[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5045-5046]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

January 25, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12726-000.
    c. Date filed: August 21, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Eastern Oregon Light and Power Co., LLC.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The proposed Rock Creek
Hydroelectric Project would be located on Rock Creek, a tributary of
the Powder River, in Baker County, Oregon and would occupy lands of the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    g. Applicant contact: Mr. Douglas T. Henderson, President, Eastern
Oregon Light and Power Co., LLC, P.O. Box 247, Haines, OR 97833-0247,
(541) 856-3605.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12726-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Proposed Project: The proposed project would
consist of the following proposed and existing facilities: (1) A
proposed concrete and steel diversion structure 16-foot-wide by 40-
foot-long, of an 'Under Flow' design, which will have a screening area
approximately 8-foot-wide at the upstream end and 4-foot-wide at the
downstream discharge end. The screening area will be approximately 24-
foot-long and have a \1/8\-foot spacing between triangular stainless
steel bar grating; (2) a proposed intake structure; (3) a proposed
9,000-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter PVC or concrete penstock; (4) an
existing and a proposed powerhouse with a total installed generating
capacity of 800 kilowatts; (5) a proposed 75-foot-long transmission
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual
generation of 4.4 GWh that would be sold to a local utility.
    k. Location of Applications: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item g
above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1665 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78188-78193]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 127

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0227]
RIN 1625-AB67

Reconsideration of Letters of Recommendation for Waterfront
Facilities Handling LNG and LHG

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would clarify the role and purpose of the
Letter of Recommendation (LOR) issued by the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port regarding the suitability of a waterway for liquefied natural gas
(LNG) or liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) marine traffic. It also proposes
a separate process for reconsideration of LORs by the Coast Guard. The
proposed process, if finalized, would apply only to LORs issued after
the effective date of the rule.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before March 15,
2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0227 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ken Smith (CG-5222), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
(202) 372-1413, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  127.009
    B. Proposed Addition of Sec.  127.010
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0227), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and type ``USCG-2011-0227'' in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0227''
and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the
``Actions'' column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may
view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid
this rulemaking, it will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOR Letter of Recommendation
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1221 et seq.)
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

