, the Commission estimates a total annual burden of 57,589
hours for this collection of information.
    Rule 204-3 does not require recordkeeping or record retention. The
collection of information requirements under the rule are mandatory.
The information collected pursuant to the rule is not filed with the
Commission, but rather takes the form of disclosures to clients and
prospective clients. Accordingly, these disclosures are not kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by October 3, 2022 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: August 29, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18978 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13168-13173]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04601]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80149; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings
To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a New Extended Life Priority
Order Attribute Under Rule 4703, and To Make Related Changes to Rules
4702, 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757

March 3, 2017

I. Introduction

    On November 17, 2016, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a new Extended Life Priority order
(``ELO'') attribute for Designated Retail Orders under Nasdaq Rule
(``Rule(s)'') 4703, and to make related changes to Rules 4702, 4752,
4753, 4754, and 4757. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2016.\3\ On January 17,
2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ The Commission initially received seven comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\6\ On February 17, 2017, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change \7\ and submitted a comment
response letter.\8\ The Commission subsequently received one additional
comment letter on the proposed rule change.\9\ The Commission is
publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons
and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\10\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79428 (November 30,
2016), 81 FR 87628 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79810, 82 FR 8244
(January 24, 2017). The Commission designated March 5, 2017 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from:
Joseph Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk, Partners, Themis Trading LLC, dated
December 19, 2016 (``Themis Letter''); Eric Swanson, EVP, General
Counsel, and Secretary, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated December
22, 2016 (``BATS Letter''); Adam Nunes, Head of Business
Development, Hudson River Trading LLC, dated December 22, 2016
(``Hudson River Trading Letter''); Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA
Principal Traders Group, dated December 23, 2016 (``FIA PTG
Letter''); Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and Chief Legal
Officer, Citadel Securities, dated December 27, 2016 (``Citadel
Letter''); Andrew Stevens, General Counsel, IMC Financial Markets,
dated December 28, 2016 (``IMC Letter''); and Venu Palaparthi, SVP,
Compliance, Regulatory and Government Affairs, Virtu Financial LLC,
dated February 9, 2017 (``Virtu Letter'').
    \7\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) Specified that the ELO
attribute would be available during ``System Hours'' as defined in
Rule 4701(g); (ii) clarified that any subsequent proposal to broaden
the availability of the ELO attribute would be set forth in a
distinct rule filing; (iii) provided additional details regarding
the calculation of the 99% ELO eligibility requirement; (iv)
proposed to assess members' compliance with ELO eligibility
requirements on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis as
initially proposed; (v) stated that, concurrently with the initial
launch of the ELO attribute, it will implement new surveillances to
identify any potential misuse of the ELO attribute; (vi) provided
additional discussions regarding the availability of the ELO
identifier on the Exchange's TotalView ITCH market data feed; (vii)
provided additional details as to how the ELO attribute would
operate with other order attributes and cross-specific order types;
(viii) provided information regarding the Exchange's implementation
of the ELO attribute; and (ix) provided additional justifications
for proposing the ELO attribute. Amendment No. 1 has been placed in
the public comment file for SR-NASDAQ-2016-161 at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2016-161/nasdaq2016161-1589828-132168.pdf.
    \8\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
T. Sean Bennett, Associate Vice President and Principal Associate
General Counsel, Nasdaq, dated February 17, 2017 (``Nasdaq Response
Letter'').
    \9\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer, Investors Exchange LLC,
dated March 2, 2017 (``IEX Letter'').
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange has proposed to offer a new ELO attribute, which would
allow certain displayed retail orders to receive higher priority on the
Nasdaq book than other orders at the same price, and to make conforming
changes to its rules. As discussed in more detail below, the Exchange
has proposed to amend Rule 4703 to set forth the ELO attribute in new
subparagraph (m), add an Attachment B to its Designated Retail Order
Attestation Form that sets forth an attestation that would be required
of members in connection with utilizing the ELO attribute, and make
related changes to Rules 4702(b), 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757.

Proposed Rule 4703(m) and Attestation

    Proposed Rule 4703(m) states that ELO is an order attribute that
allows an order to receive priority in the Nasdaq book above other
orders resting on the Nasdaq book at the same price that are not
designated with the ELO attribute.\11\ As proposed, the ELO attribute
would be available only for displayed orders that qualify as Designated
Retail Orders,\12\ and would be available during System Hours.\13\ A
Designated Retail Order with the ELO attribute that is not marketable
upon entry would be ranked on the Nasdaq book ahead of other displayed
orders at the same price level that do not have the ELO attribute, but
behind any other ELO orders at the same price level that the Exchange
received previously.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See also proposed changes to Rule 4757(a)(1)(B).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 4703(m). The term ``Designated Retail
Order'' has the meaning set forth in Rule 7018. If a Designated
Retail Order with a non-display attribute is also entered with the
ELO attribute, the ELO attribute would be ignored and the order
would be ranked on the Nasdaq book as a non-displayed order without
Extended Life Priority. See id. The Exchange has stated that it
anticipates extending the availability of the ELO functionality to
all orders that meet the requirements of the ELO attribute. See
Notice, 81 FR at 87630; see also Amendment No. 1. According to the
Exchange, any such extension will be made through a separate filing
with the Commission, and will likely require significant changes to
the operation of the ELO attribute to account for the different
participants eligible to use the attribute. See Amendment No. 1.
    \13\ See Amendment No. 1. See also Rule 4701(g) (defining
``System Hours'' to mean the period of time beginning at 4:00 a.m.
ET and ending at 8:00 p.m. ET (or such earlier time as may be
designated by Nasdaq on a day when Nasdaq closes early)).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 4703(m); see also Notice, 81 FR at 87631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, in order for an Exchange member to be eligible to use
the ELO attribute, at least 99% of the Designated Retail Orders with
the ELO attribute entered by the participant must exist unaltered on
the Nasdaq book for a minimum of one second.\15\ Exchange members would
be required to submit a signed written attestation, in a form
prescribed by Nasdaq, that they will comply with these eligibility
requirements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 4703(m). The Exchange has stated that it
will monitor the effectiveness of the one-second minimum resting
time and the 99% threshold, and will propose to adjust these
requirements, as needed, in a new rule filing. See Amendment No. 1.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 4703(m). The Exchange has proposed to
amend its Designated Retail Order Attestation Form to add an
Attachment B in order to require members to attest to compliance
with the eligibility requirements for the ELO attribute, and to
attest to their understanding of the penalties in cases of non-
compliance. See proposed changes to the Designated Retail Order
Attestation Form, included as Exhibit 3 to Amendment No. 1. As
proposed, the Designated Retail Order Attestation Form would also
inform members that they can designate certain order entry ports as
``Retail Extended Life Order Ports'' or tag each order as a ``Retail
Extended Life Order.'' See id.

