PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ OECA/ Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0016 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants ( Subpart LL)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 0982.07 9. Keywords Metallic Minerals, Mineral Processing, Subpart LL, Mining 10. Abstract This NSPS affects owners and operators of metallic mineral processing plants. Owners and operators must conduct initial performance tests, maintain records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunction and continuous monitoring system parameters, and submit semi annual reports.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 22 b. Total annual responses 44 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically % c. Total hours requested 1760 d. Current OMB inventory 1760 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 14 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 14 d. Current OMB inventory $ 14 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Gregory Fried Phone: ( 202) 564 7016 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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 OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6903]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02502]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-802, OMB Control No. 3235-0758]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 30e-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.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Section 30(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') requires a registered
investment company (``fund'') to transmit to its shareholders, at least
semi-annually, reports containing financial statements and other
financial information as the Commission may prescribe by rules and
regulations. Rules 30e-1 (17 CFR 270.30e-1) and 30e-2 (17 CFR 270.30e-
2) under the Investment Company Act require most funds to send their
shareholders annual and semiannual reports containing financial
information on the fund.
    Rule 30e-3 (17 CFR 270.30e-3) under the Investment Company Act (15
U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) provides certain funds and unit investment trusts
with an optional method to satisfy shareholder report transmission
requirements by making such reports and certain other materials
publicly accessible on a website, as long as they satisfy certain other
conditions of the rule regarding: (a) Availability of the report and
other materials; (b) notice to investors of the website availability of
the report; and (c) delivery of paper copies of materials upon request.
Reliance on the rule is voluntary. Responses to the disclosure
requirements are not kept confidential.
    The Commission estimates that 13,079 funds could rely on rule 30e-
3. Of these funds, we estimate that 90% (or 11,771 funds) are currently
relying on rule 30e-3. With respect to these 11,771 funds, we estimate
that 90% (or 10,594 funds) already post shareholder reports on their
websites for other purposes. In total, rule 30e 3 will impose an
average total annual hour burden of 24,719 hours on applicable funds.
Based on the Commission's estimate of 24,719 hours and an estimated
wage rate of about $362 per hour, the total annual cost to registrants
of the hour burden for complying with rule 30 3 is about $8.9 million.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. The collection of information under rule 30e-3 is mandatory.
The information provided under rule 30e-3 will not be 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 OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O John R.
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: February 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02502 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61105-61107]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 8, 2008
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-3-000.
    Applicants: Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC, Noble Ellenburg
Windpark, LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, EFS Noble Holdings, LLC,
Bankers Commercial Corporation.
    Description: Nobel Clinton Windpark I, LLC's et al. Application for
Approval of the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section
203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG09-3-000.
    Applicants: Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1005-009; ER03-1079-009.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company; Aquila Inc.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Company et al. submits
substitute tariff sheets noting the KCPL and Aquila are Category 2
sellers in both Southwest Power Pool and Central regions under ER99-
1005 et al.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-100-005; ER07-265-005; ER07-1215-006.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy Trading LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC;
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.
    Description: Sempra Energy Trading, LLC et al. submits notice of
change in status, in compliance with Order 652.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081008-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-387-006; ER06-200-016; ER07-254-009; ER03-
1326-016; ER07-460-007; ER05-534-017; ER05-365-017; ER05-1262-017;
ER06-1093-013; ER03-296-019; ER08-912-002; ER01-3121-018; ER05-332-017;
ER07-287-010; ER08-933-003; ER07-195-009; ER08-934-004; ER07-242-010;
ER03-951-019; ER04-94-017; ER02-2085-012; ER02-417-017; ER07-1378-008;
ER05-1146-017; ER05-481-017; ER07-240-011; ER02-418-017; ER03-416-020.
    Applicants: Atlantic Renewable Projects II, LLC; Big Horn Wind
Project LLC; Casselman Windpower, LLC; Colorado Green Holdings LLC;
Dillion Wind LLC; Eastern Desert Power LLC; Elk River Windfarm LLC;
Flat Rock

Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners,
LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.;
Klamath Energy LLC; Klondike Wind Power II LLC; Klondike Wind Power III
LLC; Lempster Wind, LLC; Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC; Locust Ridge II,
LLC; MinnDakota Wind LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View Power
Partners III, LLC; Northern Iowa Windpower II LLC; Phoenix Wind Power
LLC; Providence Heights Wind, LLC; Shiloh I Wind Project LLC; Trimont
Wind I LLC; Twin Buttes Wind LLC; Klamath Generation LLC; Klondike Wind
Power LLC.
    Description: Iberdrola Renewables Companies submits notification of
a non-material change in status resulting from the construction of
additional generating capacity by Klondike Wind Power II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081008-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1272-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
revisions to the Headroom cost allocation methodology contained in the
NYISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff Attachment S.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-15-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits their proposed ``Revised Clean-Up Filing'' which is intended to
replace the current existing Open Access Transmission & Energy Markets
Tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-35-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tallgrass Transmission, LLC submits request for
acceptance of a formula rate and rate incentives for its investment in
a major 765 kV transmission project that Tallgrass intends to build in
the Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-36-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC requests acceptance of
a formula rate and rate incentives for its investment in a major 765 kV
transmission project that Prairie Wind intends to build in the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc region.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 24, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-22-002.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits Order No. 890 OATT
Attachment K Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-29-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits its Revised
Order No. 890--Attachment K Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA09-2-000.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Order No. 890-B
Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA09-4-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC's FPA Section 206 Filing with
Non-Rate Terms and Conditions to comply with Order No. 890-B in OA09-4.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081006-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH09-1-000.
    Applicants: GAMCO Investors, Inc.
    Description: GAMCO Investors, Inc submits its Form 65A notification
of exemption from the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 2005.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: PH09-2-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: MDU Resources Group, Inc.--Exemption Notification and
Notice of Material Change in Facts.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081007-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24562 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14055-14057]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0042; Notice 2]

Graco Children's Products Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Graco Children's Products Inc. (Graco), has determined that
certain warning labels attached to detachable accessory pillows that it
sold with MyRide\TM\ 65 line child restraint systems produced between
April, 2009, and October, 2009, failed to meet the flammability
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 213
\1\. Graco estimates that about 90,000 child restraint systems may be
affected. Graco filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on November 13,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Graco describes the noncompliance as one with FMVSS No. 302.
However, FMVSS No. 302 does not in itself apply to motor vehicle
equipment. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302 is invoked by reference in
FMVSS No. 213, therefore, this noncompliance is a noncompliance with
FMVSS No. 213 not FMVSS No. 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Graco has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April
13, 2010 in the Federal Register (75 FR 18952). One comment was
received from Dean L. Hoppe. To view the petition, the comment, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket

Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2010-0042.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. Zachary R.
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Affected are all models of MyRide\TM\ 65 convertible child
restraint systems manufactured between April, 2009, and October, 2009,
in the Company's Mexico facility. The Company estimated that
approximately 90,000 child restraint systems may be affected, and of
this total, 50,000 are potentially in use by its customers (consumers)
and 40,000 were with retailers.
    Graco describes the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system as being
manufactured with a detachable accessory pillow, and this pillow
includes a warning label (the ``pillow label'') regarding appropriate
use of the pillow for children of a certain age range. The pillow label
warns consumers not to use the pillow when the MyRide\TM\ 65 child
restraint system is being used by children weighing more than 40 lbs
(18.1 kg). The pillow, which is removable, is attached to the
MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system by a hook and loop fastener
material, one side of which is sewn onto a ``tail'' of the pillow and
the other onto the top of the child restraint system above the child's
head.
    Based on its internal investigation, Graco believes that the
noncompliance is that a pillow label sewn onto the detachable head
pillow of certain MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems does not comply
with paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213.
    After discovering that a recent lot of pillow labels delivered in
late October 2009 to the Company's Mexico facility had not been
properly treated for flame resistance, Graco's plant management began
an investigation. They immediately started reviewing all pillow label
lots previously delivered to its Mexico facility since April 2009, the
production start date for the MyRide\TM\ line child restraint systems,
to determine the extent of the noncompliance among its lots of pillow
labels.
    Graco found that its noncompliant pillow labels were manufactured
by a sub-supplier to Graco's normal pillow label supplier. Graco has
determined that the sub-supplier did not follow Graco's production
specifications, and as a result, failed to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 213. Graco also concluded that that sub-supplier was the only
one providing the noncompliant pillow labels.
    Graco also found that all other labels and materials for its
MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems were provided by Graco's regular
supplier itself and not the sub-supplier. In addition to its
investigation, the Company's plant management also examined and
verified through laboratory testing, that all other material components
used in the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint systems comply with the
standards of FMVSS No. 213. Graco added that new plant management at
its Mexico plant has implemented more robust quality controls to
prevent such problems from happening in the future and that Graco has
received no complaints, reports or any other information about adverse
impacts from this noncompliance from consumers or any other outside
source.
    Since the discovery of the noncompliance, Graco indicated that it
has taken steps to ensure that every MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint
system subsequently released for shipment has been manufactured with
labels compliant with all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS
No. 213. In addition, Graco stopped all shipments of the MyRide\TM\ 65
child restraint systems in its possession when the noncompliance was
discovered and replaced the detachable accessory pillows with pillows
manufactured with a pillow label compliant with the FMVSS No. 213 prior
to delivery.
    Graco believes that the noncompliance of the pillow label to meet
the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:

    When reviewing the accessory pillow at issue, including its
size, location, function and overall design, the risk of injury
resulting from the noncompliant Label on the detachable accessory
pillow is inconsequential to the overall safety of the MyRide child
restraint system. Specifically, the Label is a physically small
component of the child restraint system located in an area not
likely to be exposed to open flame. In fact, the potential for the
Label serving as an ignition point for a larger conflagration is
near zero. This circumstance, along with the compliant status of all
other fabric and label components of the MyRide child restraint
system, render the Label's noncompliance inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
    As noted above, the Label is a rectangular shaped tag measuring
approximately 3 inches by 1\1/4\ inches. The area of the Label is
insignificant with respect to the over two yards of fabric that is
used to make the pad and the ``soft goods'' for the MyRide child
restraint system. Proportionally, the percentage of material is less
than 1/100% of the total surface area of the child restraint system.
Moreover, all other fabric, including other warning labels for the
MyRide child restraint system, are flame resistant. The small size
of affected material renders the likelihood of ignition of this one
Label highly untenable.
    In addition * * * the Label is also located in an area that
makes it highly unlikely to be exposed to an open flame without the
passenger compartment of the car being already engulfed in flame * *
* When put in its proper place * * * the Label is surrounded by
flame resistant material and in a location interior to the overall
child restraint system design * * *'' Moreover * * * the owner's
manual and instructions for the MyRide child restraint system
expressly states that the pillow is not to be used with any child
over 18.1 kg (40 lbs) placed into the MyRide child restraint system.
Accordingly, a significant number of MyRide child restraint systems
are not used with the pillow, thereby further reducing an already
low risk of flammability.

* * * the MyRide * * * child restraint is not designed to be easily
removed from a motor vehicle once installed * * * the MyRide child
restraint system is tethered into the child restraint system or is
installed for use with the motor vehicle's type II lap and shoulder
belt. Therefore, the only risk of exposure to an ignition source
would be while installed in a motor vehicle where pinpoint open
flame in the upper portion of the child restraint system on one
particular side is highly unlikely.

    Graco has considered the potential for variety of potential
ignition sources that may be exposed to the tag. The Company
believes that the likelihood of the Label coming accidentally in
contact with any type of ignition device is extremely low. Graco's
analysis also included potential ignition from cigarettes or other
smoking materials * * *

    Graco also mentioned that real world reports support the Company's
belief that the noncompliant pillow labels are not a risk to safety.
Graco said it has received no reports or complaints of a fire involving
the MyRide\TM\ 65 child restraint system or any of its components.
Graco added, ``The insignificant opportunity of a fire hazard to a
child from ignition of this small tag, located in the interior portion
of the child restraint system contained inside a motor vehicle supports
Graco's assertion regarding the inconsequential nature of this
noncompliance.''
    In summation Graco restated its belief that based on the size of
the pillow label, its location, compliance of all other labels and
fabric with FMVSS No. 213, and the nearly impossible opportunities for
direct ignition of the pillow label only, that the described
noncompliance of the pillow label to meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Graco requests
that NHTSA grant its petition to exempt it from providing notification
of

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

NHTSA Decision

Requirement Background

    The purpose of the flammability requirements is to reduce deaths
and injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires,
especially those originating in the interior of the vehicle from
sources such as matches or cigarettes. S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 requires
that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to
the flammability requirements contained in S4 of FMVSS No. 302. S4
contains flammability requirements to measure the burn rate of specific
components of vehicle occupant compartments.