    Under existing regulations contained in 33 CFR part 127, an owner
or operator intending to build a new waterfront facility handling
liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied hazardous gas (LHG), or
planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal
operations in an existing facility that would result in an increase in
the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway
associated with the proposed facility or modification to an existing
facility, must submit a letter of intent to the Captain of the Port
(COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. The
COTP then issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability
of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic related to the facility.
    The LOR is intended to provide an expert, unbiased recommendation
as to whether the waterway and port infrastructure can safely and
securely support the anticipated increase in maritime traffic
associated with the new or modified facility. Prior to May 2010, the
COTP issued the LOR to the owner or operator of the facility as well as
to the State and local government agencies with jurisdiction, but the
Coast Guard changed that process in a rule updating the letter of
intent and LOR regulations (75 FR 29420, Revision of LNG and LHG
Waterfront Facility General Requirements). Currently, the Coast Guard
issues the LOR to the Federal, State, or local government agency having
jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation of the waterfront
facility (referred to in this document as the ``jurisdictional
agency''), and sends a copy to the owner or operator of the proposed
facility.
    Several issued LORs have invited the recipient to request
reconsideration of the LOR pursuant to 33 CFR 127.015, which provides
that ``[a]ny person directly affected by an action taken under this
part may request reconsideration by the Coast Guard officer responsible
for that action.'' The process set forth in Sec.  127.015 is the same
that an owner or operator would use to appeal agency actions described
elsewhere in Part 127, such as a COTP's Order to suspend operations.
The use of Sec.  127.015 to request reconsideration of LORs, however,
has led to confusion about the nature and proper role of the LOR. This
is in part because the words ``action'' and ``final agency action'' in
Sec.  127.015 create confusion as to whether the LOR is an agency
action for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.). While we believe LORs should be subject to intra-agency
review, we did not intend to suggest that an LOR is an agency action or
that it conveys a right or obligation.
    The LOR is not an agency action as that term is defined by the
Administrative Procedure Act or understood in the context of
enforceable legal actions. To constitute agency action for purposes of
the Administrative Procedure Act, an activity must constitute, in whole
or in part, an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the
equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act (5 U.S.C. 551(13)). The
LOR is none of these. The LOR neither entitles nor forbids an owner or
operator to construct or modify an LNG or LHG facility--the Coast Guard
has no authority to site or license waterfront facilities handling LNG
or LHG. Rather, the Coast Guard provides its LOR to an agency that does
have that authority--the jurisdictional agency--to inform that agency's
review of the siting, construction, or operation of a facility. The LOR
is a recommendation, and is not legally enforceable on or by any agency
or person, including the Coast Guard.
    The Coast Guard does take agency action with respect to LNG and LHG
facilities when it enforces its rules addressing the operation,
maintenance, personnel training, firefighting, and security of the
marine transfer area of waterfront facilities that handle LNG or LHG
cargos. The Coast Guard COTP also may issue a COTP Order directing
vessel operations, and although such an Order would be directed to the
vessel's owner or operator, it could impact the operation of an LNG or
LHG facility. Enforcement of these Coast Guard regulations constitutes
agency action, follows administrative processes set out in Coast Guard
regulations, and may be appealed in court at the completion of the
administrative processes. For example, a Coast Guard action enforcing
Sec.  127.013, ``Suspension of transfer operations,'' may be appealed
under Sec.  127.015, and a COTP Order directing vessel operations under
33 CFR 160.111 may be appealed under 33 CFR 160.7. An LOR is unrelated
to the enforcement described above. It is not a precursor to or a basis
for COTP Orders or Part 127 enforcement. The LOR is only a
recommendation providing the jurisdictional agency with the benefit of
the Coast Guard's expertise on waterway safety and security; it
documents the COTP's recommendation within another agency's permitting
or approval process. The authority to approve or disapprove the siting,
construction, or modification of an LNG or LHG facility lies with the
jurisdictional agency, and not with the Coast Guard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Similarly, the LOR may inform the analysis undertaken by the
jurisdictional agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), but issuing the LOR is not a major Federal action under
NEPA because it is not the adoption of an official policy, formal
plan, or program or the approval of a specific project. (See 40 CFR
1508.18.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, we believe that some of the past confusion
regarding the

nature of LORs stems from the Coast Guard's use of 33 CFR 127.015 for
LOR reconsiderations. The process in Sec.  127.015 is designed for
appeals of agency actions taken under the authority of Part 127, and
using that same process for internal reconsideration of LORs
inadvertently caused confusion between the two. In particular, Sec.
127.015 applies to ``[a]ny person directly affected by an action taken
under this part,'' and using that language in reference to an
unenforceable recommendation is inapt. The Coast Guard seeks to resolve
the resulting confusion and, further, believes the process in Sec.
127.015 is inappropriately complicated and lengthy in light of the
LOR's role as a recommendation to another agency in the context of that
agency's permitting process. The LOR is intended to inform the
jurisdictional agency's process, and therefore should be available
early in that process. A reconsideration process that results in
revisions to the LOR after the jurisdictional agency's decision does
not serve the purpose of the LOR.
    The purpose of the LOR is to assist the agencies having
jurisdiction over the siting, construction, and operation of LNG and
LHG facilities. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) (PWSA) authorizes the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to implement
regulations to, among other things, reduce the possibility of vessel or
cargo loss, or damage to life, property, or the marine environment. See
33 U.S.C. 1231. The Secretary of Homeland Security delegated this
authority to the Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security
Delegation 0170.1). Issuing LORs with regard to proposed new or
modified LNG or LHG facilities is one of many methods by which the
Coast Guard furthers its missions under the PWSA. To improve the
existing process, we propose to clarify the purpose of LORs and revise
procedures by which facility owners or operators and State or local
governments in the vicinity of a facility may request reconsideration
of an issued LOR. The proposed reconsideration procedures, if
finalized, would apply only to LORs issued after the effective date of
the rule.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    We considered eliminating reconsideration of the LOR in order to
avoid the confusion described above and eliminate procedural delay. We
believe, however, that consistency and governmental transparency are
best served if a defined set of stakeholders has the ability to ask the
Coast Guard to reconsider its recommendation. This is in keeping with
past and current process under Sec.  127.015, in which the Coast Guard
has responded to requests for reconsideration from facility owners and
operators, and State or local governments, as the practical analogue to
``persons directly affected.''
    As discussed above, the existing process for reconsideration can
create confusion and delay. We therefore propose to add a new Sec.
127.010 to 33 CFR part 127 to provide a separate process for the
reconsideration of LORs issued after the effective date of this rule.
To facilitate the use of this new section, we also propose to revise
Sec.  127.009 to clarify the scope of the LOR and the persons who may
request reconsideration.