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

    For purposes of determining compliance with the 99% threshold, the
Exchange would measure the number of orders with the ELO attribute that
rested for one second or longer and divide that value by the number of
orders that the member marked with the ELO attribute.\17\ Moreover, the
one second time frame would begin at the time the ELO order is entered
into the Nasdaq book and would conclude once the order is removed from
the Nasdaq book or modified by the participant or the Nasdaq
system.\18\ As proposed, any change to an order that would currently
result in the order losing priority (i.e., a change in the order's time
stamp) would, if applied to an ELO order, be considered an alteration
of the ELO order and stop the clock in terms of determining whether the
order rested on the book unaltered for at least one second.\19\ In this
vein, the Exchange stated that any type of update to an order that
creates a new time stamp for priority purposes would count as a
modification of the order and noted, by way of example, that each time
an ELO order is updated due to pegging,\20\ re-pricing, or reserve
replenishment, the one-second timer would restart.\21\ The Exchange
also stated that full cancellations would stop the timer.\22\ By
contrast, a sub-second full or partial execution of an ELO order
resting on the Nasdaq book would not count as an order modification or
cancellation for purposes of determining compliance with the ELO
eligibility requirements.\23\ Likewise, a member's reduction of the
size of a resting ELO order prior to one second elapsing also would not
count as an alteration for purposes of determining compliance with the
ELO eligibility requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \18\ See id. For an ELO order that Nasdaq routes upon receipt,
the one second time frame would begin if and when the order returns
to Nasdaq and is posted on the Nasdaq book. See id.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ The Exchange illustrated through an example that each time
an ELO order with a primary or market pegging attribute has its
price updated, it would be considered a new order for purposes of
determining its resting time. See id. According to the Exchange,
each price update would be considered a separate order for
determining compliance with the ELO eligibility requirements. See
id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See proposed Rule 4703(m); see also Amendment No. 1.
According to the Exchange, a sub-second partial execution of an ELO
order would be in compliance with the ELO eligibility requirement of
one second. See Amendment No. 1. In addition, a sub-second partial
execution of an ELO order would not reset the time from which the
one second time frame is measured for the remainder of the order.
See id.
    \24\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, only displayed Designated Retail Orders would be
eligible for the ELO attribute, and if a Designated Retail Order with a
non-display attribute is also entered with the ELO attribute, the order
would be added to the Nasdaq book as a non-displayed order without
Extended Life Priority.\25\ By way of example, the Exchange noted that
an order with minimum quantity or midpoint pegging attributes would not
be able to receive Extended Life Priority because an order with either
of those attributes must be non-displayed.\26\ The Exchange also noted
that a reserve order has a displayed portion and non-displayed portion,
and the displayed portion of a reserve order with the ELO attribute
would be eligible to receive Extended Life Priority while the non-
displayed portion of the order would not.\27\ If the displayed portion
of such an order receives a full execution, the displayed quantity
would be replenished from the non-displayed reserve quantity, the
newly-replenished displayed size would receive a new time stamp and
Extended Life Priority based on that time stamp, and a new timer would
start for purposes of determining compliance with the one second
requirement.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 4703(m); see also supra note 12.
    \26\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an order designated with the ELO attribute would only
have Extended Life Priority if it is ranked at its displayed price.
Specifically, proposed Rule 4703(m) would provide that an ELO order
that is adjusted by the Exchange system upon entry to be displayed on
the Nasdaq book at one price but ranked on the book at a different,
non-displayed price would be ranked without the ELO attribute at the
non-displayed price. If the Nasdaq system subsequently adjusts such an
order to be displayed and ranked on the Nasdaq book at the same price,
the order would be assigned Extended Life Priority and ranked on the
book in time priority among other orders with Extended Life Priority at
that price.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed Rule 4703(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, proposed Rule 4703(m) would provide that, for
purposes of the Nasdaq Opening, Closing, and Halt Crosses, all ELO
orders on the Nasdaq book upon initiation of a Cross may participate in
such a Cross and retain priority among orders posted on the Nasdaq book
that also participate in the Cross. Upon initiation of a Cross, all ELO
orders on the Nasdaq book that are eligible to participate in a Cross
would be processed in accordance with Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule
4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross), or Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross), as
applicable.\30\ ELO orders that are held by the Nasdaq system for
participation in the Opening or Closing Cross would not have Extended
Life Priority in the Cross,\31\ but would be assigned Extended Life
Priority if the order joins the Nasdaq book upon completion of the
Cross.\32\ Any orders with Extended Life Priority that are not executed
in a Cross would be ranked on the Nasdaq book with Extended Life
Priority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.
    \31\ According to the Exchange, cross-specific orders marked
with the ELO attribute would be eligible to participate in the
Nasdaq Opening, Halt, and Closing Crosses, but they would be ranked
for purposes of a cross execution without the ELO attribute. See
Notice, 81 FR at 87631. By contrast, orders with the ELO attribute
that are ranked on the Nasdaq book (i.e., orders that are in the
continuous market) would retain Extended Life Priority for purposes
of a cross execution. See id. See also Amendment No. 1.
    \32\ See proposed Rule 4703(m).
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has stated that it would carefully monitor members'
use of the ELO attribute on a monthly basis and would not rely solely
on a member's attestation with regard to ELO usage.\34\ The Exchange
also has stated that it would determine whether a member was in
compliance with the ELO eligibility requirements for a given month
within five business days of the end of that month.\35\ A member that
does not meet the ELO eligibility requirements for any given month
would be ineligible to receive Extended Life Priority for its orders in
the month immediately following the month in which it did not
comply.\36\ Following the end of the ineligible month, a member would
once again be able to enter ELO orders if it completes a new
attestation.\37\ If a member fails to meet the ELO eligibility
requirements for a second time, its orders would not be eligible for
Extended Life Priority for the two months immediately following the
month in which it did not meet the