NHTSA's Analysis of Graco's Reasoning

    Based on Dorel's explanation in its petition, certain warning
labels sewn to a detachable pillow provided with the Dorel MyRide 65
child restraint system did not comply with the flammability
requirements contained in FMVSS No. 213 and No. 302. Dorel stated that
the subject warning labels were supplied by a sub-supplier of Dorel's
usual supplier of pillow warning labels and were not properly treated
for flammability resistance. Dorel concludes that since the warning
labels were not properly treated for flammability resistance then the
labels are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
    Dorel states that the noncompliance of the pillow label to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety. The size, location, function and overall design of the
pillow at issue, together with the low risk of injury resulting from
the noncompliant label on the detachable pillow, is inconsequential to
the overall safety of the MyRide child restraint system. Since the
label is physically small (3 inches by 1\1/4\ inches) the likelihood of
ignition is negligible, and the label is surrounded by flame resistant
materials. Graco considered a variety of potential ignition sources
that may be exposed to the label and believes that the likelihood of
the label coming into contact with any type of ignition source is
extremely low, including the potential ignition from cigarettes or
other smoking materials.

NHTSA Conclusions

    There appears to be an insignificant safety risk created by the
noncompliance. The underlying concern is that the label attached to the
detachable pillow could ignite since it was not treated with flame
resistant material. But the relatively small size of the label,
together with its proximity to other materials on the child restraint
system that have been treated with flame resistant materials, renders
the likelihood of ignition for this one label extremely low.
    There appears to be no significant safety risk caused by the
noncompliance.

NHTSA's Response to the Comment

    In its comments to the docket, Hoppe did not specifically address
the pillow warning label noncompliance that is the essence of the Graco
petition. Instead he applauded Graco and NHTSA for enforcing the
applicable safety standards.
    Because Hoppes' comments did not provide any information addressing
Graco's noncompliance that is the essence of its petition,
Hoppes'comments do not support denying the subject petition.

Decision

    After a review of Graco's arguments and Dean L. Hoppe's comment,
NHTSA is convinced that Graco has met its burden of demonstrating that
the noncompliance does not present a significant safety risk.
Therefore, NHTSA agrees with Graco that this specific noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Graco has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance in
the child restraint systems identified in Graco's Noncompliance
Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Graco's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for,
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the car child restraint systems \2\ that Graco no
longer controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance
existed in the subject vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Graco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Graco as a manufacturer from
the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for
the affected child restraint systems. However, a decision on this
petition cannot relieve distributors and dealers of the prohibitions
on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child
restraint systems under their control after Graco notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: March 2, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-5623 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68995-68999]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87715; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules To Add New
Rule 7.19 (Pre-Trade Risk Controls)

December 11, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 27, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add new Rule 7.19 (Pre-
Trade Risk Controls). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In order to assist member organizations' efforts to manage their
risk, the Exchange proposes to amend