A. Proposed Revisions to Sec.  127.009

    We propose to renumber the existing text of Sec.  127.009, such
that all of the existing text would be contained in paragraph (a). We
propose to then add a paragraph to Sec.  127.009 explaining that an LOR
is only a recommendation from the COTP to the jurisdictional agency,
and does not constitute agency action for the purposes of Sec.  127.015
or the Administrative Procedure Act.
    We also propose to indicate in this section that reconsideration of
LORs would follow the process set forth in proposed Sec.  127.010. To
avoid disrupting any reconsiderations now in progress, and to prevent
any perceived disadvantage to those who were issued an LOR indicating
that reconsideration under Sec.  127.015 was available, the Coast Guard
would continue to process the reconsiderations of issued LORs under
Sec.  127.015. Only LORs issued after the effective date of any
resulting final rule would follow the new process set out in proposed
Sec.  127.010. Processing issued LORs under Sec.  127.015, however,
does not alter the fact that all LORs are mere recommendations to the
jurisdictional agency, and none are agency actions as outlined in the
Administrative Procedure Act.
    As set forth in the proposed revision to Sec.  127.009, the
facility owner or operator could request reconsideration of the LOR, as
could a State or local government in the vicinity of the facility.
Other interested persons would submit comments and relevant information
to the jurisdictional agency for that agency's consideration during its
permitting process. This is consistent both with the Coast Guard's
submission of its own recommendation to the jurisdictional agency for
that agency's consideration, and with the Coast Guard's past and
current practice of receiving requests for reconsideration from a
limited set of persons under Sec.  127.015.
    In general, those interested in expressing their agreement or
disagreement with the Coast Guard's recommendation would submit their
own comments and information to the jurisdictional agency, so that the
agency can weigh all the information before it makes a decision. We
believe, however, that it is important to provide for additional
discussion with the facility owner or operator and the State or local
governments in the vicinity of the facility. These entities possess
unique information regarding safety and security issues affecting the
facility and waterway. The facility owner or operator often is aware
of, or even the source of, anticipated changes in vessel traffic,
navigation obstructions, and other factors the Coast Guard considers in
issuing the LOR. State and local governments play an important role in
protecting public safety, and are essential in helping the Federal
government plan and prepare for emergencies; they also may be aware of
safety and security resources and challenges. Therefore, the proposed
rule would provide an avenue for these entities to request that the
Coast Guard reconsider its LOR. We invite the public to comment on the
scope of this exception, and specifically on whether it should be
extended in the final rule to additional categories of persons. If you
provide comments on this topic, please explain the reasons for your
comments.
    In addition to the above changes related to new Sec.  127.010, we
propose revising Sec.  127.009(a)(5), the last item in the list of
considerations the COTP takes into account when developing the LOR. The
proposed revision is more specific than the current phrase, ``[o]ther
safety and security issues identified,'' and more accurately reflects
the COTP's ability to consider a broad range of safety and security
issues that may vary from waterway to waterway.