eligibility requirements for the second time.\38\ If a member fails to
meet the ELO eligibility requirements for a third time, it would no
longer be eligible to receive Extended Life Priority for its
orders.\39\ In addition, concurrently with the initial launch of the
ELO attribute, the Exchange would implement new surveillance to
identify any potential misuse of the ELO attribute.\40\ Moreover, any
attempted manipulation or misrepresentation of the nature of an ELO
order (e.g., representing a non-retail order to be a Designated Retail
Order) would be a violation of Nasdaq's rules.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.; see also proposed new Attachment B to the
Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation Form at Exhibit 3 to
Amendment No. 1. Nasdaq has stated that its system would prevent a
member that is not eligible to participate in the program from
entering orders that are flagged with Extended Life Priority
(including such designation on the port level). See Notice, 81 FR at
87630 n.17.
    \37\ See Amendment No. 1; see also proposed new Attachment B to
the Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation Form at Exhibit 3
to Amendment No. 1.
    \38\ See Amendment No. 1; see also proposed new Attachment B to
the Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation Form at Exhibit 3
to Amendment No. 1.
    \39\ See Amendment No. 1; see also proposed new Attachment B to
the Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation Form at Exhibit 3
to Amendment No. 1.
    \40\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \41\ See id. According to Nasdaq, like the current surveillance
it conducts, the new surveillance would identify potential violative
conduct that would be investigated by Nasdaq and FINRA, and if the
conduct is found to be violative, the offending member would be
subject to disciplinary action. See Amendment No. 1 (citing the
Nasdaq Rule 9000 Series).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to designate orders with the ELO
attribute with a new, unique identifier.\42\ Specifically, orders with
the ELO attribute may be individually designated with the new
identifier, or may be entered through an order port that has been set
to designate, by default, all orders with the new identifier.\43\
Orders marked with the new identifier--whether on an order-by-order
basis or via a designated port--would be disseminated via Nasdaq's
TotalView ITCH data feed.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Notice, 81 FR at 87630-31; see also proposed new
Attachment B to the Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation
Form at Exhibit 3 to Amendment No. 1.
    \43\ See Notice, 81 FR at 87630-31; see also proposed new
Attachment B to the Exchange's Designated Retail Order Attestation
Form at Exhibit 3 to Amendment No. 1.
    \44\ See Notice, 81 FR at 87630-31. The Exchange is not
proposing to disseminate the ELO identifier via the SIP data feeds.
See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Conforming Rule Changes

    In connection with the proposed addition of Rule 4703(m), the
Exchange has proposed to make conforming changes to Rules
4702(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(C), and (b)(4)(C) to indicate that the ELO
attribute may be assigned to price to comply, price to display, and
post-only orders, respectively. In addition, the Exchange has proposed
to amend Rules 4752 (Opening Process), 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross), and
4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to incorporate ELO orders into the cross
execution priority hierarchies set forth in each of those rules.

Implementation

    The Exchange has stated that it plans to implement the ELO
functionality for Designated Retail Orders in a measured manner.\45\
Specifically, the Exchange anticipates a rollout of the ELO
functionality, beginning with a small set of symbols and gradually
expanding further, and that it will publish the symbols that are
eligible for the ELO attribute on its Web site.\46\ According to the
Exchange, the exact implementation date would be reliant on several
factors, such as the results of extensive testing and industry events
and initiatives.\47\ The Exchange currently plans to implement the
initial set of symbols for ELO in the third quarter of 2017.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \46\ See id. The Exchange noted that, in symbols that are not
eligible for ELO functionality, it will accept orders submitted with
the ELO attribute as non-ELO orders. See id.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See id. The Exchange stated that it will notify market
participants via an Equity Trader Alert once a specific date for the
initial rollout is determined. See id. For a more detailed
description of the proposed rule change, see Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and Nasdaq's Response

    The Commission received eight comment letters that expressed
concerns with respect to the proposed rule change,\49\ and one response
letter from the Exchange.\50\ Commenters' concerns are focused on: (1)
The availability of the ELO attribute only to retail orders; (2) the
eligibility requirements for the ELO attribute, including the
effectiveness of the attestation requirement and the Exchange's methods
for monitoring compliance and imposing discipline for non-compliance;
(3) the potential market impact of the proposal; (4) the potential for
information leakage from the identification of ELO orders in Nasdaq's
market data feed; and (5) the potential conflict between the proposed
ELO eligibility requirements and other activities of the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See supra notes 6 and 9. The IMC Letter broadly supported
the comments articulated in the FIA PTG Letter and did not provide
additional comments on the proposed rule change.
    \50\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Availability of the ELO Attribute Only to Designated Retail Orders