its rules to add new Rule 7.19 (Pre-Trade Risk Controls) to establish a
set of pre-trade risk controls by which Entering Firms and their
designated Clearing Firms (as defined below) may set credit limits and
other pre-trade risk controls for an Entering Firm's trading on the
Exchange and authorize the Exchange to take action if those credit
limits or other pre-trade risk controls are exceeded.
    For purposes of this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to
define the term ``Entering Firm'' to mean a member organization that
either has a correspondent relationship with a Clearing Firm whereby it
executes trades and the clearing function is the responsibility of the
Clearing Firm or clears for its own account \4\ and to define the term
``Clearing Firm'' to mean a member organization that acts as principal
for clearing and settling a trade, whether for its own account or for
an Entering Firm.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Rule 7.19(a)(1).
    \5\ See proposed Rule 7.19(a)(2). As required by Rule 7.14, a
member organization is required to give up the name of the clearing
firm through which each transaction on the Exchange will be cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Overview
    In order to help firms manage their risk, the Exchange proposes to
offer optional pre-trade risk controls that would authorize the
Exchange to take automated actions if a designated credit limit or
other pre-trade risk control for a firm is breached. Because Clearing
Firms bear the risk on behalf of their correspondent Entering Firms,
the Exchange proposes to make the proposed pre-trade risk controls
available not only to Entering Firms, but also to their Clearing Firms,
if so authorized by the Entering Firm. These pre-trade risk controls
would provide Entering Firms and their Clearing Firms with enhanced
abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on the Exchange.
    As proposed, these optional controls would allow Entering Firms and
their Clearing Firms to each define different pre-set risk thresholds
and to choose the automated action the Exchange would take if those
thresholds are breached, which would range from notifying the Entering
Firm and Clearing Firm that a limit has been breached, blocking new
orders, or canceling orders until the Entering Firm has been reinstated
to trade on the Exchange.
    Although use of the proposed Exchange-provided pre-trade risk
controls are optional, all orders on the Exchange will pass through
risk checks. As such, an Entering Firm that does not choose to set
limits or permit its Clearing Firm to set limits on its behalf will not
achieve any latency advantage with respect to its trading activity on
the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange expects that any latency added
by the pre-trade risk controls will be de minimis.
    The proposed pre-trade risk controls described are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the member organizations' own internal
systems, monitoring and procedures related to risk management. The
Exchange does not guarantee that these controls will be sufficiently
comprehensive to meet all of a member organization's needs, the
controls are not designed to be the sole means of risk management, and
using these controls will not necessarily meet a member organization's
obligations required by Exchange or federal rules (including, without
limitation, the Rule 15c3-5 under the Act \6\ (``Rule 15c3-5'')). Use
of the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls will not automatically
constitute compliance with Exchange or federal rules and responsibility
for compliance with all Exchange and SEC rules remains with the member
organization.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \7\ The Exchange proposes Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19 to provide
that ``[t]he pre-trade risk controls described in this Rule are
meant to supplement, and not replace, the member organization's own
internal systems, monitoring and procedures related to risk
management and are not designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5
under the Exchange Act. Responsibility for compliance with all
Exchange and SEC rules remains with the member organization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Rule Change
    Proposed Rule 7.19(a) would set forth the definitions that would be
used for purposes of the Rule. In addition to the defined terms of
``Entering Firm'' and ``Clearing Firm,'' as described above, the
Exchange proposes the following definitions:
     The term ``Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk
Limit'' would mean a pre-established maximum dollar amount for a single
order before it can be traded.
     The term ``Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit''
would mean a pre-established maximum number of shares that may be
included in a single order before it can be traded.
     The term ``Gross Credit Risk Limit'' would mean a pre-
established maximum daily dollar amount for purchases and sales across
all symbols, where both buy and sell orders are counted as positive
values. For purposes of calculating the Gross Credit Risk Limit,
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book,\8\ orders routed on arrival
pursuant to Rule 7.37(a)(1), and executed orders are included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Exchange Book'' is defined in Rule 1.1(k) to
refer to the Exchange's electronic file of orders, which contains
all orders entered on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to separately calculate Gross Credit Risk
Limits for: (i) All unexecuted and executed orders; (ii) unexecuted
orders only; and (iii) executed orders only.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(b) would set forth the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
that would be available to Entering Firms and Clearing Firms. Under
proposed Rule 7.19(b)(1), an Entering Firm may select one or more of
the following optional pre-trade risk controls with respect to its
trading activity on the Exchange: (i) One or more Gross Credit Risk
Limits; (ii) Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limits; and (iii)
Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limits, which would collectively be
referred to as the ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls.''
    In addition, under proposed Rule 7.19(b)(2)(A), an Entering Firm
that does not self-clear may designate its Clearing Firm to (i) view
any Pre-Trade Risk Controls set by the Entering Firm, or (ii) set one
or more Pre-Trade Risk Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf, or both.
Proposed Rule 7.19(b)(2)(B) provides that an Entering Firm would be
able to view any Pre-Trade Risk Controls that its Clearing Firm sets
with respect to the Entering Firm's trading activity on the Exchange.
Because both an Entering Firm and Clearing Firm would be able to access
information about Pre-Trade Risk Controls, this mechanism would foster
transparency between an Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm regarding
which Pre-Trade Risk Control limits may have been set. For example, if
an Entering Firm designates its Clearing Firm to view the Pre-Trade
Risk Controls set by that Entering Firm, its Clearing Firm may
determine that it does not need to separately set Pre-Trade Risk
Controls on behalf of such Entering Firm.
    Because the Entering Firm is the member organization that is
entering orders on the Exchange, the Exchange will not take action
based on a Clearing Firm's instructions about the Entering Firm's
trading activities on the Exchange without first receiving consent from
the Entering Firm. Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.19(b)(2)(C) would
provide that if an Entering Firm designates a Clearing Firm to set Pre-
Trade Risk Controls for the Entering Firm, the Entering Firm would be
consenting to the Exchange taking certain prescribed actions (discussed
further below) with respect to the Entering Firm's trading activity as
provided for in proposed Rules 7.19(c)