B. Proposed Addition of Sec.  127.010

    As proposed in this new section, the reconsideration of an LOR
would begin with the submission of a written request to the COTP who
issued the LOR, describing why the COTP should reconsider his or her
recommendation. The explanation would focus on the waterway safety and
security topics set forth in Sec. Sec.  127.007 and 127.009, as these
describe the limited scope of the LOR. The person requesting
reconsideration would send a copy of the request to the agency to which
the LOR was issued, to inform the agency with jurisdiction for siting,
construction, or operation of the

facility that the COTP has been asked to reconsider the LOR.
    The COTP would review the request and the LOR, and either confirm
or revise the recommendation. The COTP would send either a written
confirmation or a revised LOR to the jurisdictional agency, with copies
to the requester and to the facility owner or operator. This would
ensure that all those who received the original LOR, and the copy of
the request for reconsideration, also receive the written confirmation
or revised LOR. A facility owner or operator, or State or local
government in the vicinity of the facility, who wished to request
reconsideration of the revised LOR, could do so by following the same
procedures for requesting reconsideration of the original LOR.
    Documents the Coast Guard provides to jurisdictional agencies
concerning LOR requests for reconsideration and appeals are normally
made available to the public through the jurisdictional agency's docket
management system.
    If the COTP confirms the recommendation after reconsideration, the
person who requested reconsideration could seek the opinion of the
COTP's District Commander. The request would have to explain why the
District Commander should review the COTP's recommendation, and the
requester must also send a copy to the jurisdictional agency to which
the LOR was issued.
    The District Commander would review the LOR and associated
documents, and either confirm the LOR or instruct the COTP to
reconsider the LOR. As in the earlier stage, the District Commander
would send a written notification to the jurisdictional agency, with
copies to the requester and the facility owner or operator. The
District Commander's written confirmation would end the reconsideration
process; the requester could not request review by another officer in
the chain of command. We propose to limit reconsideration to the
District Commander level because the COTP and the District Commander
have the most expertise with the specific local waterway.
    If the District Commander instructed the COTP to reconsider the
LOR, and that reconsideration resulted in a revised LOR, then a
facility owner or operator, or State or local government in the
vicinity of the facility, could request reconsideration of the revised
LOR by following the same procedures for requesting the reconsideration
of the original LOR.
    The proposed rule could result in more than one person requesting
reconsideration of an LOR, such that multiple reconsiderations would be
``in progress'' at one time. The Coast Guard would consolidate multiple
requests when appropriate.
    We do not propose a specific timeline for submitting or processing
requests, but in general we would expect to receive requests for
reconsideration, if any, soon after issuing the LOR, and we would
expect to resolve them as promptly as possible. The Coast Guard would
not expect to continue to reconsider an LOR after the jurisdictional
agency has reached its decision, even if the process described above
has not run its course. As stated above, the LOR is intended to inform
the jurisdictional agency's decision, and a reconsideration resulting
in revisions to the LOR after the jurisdictional agency's decision
would not serve the purpose of the LOR. We strongly recommend that any
requests for reconsideration be submitted as soon as possible after the
LOR is issued, to allow adequate time for Coast Guard reconsideration
and for the jurisdictional agency's consideration of any revised LOR.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') 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 (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A draft regulatory assessment follows:
    This proposed rule would clarify the role and purpose of the LORs
issued by the Coast Guard COTP regarding the suitability of a waterway
for LNG or LHG marine traffic. It would also provide a separate process
for LOR reconsideration for facility owners or operators and State or
local government in the vicinity of the facility. If an LNG/LHG owner
or operator or State or local government were to seek reconsideration
of an LOR, a written request would be sent to the COTP who issued the
LOR, and a copy would be sent to the jurisdictional agency. The
proposed process, if finalized, would apply only to LORs issued after
the effective date of the rule.
    We do not expect this proposed rule to impose new regulatory costs
on the LNG/LHG industry because an LNG/LHG facility owner or operator
and State or local government in the vicinity of the facility will only
request reconsideration if it does not agree with the recommendation.
The option to request reconsideration of an LOR has been an industry
practice for several years. Since 2007, there has been an average of
about three requests for reconsiderations annually. As previously
discussed, this proposed rule would replace the existing process for
reconsideration with the process in proposed Sec.  127.010, and would
apply to new LORs issued after the effective date of the rule, not LORs
already issued. As such, no change in either the frequency of request
or burden is projected as a result of this rulemaking. Although market
conditions may change in the future, the Coast Guard does not have any
data to indicate the receipt of new requests for reconsideration of
LORs within the foreseeable future.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    Large corporations own the existing waterfront LNG facilities, and
we expect this type of ownership to continue in the future. This type
of ownership also exists for the approximately 159 LHG facilities
operating in the United States. In addition, as stated above, the Coast
Guard does not expect a change in either the frequency of request or
burden as a result of this rulemaking. Therefore, we certify under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity, and that this
rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a
comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that the entities can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process. If the proposed rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult
with the Coast Guard personnel listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule. We will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
    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).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA). Under OMB
regulations implementing the PRA, ``Controlling Paperwork Burdens on
the Public'' (5 CFR 1320), collection of information means the
obtaining, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an agency of
information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed
to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements
imposed on, ten or more persons. ``Ten or more persons'' refers to the
number of respondents to whom a collection of information is addressed
by the agency within any 12-month period and does not include employees
of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment,
contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with
the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal
government. Collections of information affecting ten or more
respondents within any 12-month period require OMB review and approval.
    This proposed rule articulates a separate process for
reconsideration of LORs by the Coast Guard. As stated in Section V.A,
there has been an average of about three requests for reconsideration
annually since 2007, and the Coast Guard does not have any data to
indicate the receipt of new requests for reconsideration of LORs within
the foreseeable future. We therefore expect to receive fewer than ten
requests per year. This figure is less than the threshold of ten
respondents per 12-month period for collection of information reporting
purposes under the PRA.