    Three commenters expressed concern that the Exchange's proposal
would provide the ELO functionality only to retail orders.\51\ One
commenter argued that the proposal would effectively allow retail
orders to cut in line in front of existing orders.\52\ Another
commenter argued that the proposal would unfairly burden competition
because it would allow the Exchange to compete for order flow by
creating an order attribute that inappropriately favors certain market
participants at the expense of others.\53\ These commenters also argued
that the proposal is unnecessary, stating that there is insufficient
evidence that retail investors are experiencing difficulty in obtaining
fills for resting orders and therefore would benefit from the proposed
functionality.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See FIA PTG Letter at 3-4; Hudson River Trading Letter at
2; Citadel Letter at 5-6. Three commenters also expressed general
concerns with respect to the potential expansion of the ELO
functionality beyond retail orders, or noted that their concerns
regarding the enhanced priority provided to retail orders under the
proposal could be exacerbated in connection with any such expansion.
See BATS Letter at 1; Citadel Letter at 6; FIA PTG Letter at 6. In
response to these concerns, the Exchange noted that any future
expansion of the ELO functionality beyond retail orders would be
subject to a separate rule filing with the Commission. See Nasdaq
Response Letter at 7. See also Amendment No. 1.
    \52\ See FIA PTG Letter at 3-4. This commenter noted that most
retail participants do not cancel orders within one second, Nasdaq
would not be systematically enforcing the minimum order life
requirement, and the decision whether to classify order flow as ELO
would be made by brokers, not their retail customers. See id. at 3.
    \53\ See Citadel Letter at 4.
    \54\ See FIA PTG Letter at 2-3; Citadel Letter at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments, the Exchange stated its belief that the
growth in internalization and the speed of execution has required
differentiation of retail orders, which are typically entered by long-
term investors, from those of other market participants.\55\ The
Exchange also noted that the proposal is an effort to promote displayed
orders with longer time horizons to enhance the market so that it works
for a wider array of market participants, and the proposal will benefit
publicly traded companies by promoting long-term investment in
corporate securities.\56\ In addition, the Exchange noted that
providing the proposed ELO functionality to retail investors would help
improve execution quality and retail participation in on-exchange
transactions, which would improve overall market quality on the
Exchange.\57\ The Exchange also noted that the proposal would provide
firms handling retail order flow with additional options to consider
when determining the best way to represent and execute retail non-
marketable limit orders.\58\ According to the Exchange, the proposal
may lead to improved

execution quality for not only retail orders, but also those orders
that interact with retail orders.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \56\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 2.
    \57\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 3 and 7.
    \58\ See id. at 3.
    \59\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Eligibility Requirements and Exchange Monitoring

    Four commenters expressed concern that the Exchange's initial
proposal to monitor for compliance with the ELO eligibility
requirements on a quarterly basis is insufficient to appropriately
surveil for misuse of the functionality.\60\ Two of these commenters
advocated for stronger or more immediate penalties for failure to
comply with the ELO eligibility requirements.\61\ Specifically, one
commenter stated that the Exchange should describe how it would monitor
for and penalize abuse intra-quarter, and that the proposal does not
impose strong enough penalties to deter abuse.\62\ The other commenter
proposed that the Exchange conduct weekly reviews and that a
participant be prohibited from utilizing the ELO functionality after
only two weeks of non-compliance.\63\ In addition, one commenter
suggested that the Exchange should systematically enforce the one
second resting time for ELO orders,\64\ and one commenter suggested
that the Exchange should code a one second minimum duration into the
ELO attribute.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See BATS Letter at 1-2; Citadel Letter at 4; Themis Letter
at 2-3; Virtu Letter at 2.
    \61\ See BATS Letter at 2; Virtu Letter at 2.
    \62\ See BATS Letter at 2.
    \63\ See Virtu Letter at 2.
    \64\ See FIA PTG Letter at 5.
    \65\ See Themis Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters argued that, under the proposed attestation
requirement, a participant could game the 99% threshold by improperly
inflating its number of compliant ELO orders, such as by submitting a
large number of non-marketable ELO Orders, while impermissibly
benefiting from its non-compliant 1% of ELO Orders.\66\ One of these
commenters also stated that the Exchange has not provided sufficient
clarity regarding how it would calculate whether at least 99% of a
member's ELO orders have rested unaltered on the Nasdaq book for a
minimum of one second.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See FIA PTG Letter at 4; Citadel Letter at 6; IEX Letter at
2.
    \67\ See FIA PTG Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, two commenters expressed concern that the Exchange has
not sufficiently limited the definition of ``Designated Retail Order''
for purposes of the proposed functionality to truly capture retail
investors and to prevent misuse of the definition.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See FIA PTG Letter at 4; Citadel Letter at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange amended its proposal, among other things,
to add additional detail regarding the ELO functionality, including how
the proposed one-second timer would operate and how the 99% threshold
would be calculated, as well as to shorten the review period for
determining compliance with the eligibility requirements from a
quarterly review to a monthly review period.\69\ The Exchange also
stated that it believes its proposed 99% threshold is appropriate,
noting that the standard would require ``near perfect performance''
while allowing some flexibility in the event any unforeseen issues may
result in de minimis non-compliance.\70\ Further, the Exchange stated
that it would establish new surveillance to detect potential misuse of
the proposed functionality and noted that any attempt to game or
otherwise abuse the ELO functionality would be a violation of the
Exchange's rules and would subject the member to potential disciplinary
action.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 4 and Amendment No. 1. See
also supra notes 17-24 and 34-39 and accompanying text. One
commenter noted that this increased frequency of monitoring did not
address its concerns with the Exchange's proposed monitoring and
enforcement mechanisms. See IEX Letter at 3.
    \70\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 4.
    \71\ See id. See also supra notes 40-41 and accompanying text.
One commenter noted that the Exchange has not offered any specifics
about this proposed new surveillance. See IEX Letter at 2. This
commenter also noted that the proposed penalties for misuse of the
ELO attribute would not address the problem that other market
participants that traded with noncompliant ELO orders were doing so
under false assumptions. See id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange stated that the definition of Designated
Retail Order is clear that the member entering such an order must have
policies and procedures designed to ensure that the order complies with
the requirements of the definition, including that the order originate
from a natural person.\72\ The Exchange also stated that the definition
of Designated Retail Order allows for orders to originate from
organizations in very limited circumstances.\73\ The Exchange noted
that, accordingly, it does not believe that there is latitude for a
member to legally represent itself as eligible to enter an order with
ELO priority when the order does not fit within the definition of
Designated Retail Order.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 6. See also Nasdaq Rule 7018
(defining ``Designated Retail Order'').
    \73\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 6.
    \74\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Potential Market Impact