and (d), described below. The Exchange would consider an Entering Firm
to provide such consent by authorizing a Clearing Firm to enter Pre-
Trade Risk Controls via the risk management tool that will be provided
to Entering Firms in connection with this proposed rule change. Once
such authorization is provided by the Entering Firm, the Clearing Firm
would have access to the Pre-Trade Risk Controls on behalf of that
Entering Firm. The proposed Rule makes clear that by designating a
Clearing Firm to set limits on its trading activities, the Entering
Firm will have authorized the Exchange to act pursuant to the Clearing
Firm's instructions if the limits set by the Clearing Firm are
breached.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(b)(3) would set forth how the Pre-Trade Risk
Controls could be set or adjusted. Proposed Rule 7.19(b)(3)(A) would
provide that Pre-Trade Risk Controls may be set before the beginning of
a trading day and may be adjusted during the trading day. Proposed Rule
7.19(b)(3)(B) would provide that Entering Firms and Clearing Firms may
set Pre-Trade Risk Controls at the MPID level or at a sub-ID of an
MPID, as designated by an Entering Firm. The Exchange believes that
supporting Pre-Trade Risk Controls at both an MPID and sub-ID level
would provide both Entering Firms, and if designated, their Clearing
Firms, more granular control over how such risk controls are determined
and monitored.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(b)(4) would provide that with respect to Gross
Credit Risk Limits, both an Entering Firm and its designated Clearing
Firm may enable alerts to signal when an Entering Firm is approaching
its designated credit limit(s). The Exchange believes that by providing
such alerts, the Entering Firm, and if designated, its Clearing Firm,
would have advance notice that the Entering Firm is approaching a
designated limit and could take steps to mitigate the potential that an
automated breach action would be triggered.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(c) would set forth the actions the Exchange
would be authorized to take when a Pre-Trade Risk Control set by an
Entering Firm or a Clearing Firm is breached, which would be referred
to as ``Automated Breach Actions.'' These proposed actions would be
automated; if a Pre-Trade Risk Control is breached, the Exchange would
automatically take the designated action and would not need further
direction from either the Entering Firm or Clearing Firm to take such
action.
    At the outset, proposed Rule 7.19(c)(1) would provide that if both
an Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm set the same type of Pre-Trade
Risk Control for the Entering Firm but have set different limits, the
Exchange would enforce the more restrictive limit. For example, if an
Entering Firm sets a Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit of
$20 million and its Clearing Firm sets the same risk limit at $15
million, the Exchange will take action when the more restrictive limit
is breached--i.e., $15 million.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(c)(2) would set forth the Automated Breach
Action the Exchange would take if an order would breach the designated
limit of either a Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit or
Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit. As proposed, the Exchange
would reject the incoming order that would have breached the applicable
limit.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(c)(3)(A) would set forth the Automated Breach
Actions the Exchange would take if a designated Gross Credit Risk Limit
is breached. The Exchange proposes to provide options of which
Automated Breach Action the Exchange would be authorized to take if a
Gross Credit Risk Limit is breached. Such Automated Breach Actions
would be taken at the MPID or sub-ID level that is associated with the
designated Gross Credit Risk Limit. As proposed, when setting Gross
Credit Risk Limits, the Entering Firm or Clearing Firm setting the
limit would be required to indicate one of the following actions that
the Exchange would take if such limit is breached:
     ``Notification Only.'' As set forth in proposed Rule
7.19(c)(3)(A)(i), if this option is selected, the Exchange would notify
the Entering Firm or Clearing Firm that a limit has been breached and
continue to accept new orders and order instructions and would not
cancel any unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book.
     ``Block Only.'' As set forth in proposed Rule
7.19(c)(3)(A)(ii), if this option is selected, the Exchange would
reject new orders and order instructions but would not cancel any
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book. The Exchange would continue to
accept instructions from the Entering Firm to cancel one or more orders
in full (including Auction-Only Orders) or any instructions specified
in proposed Rule 7.19(e) (described below), but would not take any
automated action to cancel orders.
     ``Cancel and Block.'' As set forth in proposed Rule
7.19(c)(3)(A)(iii), if this option is selected, in addition to the
Block actions described above, the Exchange would also cancel all
unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book other than Auction-Only Orders.
    If an Entering Firm and its Clearing Firm each set different limits
for a Gross Credit Risk Limit for the Entering Firm's activities on the
Exchange, proposed Rule 7.19(c)(3)(B) would provide that the Exchange
would enforce the action that was chosen by the party that set the
limit that was breached. For example, if a Clearing Firm sets a lower
limit and designates the ``Cancel and Block'' Automated Breach Action,
if that limit is breached, the Exchange will implement that ``Cancel
and Block'' action even if the Entering Firm designated a different
Automated Breach Action.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(c)(3)(C) would provide that if both the Entering
Firm and Clearing Firm set the same Gross Credit Risk Limit and that
limit is breached, the Exchange would enforce the most restrictive
Automated Breach Action. As further proposed, for purposes of this
Rule, the ``Cancel and Block'' action would be more restrictive than
``Block Only,'' which would be more restrictive than ``Notification
Only.'' For example, if the Entering Firm selects the ``Block Only''
action for a Gross Credit Risk Limit and its Clearing Firm selects the
``Cancel and Block'' action for the same Gross Credit Risk Limit, if
the limit is breached, the Exchange would take the ``Cancel and Block''
action for the Entering Firm's orders.
    Proposed Rule 7.19(d) concerns how an Entering Firm's ability to
enter orders and order instructions would be reinstated after a ``Block
Only'' or ``Cancel and Block'' Automated Breach Action has been
triggered. In such case, proposed Rule 7.19(d) provides that the
Exchange would not reinstate the Entering Firm's ability to enter
orders and order instructions on the Exchange (other than instructions
to cancel one or more orders (including Auction-Only Orders) in full)
until it has received notification that the Entering Firm can be
reinstated. Proposed Rule 7.19(d)(1) provides that if the Gross Credit
Risk Limit that was breached was set by the Entering Firm, the Entering
Firm must seek reinstatement on the Exchange. Proposed Rule 7.19(d)(2)
provides that if the Gross Credit Risk Limit that was breached was set
by a Clearing Firm, the Entering Firm must seek reinstatement on the
Exchange, unless the Clearing Firm designates that it must approve the
Entering Firm's reinstatement, in which case both the Entering Firm and
Clearing Firm must seek reinstatement. The Exchange proposes to include
this functionality because the Clearing Firm bears the risk of any
exposure of its correspondent Entering Firms.

    Finally, proposed Rule 7.19(e) would set forth member organization-
directed actions, i.e., ``kill switch'' functionality. As proposed,
member organizations would be provided with the ability to direct the
Exchange to take bulk action with respect to orders, which differs from
the Automated Breach Actions described above. The Exchange previously
filed a proposed rule change describing risk management tools designed
to allow member organizations to monitor and address exposure to
risk.\9\ Those tools function on a post-trade basis: Member
organizations that choose to use this tool can monitor exposure as
their trades execute, set limits, and receive alerts if such limits are
breached. However, if a limit is breached, the member organization
needs to direct the Exchange to take an action, which could include
either a bulk block or bulk cancel message, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71164 (December 20,
2013), 78 FR 79044 (December 27, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-80) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change) (the
``2013 Risk Control Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to specify certain member organization-
directed actions in proposed Rule 7.19(e). As described above, the risk
management tool that would be provided to member organizations in
connection with this proposed rule change would include information
about an Entering Firm's Gross Credit Risk Limits at either an MPID or
sub-ID level (at the direction of the Entering Firm). As further
described above, these limits would be updated with information about
an Entering Firm's unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book, orders
routed on arrival, and executed orders. Because this tool would provide
information to member organizations to determine whether to direct the
Exchange to take action with respect to their orders, the Exchange
proposes that proposed Rule 7.19 would supersede and replace the
description of risk controls as set forth in the 2013 Risk Control
Filing.
    More specifically, proposed Rule 7.19(e) would specify that an
Entering Firm, or if authorized pursuant to proposed Rule
7.19(b)(2)(A), its Clearing Firm, could direct the Exchange to take one
or more of the following actions with respect to orders at either an
MPID, or if designated, sub-ID Level: (1) Cancel all Auction-Only
Orders; (2) Cancel all unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book other
than Auction-Only Orders; or (3) Reject entry of any new orders and
order instructions, provided that the Exchange would continue to accept
instructions from Entering Firms to cancel one or more orders
(including Auction-Only Orders) in full.
    A member organization can currently direct the Exchange to take
these actions with respect to its orders and with this proposed rule
change, Clearing Firms designated by the Entering Firm could also take
such action. A member organization that wants more control over when
and which actions are taken with respect to its orders may choose to
use these controls instead of the ``Block'' or ``Cancel and Block''
Automated Breach Actions described above. For example, for a member
organization that selects the ``Notification Only'' Automated Breach
Action, if it receives notification of a credit breach, it could choose
to direct the Exchange to take an action described in proposed Rule
7.19(e).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the proposed optional Pre-
Trade Risk Controls would provide both Entering Firms, and if
designated, Clearing Firms, with the ability to manage risk, while also
providing an alert system that would help to ensure that such firms are
aware of developing issues. In addition, the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
would provide Clearing Firms, who have assumed certain risks of the
Entering Firms, greater control and flexibility over setting risk
tolerance and exposure on behalf of their correspondent Entering Firms.
As such, the Exchange believes that the Pre-Trade Risk Controls would
provide a means to address potentially market-impacting events, helping
to ensure the proper functioning of the market.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
designed to protect investors and the public interest because the Pre-
Trade Risk Controls are a form of impact mitigation that will aid
Entering Firms and Clearing Firms in minimizing their risk exposure and
reduce the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange
understands that member organizations implement a number of different
risk-based controls, including those required by Rule 15c3-5. The
proposed controls will serve as an additional tool for Entering Firms
and Clearing Firms to assist them in identifying any risk exposure. The
Exchange believes the Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering
Firms and Clearing Firms in managing their financial exposure which, in
turn, could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets
and help to assure the stability of the financial system.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons facilitating transactions in
securities because the Exchange will provide alerts to Entering Firms
and their Clearing Firms when the Entering Firm's trading reaches
certain thresholds. As such, the Exchange will help Clearing Firms
monitor the risk levels of their correspondent Entering Firms and
provide tools for Clearing Firms, if designated, to take action.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's member organizations
because use of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls is optional and is not a
prerequisite for participation on the Exchange. In addition, because
all orders on the Exchange would pass through the risk checks, there
would be no difference in the latency experienced by member
organizations who have opted to use the Pre-Trade Risk Controls versus
those who have not opted to use them.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will have a positive effect on competition
because, by providing Entering Firms and their Clearing Firms
additional means to monitor and control risk, the proposed rule will
increase confidence in the proper functioning of the markets.