    Two commenters expressed concern that the proposal would create
uncertainty regarding the priority of resting orders, and would
negatively impact market liquidity and price discovery.\75\ According
to these commenters, the increased uncertainty among liquidity
providers would result in wider spreads, which would adversely impact
long-term investors, including institutional and retail investors.\76\
One of these commenters also noted that the proposal would negatively
impact market makers' hedging strategies in ETFs and their underlying
securities, and the associated risk and cost would be borne by
institutional and retail investors.\77\ Another commenter argued that
ELO orders should not receive priority over other orders that have
already been resting for at least one second, and that doing so would
discourage other market participants from displaying liquidity.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Citadel Letter at 3-4; FIA PTG Letter at 5.
    \76\ See Citadel Letter at 3-4; FIA PTG Letter at 5.
    \77\ See Citadel Letter at 3.
    \78\ See Hudson River Trading Letter at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange noted its belief that markets and price
discovery best function through the interactions of a diverse set of
market participants.\79\ Moreover, the Exchange noted that providing a
mechanism by which retail orders may have an increased chance of
execution on the Exchange will promote competition among the Exchange,
its exchange peers, and off-exchange trading venues.\80\ According to
the Exchange, if the proposal does not ultimately improve market
quality, market participants may send their orders elsewhere.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \80\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 7.
    \81\ See id. at 3 and Amendment No. 1. The Exchange stated that
while Regulation NMS may dictate that the best displayed price must
be accessed before executing at an inferior price, it does not
dictate that an order must be displayed on Nasdaq. See Nasdaq
Response Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Potential for Information Leakage

    Four commenters expressed concern that the proposed ELO order
identifier on Nasdaq's TotalView ITCH market data feed would cause
information leakage by revealing to market participants that certain
orders are retail orders and must remain unaltered for at least one
second.\82\ Two of these commenters noted that, through the process of
elimination, market participants also would be able to identify the
preponderance of other quotes as coming from institutions or
professional market makers.\83\ One of these commenters also contended,
however, that not tagging ELO orders

would prevent liquidity providers from being able to identify their
place in the queue, and that this uncertainty would lead to wider
spreads and smaller order size.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See Citadel Letter at 5; FIA PTG Letter at 5; Themis Letter
at 1-2; IEX Letter at 1-2.
    \83\ See FIA PTG Letter at 5; IEX Letter at 1-2.
    \84\ See FIA PTG Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledged that information leakage is a concern for
some non-retail market participants who may build or unwind significant
trading positions or engage in proprietary and confidential trading
strategies, and that it may be an issue if the ELO attribute were to be
applied as currently proposed to non-retail market participant
orders.\85\ The Exchange stated that it does not believe that
information leakage is a concern with respect to the current proposal
because the ELO functionality would be available only to retail orders,
and retail investor interest is most often represented by one order at
a single price.\86\ In addition, according to the Exchange, the
identification of ELO orders in the Exchange's TotalView ITCH market
data feed would provide transparency that would be valuable for the
industry in evaluating the efficacy of the proposal.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 6.
    \86\ See id. at 6-7. One commenter noted that Nasdaq's response
does not address the concern that the ELO identifier could help
market participants identify institutional investor orders. See IEX
Letter at 1-2.
    \87\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Potential Conflict With Other Activities of a Member

    One commenter suggested that the proposal could conflict with FINRA
Rule 5320, commonly known as the Manning rule, which may require a
broker-dealer to fill held customer orders in certain circumstances
within one second of receiving the order.\88\ The commenter stated
that, in this situation, the broker-dealer would have to cancel the
customer's resting order on Nasdaq to prevent the customer from
receiving a duplicative fill.\89\ According to the commenter, if this
cancellation occurred within one second of the broker-dealer routing a
customer ELO order to Nasdaq, the broker-dealer's efforts to comply
with its FINRA Rule 5320 obligations would potentially render the
broker-dealer out of compliance with the ELO requirements.\90\ The
commenter further contended that it expects this scenario to occur
frequently in very liquid stocks.\91\ In addition, the commenter
asserted that, if a broker-dealer cannot meet the 99% threshold due to
its FINRA Rule 5320 obligations, that broker-dealer's non-ELO customer
limit orders would be disadvantaged as compared to other broker-
dealers' retail customer limit orders that could utilize the ELO
attribute.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Citadel Letter at 2. FINRA Rule 5320(a) states that
``[e]xcept as provided herein, a member that accepts and holds an
order in an equity security from its own customer or a customer of
another broker-dealer without immediately executing the order is
prohibited from trading that security on the same side of the market
for its own account at a price that would satisfy the customer
order, unless it immediately thereafter executes the customer order
up to the size and at the same or better price at which it traded
for its own account.''
    \89\ See Citadel Letter at 2.
    \90\ See id.
    \91\ See id.
    \92\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also expressed concern that an Exchange member may
receive a sub-second cancellation request from a customer, which could
cause the member to fall under the 99% threshold and become ineligible
to submit ELO orders on behalf of other customers.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange argued that the Manning obligations of a
member using the ELO functionality would be no different from the
obligations on an OTC market maker that internalizes orders and relies
on the ``no-knowledge'' exception to separate its proprietary trading
from its handling of customer orders.\94\ The Exchange stated that this
exception should be equally applicable to a member using the ELO
functionality.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 5. See also Supplementary
Material .02 to FINRA Rule 5320.
    \95\ See Nasdaq Response Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted that it believes that retail investor limit
orders that are posted on the Exchange will generally not be cancelled
in a short period of time such as one second, because retail investors
tend to have long-term investment goals and increasing the chance of
receiving an execution is worth the risk of their order resting for one
second or longer.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NASDAQ-2016-161, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \97\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at this time in
view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal, as
discussed below. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\98\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. As
discussed above, the Exchange has proposed to offer a new ELO
attribute, which would only be available to Designated Retail Orders
and would allow an order to receive priority in the Nasdaq book above
other orders resting on the Nasdaq book at the same price that are not
designated with the ELO attribute. The Commission is instituting
proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from
commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\99\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers; and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\100\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Id.
    \99\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \100\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. Although there does not appear to be any issues
relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an
oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will

consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\101\ any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \102\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants to
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-
regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975,
Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75,
94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by March 30, 2017.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by April 13, 2017. 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161. The file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-161 and
should be submitted by March 30, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by April 13, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04601 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32874-32879]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13943]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0299; FRL-9928-91-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision and
2014 Five-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
to EPA by the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, documenting that the
State's existing plan is making adequate progress to achieve visibility
goals by 2018. The Kansas SIP revision addressed the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to submit a
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally designated areas in nearby
states that may be affected by emissions from sources in Kansas. EPA is
proposing to approve Kansas' determination that the existing RH SIP is
adequate to meet the visibility goals and requires no substantive
revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0299, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Stephen Krabbe, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0299. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Krabbe, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
    A. Background on Regional Haze
    B. Background on Regional Haze Plans
    C. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
    A. EPA's Evaluation of Kansas' Progress Report
    1. Status of Control Measures
    2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
    3. Visibility Progress
    4. Emissions Tracking
    5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
    C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment's (KDHE) determination that the existing Kansas RH SIP is
adequate to achive the established Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for
Class I areas affected by Kansas sources, and therefore requires no
substantive revision at this time. EPA's proposed approval is based on
the Kansas State Implementation Plan Revision for the Attainment and
Maintenance of NAAQS for Regional Haze (2014 Progress Report)
(``Progress Report or ``Report'') submitted by KDHE to EPA on March 10,
2015, that addresses 51.308(g) and (h) of the RHR. The Progress Report
demonstrates that the emission control measures in the existing RH SIP
are sufficient to enable other states with Class I areas affected by
emissions from sources in Kansas to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
We are also proposing to find that Kansas fulfilled the requirements in
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with
an opportunity to consult on the RH SIP revision, describe how KDHE
addressed the FLMs' comments, and provide procedures for continuing
consultation.

A. Background on Regional Haze

    Regional haze is a visibility impairment produced by many sources
and activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine
particulates that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light,
thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can
see. These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as
acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
    The RHR uses the deciview as the principle metric for measuring
visibility and for the RPGs that serve as interim visibility goals
toward meeting the national visibility goal of reaching natural
conditions by 2064. A deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in
terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility
conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithmic function. Deciview is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction because each
deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.

B. Background on Regional Haze Plans

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA amendmnets of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks
and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Departmnet of Interior, EPA
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122, November
30, 1979). In this notice, we refer to mandatory Class I Federal areas
as ``Class I areas.'' Kansas does not have any Class I areas within the
state.
    With the CAA amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address
regional haze on July 1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR
35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations in 40 CFR
51.308 to integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
to establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas.
    KDHE submitted its initial RH SIP to EPA on October 26, 2009, in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 for the first
regional haze planning period ending in 2018. EPA approved the Kansas
RH SIP for the first planning period on December 27, 2011 (76 FR
80754). The Progress Report from KDHE is the first evaluation of
whether the existing Kansas RH SIP is sufficient to enable other states
affected by emissions from sources in Kansas to meet the established
visibility goals for 2018.

C. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. In summary,\1\ the
seven elements are: (1) A description of the status of measures in the
approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions
achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I
area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources
and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the
state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved
regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact Rule
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. In summary,\2\
these actions are to: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no
further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP
is needed; (2)

provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the state determines that its
existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in
other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and
collaborate with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies
to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting
information to EPA if the state determines that its existing regional
haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one
or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country;
or (4) revise its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one
year if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I
areas due to emissions from sources within the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(h) for the exact Rule
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state must document that it provided FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation prior to holding a public hearing on an RH SIP or plan
revision as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In addition, a state must
include a description of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs,
and provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs as
required in 40 CFR 51.208(i)(3) and (4).

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.