The Exchange believes the proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist
Entering Firms and Clearing Firms in managing their financial exposure
which, in turn, could enhance the integrity of trading on the
securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial
system. As a result, the level of competition should increase as public
confidence in the markets is solidified.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2019-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-68 and should be submitted on
or before January 7, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27082 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11644-11645]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0075]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, Letart, WV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 236 to MM
239. The safety zone is needed to provide for the safety of life and
property due to severe out draft from high water that have rendered the
Ohio River conditions to be hazardous to navigation. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 16, 2018
until March 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from February 23, 2018 until March 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0075 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Caitlin Furman, Marine Safety Unit
Huntington, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. On February 22,
2018, the United States Coast Guard was informed that the severe out
draft on the Ohio River by Racine Lock and Dam is expected to rise
significantly over the next couple of days and will continue to result
in hazardous river conditions near the Letart, WV area. This severe out
draft has resulted in commercial mariners not being able to maintain
safe control of their tow as they begin their northbound or southbound
approach into the Letart, WV area between mile marker (MM) 236 and MM
239 on the Ohio River. We must establish this safety zone by February
23, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. It would be contrary to the public
interest to delay this rule to provide a full 30 days' notice as the
hazardous river conditions are expected to take place daily from
February 23, 2018 through March 30, 2018.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the current river conditions
starting immediately 24 hours daily from February 23, 2018 through
March 30, 2018, there will be a safety concern for anyone within mile
marker (MM) 236 to MM 239 on the Ohio River, near Letart, West
Virginia. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while
the power line crossing is being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone for 24 hours daily on February
23, 2018 through March 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 236 to MM 239.
The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in these navigable waters while the power line
crossing is being conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. A designated representative means a Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley(COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM)
236 to MM 239 for twenty-four hours daily for 36 days a time of year
when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone
lasting only nine and a half hours that will prohibit entry within mile
marker (MM) 236 to MM 239 on the Ohio River. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) will be made available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0075 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0075  Safety zone; Ohio River, mile marker 236 to mile
marker 239, Letart, WV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Ohio River from mile marker 236 to mile marker 239 near
Letart, West Virginia.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced 24 hours
daily from February 23, 2018 through March 30, 2018.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated
representative via radio on channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instruction of
the COTP and designated on-scene personnel.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local
Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as
appropriate of the enforcement period for each safety zone as well as
any changes in the planned and published dates and times of
enforcement.

    Dated: February 22, 2018.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2018-05385 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P