A. EPA's Evaluation of Kansas' Progress Report

    This section describes Kansas' Progress Report and EPA's evaluation
of the Report in relation to the seven elements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and the determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We
also review the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) for state and FLM
coordination on a plan revision.
1. Status of Control Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
Kansas evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2009
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its
Progress Report, Kansas summarizes the long-term strategy for emissions
reductions of all air pollutants that may affect visibility. The state
notes that Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) are the most important pollutants in reducing
visibility and includes details of the strategies implemented to reduce
those pollutants. The measures include both state and Federal programs.
The state programs include unit-specific emissions limits for the five
electric generating units that are subject to BART and were included in
agreements between KDHE and the owners of the EGU's, which were later
modified by an enforcement settlement between EPA and Westar Energy.
The measures also include applicable Federal programs (e.g., Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, the 2007 Heavy-Duty
Highway Rule, Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, and the Clean
Air Nonroad Diesel Rule). The state documents the implementation status
of measures from its regional haze SIP as well as describes significant
measures resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze
program as they pertain to the state's sources. Kansas describes the
implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP, including
the status of control measures to meet BART and reasonable progress
requirements, as well as the status of significant measures resulting
from EPA regulations.
    EPA proposes to find that Kansas' analysis adequately addresses 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) for reasons discussed above.
2. Emissions Reductions and Progess
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP and Progress Report, Kansas
focuses its assessment on NOX and SO2 emissions
from stationary sources because the state determined that these sources
accounted for the majority of the visibility-impairing pollution from
Kansas. SO2 emissions from subject-to-BART facilities
decreased in Kansas from 80,828 tons in 2003 to 17,026 tons in 2012, a
79 percent decrease. Also, NOX emissions decreased from
60,936 tons in 2002 to 16,434 tons in 2012, a 73 percent decrease.
Kansas noted that reasonable progress units declined 60 percent for
NOX and 77 percent for SO2 from 2002 to 2012.
Much of these reductions were not mandated by the Regional Haze SIP,
but by the 2010 Westar Energy settlement \3\ and closure of the Lafarge
Midwest-Fredonia Portland cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. v. Westar Energy, Inc. 09-CV-2059 (D. Kan.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(2). The state provides actual emissions reductions of
NOX and SO2 from EGUs and other large
NOX and SO2 sources in Kansas that have occurred
since Kansas submitted its regional haze SIP. The state also provides
estimates of emissions of NOX and SO2 for 2018.
Kansas appropriately focused on NOX and SO2
emissions from its EGUs and other stationary sources in its progress
report SIP because it previously identified these emissions as the most
significant contributors to visibility impairment at those Class I
areas that Kansas sources impact.
    Given the large NOX and SO2 reductions at
subject-to-BART EGUs and other sources that have actually occurred,
further analysis of emissions from other sources or other pollutants
was ultimately unnecessary in this first implementation period. Because
no additional controls were found to be necessary for reasonable
progress for the first implementation period for evaluated sources in
Kansas, EPA proposes to find that no further discussion of emissions
reductions from controls was necessary in the Progress Report.
3. Visibility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values: current visibility conditions; the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions; and the change in visibility impairment over the past five
years.
    Kansas does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries, and
as this section pertains only to states containing Class I areas,
therefore, no further discussion is necessary. However, Kansas noted in
its Progress Report that it is beneficial to have a record of
visibility conditions at the Class I areas that are most affected by
Kansas sources. The state analyzed four Class I areas, with a focus on
the Wichita Mountains Wilderness area (the nearest Class I area to
Kansas and most impacted by Kansas sources). The state compared the
slope of the glide path of

natural visibility conditions in 2064 to the slope of the best-fit line
of five-year visibility averages from 2002 to 2011 (in deciviews) for
the 20 percent worst days and 20 percent best days. The analysis showed
that visibility at all four Class I areas was improving at a rate
faster than the glide path for the 20 percent worst days. Only the
Wichita Mountains Wilderness area was not improving faster than the
glidepath for the 20 percent best days, although visibility was still
improving in the area.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3).
4. Emissions Tracking
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated
emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, Kansas presents data from
a statewide emissions inventory developed for the year 2002 and
compares this data to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2011
version 1 (dated September 30, 2013), or simply the 2011 NEIv1. For
both the 2002 dataset and the 2011 NEIv1 data, pollutants inventoried
include NOX, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10), Ammonia (NH3),
and SO2. The emissions inventories from both the 2002
dataset and the 2011 NEIv1 include all point, nonpoint, onroad, and
nonroad sources. The state interpolated values for 2009 through 2013
based on emissions inventory data. This shows that emissions of the key
visibility-impairing pollutants identified by Kansas, NOX
and SO2, continued to drop from 2009 to 2013 (decreasing
32,227 and 64,359 tons, respectively). Kansas noted that emissions of
NOX and SO2, the primary contributors to
visibility impairment from anthropogenic sources, are down
significantly (10 percent for NOX and 59.6 percent for
SO2). However, the state noted that NH3 and
particulate matter (PM) emissions were reported up from the 2002 to
2011 inventories and need to be addressed. The state cited changes in
the way that these pollutants were reported for each inventory as the
reason for most of the reported increases in NH3 and PM.
Accounting for the differing reporting methods shows that
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from fires is slightly
up by 2011, however, this pollutant source is highly variable.
    While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions
inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze
SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in developing and
reporting complete emissions inventories once equality-assured
emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is
some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can select.
Kansas tracked changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
using the 2011 NEIv1, which was the most recent updated inventory of
actual emissions for the state at the time that it developed the
progress report SIP. EPA believes that Kansas's use of the five-year
period from 2009 to 2013 reflects an accurate picture of the actual
emissions realized between 2002-2013, and as in many cases, Kansas had
already reached or surpassed their 2018 goals by 2013. EPA proposes to
conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visbility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
    In its Progress Report, Kansas addresses the changes in
anthropogenic emissions between 2009 and 2013 throughout the Midwest,
especially due to sources installing controls to comply with present
and near-future air quality standards (the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards Rule and the Clean Air Interstate Rule). Kansas noted that
there have been significant reductions among anthropogenic emissions
source categories, especially EGU's, with decreases in SO2
of 17.5 percent and NOX of 30.9 percent in Kansas and
bordering states combined.
    Kansas demonstrated that there are no significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions that have impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by Kansas
and bordering state sources. The state referenced its analyses in the
progress report SIP identifying an overall downward trend in these
emissions from 2009 to 2013 in Kansas. Further, the progress report SIP
shows that Kansas is on track to meeting its 2018 emissions
projections.
    EPA proposes to find that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current
regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable Kansas, or other states, to
meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state.
In its Progress Report, Kansas states that it believes that the
elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are
sufficient to enable Kansas and other neighboring states to meet all of
the established RPGs and no further revision to the initial Kansas
Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time. To support this conclusion,
Kansas notes that anthropogenic emissions of NOX has dropped
10 percent and SO2 has dropped 59.6 percent.
    EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should
evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available
information, including expected emissions reductions associated with
measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective.
Kansas referenced the improving visibility trends at affected Class I
areas and the downward emissions trends in the state, with a focus on
NOX and SO2 emissions from Kansas' EGUs that
support Kansas' determination that its regional haze SIP is sufficient
to meet RPGs for Class I areas outside the state impacted by Kansas
sources. EPA believes that Kansas' conclusion regarding the sufficiency
of the regional haze SIP is appropriate because of the calculated
visibility improvement using the latest available data and the downward
trend in NOX and SO2 emissions from sources in
Kansas. EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6).
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to
the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP,
Kansas summarizes the existing IMPROVE monitoring network and its
intended continued reliance on IMPROVE for visibility planning. Kansas
operates two IMPROVE Protocol sampling sites, one at Cedar Bluff State
Park in Trego County and the other at Tallgrass Prairie National
Preserve in the Flint Hills region of eastern Kansas. Kansas has
updated its monitoring plan annually and will consider the need to
operate two IMPROVE sites with increasingly constrained finances.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed the
sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7).

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: (1) The
action taken by Kansas under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) Kansas's rationale
for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed
determination regarding the state's action.
    In its Progress Report, Kansas took the action provided for by 40
CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative declaration
to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the
RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for
Kansas' negative declaration is the findings from the progress report
(as discussed in section II. A. of this action), including the findings
that: NOX and SO2 emissions from Kansas's sources
have decreased beyond original projections; and the NOX and
SO2 emissions from EGUs in Kansas are already below the
levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze SIP and are expected to
continue to trend downward for the next five years.
    Based on these findings, EPA proposes to agree with Kansas'
conclusion under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive changes
to its regional haze SIP are required at this time.

C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    On November 25, 2014, KDHE provided to the FLMs, a revision to
Kansas' SIP reporting on progress made during the first implementation
period toward RPGs for Class I areas in the state and Class I areas
outside the state that are affected by emissions from Kansas's sources.
Notification was published in the Kansas Register, regional newspapers,
and the KDHE Web site on October 23, 2014. A public hearing was not
held because KDHE received no requests for a public hearing and the
public comment period ended on November 21, 2014. On March 10, 2015,
KDHE submitted the SIP to EPA.
    Kansas' Progress Report includes the FLMs comments and KDHE's
response to those comments in Appendix I to the Progress Report. In the
section 3.8 Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination, KDHE commits to
continuing policy discussions with the FLMs.
    EPA proposes to find that KDHE has addressed the requirements in
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing
on the SIP revision; include a description in the SIP revision of how
it addressed any comments from the FLMs; and provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Kansas SIP,
submitted by the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and 51.308(h). We are processing this as a proposed action because we
are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed action
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This proposed action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 28, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.

Subpart R--KANSAS

0
2. In Sec.  52.870 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding new
entry (40) at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or       State
           provision               Nonattainment     submittal   EPA approval date           Explanation
                                        area            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(40) State Implementation Plan   Statewide........      3/10/15  6/10/15 [Insert    ............................
 (SIP) Revision for the                                           Federal Register
 Attainment and Maintenance of                                    citation].
 National Ambient Air Quality
 Standards for Regional Haze
 (2014 Five-Year Progress
 Report)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-13943 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 126 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39070]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0299]

Safety Zones; Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie Zone for Events in July

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone for the Mackinac
Island 4th of July fireworks. Our regulation for safety zones within
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone identifies the
regulated area for this safety zone. This action is necessary and
intended to protect the safety of life and property on navigable waters
prior to, during, and immediately after firework displays. During the
enforcement periods listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.918 will be enforced on or around
July 4, 2020, from thirty minutes before sunset to thirty minutes after
the end of the fireworks display.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email BOSN4 Robert Gruschow, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie; telephone
(906)-253-2462, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones in 33 CFR 165.918 as per the time, dates, and locations in Table
1 below.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Event                     Location            Event date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Mackinac Island Fourth of  All U.S. navigable      Beginning on or
 July Celebration Fireworks;     waters of Lake Huron    around July
 Mackinac Island, MI.            within an approximate   4th; 30 minutes
                                 750-foot radius from    before sunset
                                 the fireworks launch    and 30 minutes
                                 site, centered          after the end
                                 approximately 1000      of the
                                 yards west of Round     fireworks
                                 Island Passage Light,   display.
                                 at position
                                 45[deg]50'34.92'' N,
                                 084[deg]37'38.16'' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is being taken to protect the safety of life and
property on navigable waters prior to, during, and immediately after
firework displays. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit
this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie or a designated representative. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful
orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie, or
an on-scene representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will also provide notice through other means,
which will include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to
Mariners, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. The
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM or at (906) 635-
3319.

    Dated: June 25, 2020.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2020-14136 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my husband’s life and kept my children from being subjected to harmful second hand smoke.  4 years ago as I was pregnant with our first born son I begged and pleaded with him to stop smoking.  He told me he would never quit smoking that he enjoyed smoking.  I went and bought a smoke to live kit and he quit smoking that day!  I now have two children that have not had to breathe in toxins like I had to when I was a child.  My father died from smoking complications and I only wish that they were available then and I might still have him with me.   I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I am writing as an individual consumer pleading you to grant an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, and my family I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching, reading your document and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.