E. Federalism

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

F. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

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

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This
rule involves creating a separate process for reconsideration of LORs
and falls under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of the
Instruction, which includes regulations which are editorial or
procedural, such as those updating addresses or establishing
application procedures. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127

    Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Security measures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 127 as follows:

PART 127--WATERFRONT FACILITIES HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS AND
LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS

    1. The authority citation for part 127 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  127.009 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.009  Letter of Recommendation.

    (a) After the COTP receives the Letter of Intent under Sec.
127.007(a) or (b), the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as
to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the
Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for
siting, construction, and operation, and, at the same time, sends a
copy to the owner or operator, based on the--
    (1) Information submitted under Sec.  127.007;
    (2) Density and character of marine traffic in the waterway;
    (3) Locks, bridges, or other man-made obstructions in the waterway;
    (4) Following factors adjacent to the facility such as--
    (i) Depths of the water;
    (ii) Tidal range;
    (iii) Protection from high seas;
    (iv) Natural hazards, including reefs, rocks, and sandbars;
    (v) Underwater pipelines and cables;
    (vi) Distance of berthed vessel from the channel and the width of
the channel; and
    (5) Any other issues affecting the safety and security of the
waterway and considered relevant by the Captain of the Port.
    (b) An LOR issued under this section is a recommendation from the
COTP to the agency having jurisdiction as described in paragraph (a),
and does not constitute agency action for the purposes of Sec.  127.015
or the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    (c) The owner or operator, or a State or local government in the
vicinity of the facility, may request reconsideration as set forth in
Sec.  127.010.
    (d) Persons other than the owner or operator, or State or local
government in the vicinity of the facility, may comment on the LOR by
submitting comments and relevant information to the agency having
jurisdiction, as described in paragraph (a), for that agency's
consideration in its permitting process.
    (e) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to LORs issued
after (EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE). For LORs issued prior to that
date, persons requesting reconsideration must follow the process set
forth in Sec.  127.015.
    3. Add Sec.  127.010 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.010  Reconsideration of the Letter of Recommendation.

    (a) A person requesting reconsideration pursuant to Sec.
127.009(c) must submit a written request to the Captain of the Port
(COTP) who issued the Letter of Recommendation (LOR), and send a copy
of the request to the agency to which the LOR was issued. The request
must explain why the COTP should reconsider his or her recommendation.
    (b) In response to a request described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the COTP will do one of the following--
    (1) Send a written confirmation of the LOR to the agency to which
the LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request and
the owner or operator; or
    (2) Revise the LOR, and send the revised LOR to the agency to which
the original LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the
request and the owner or operator.
    (c) A person whose request for reconsideration results in a
confirmation as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and who
is not satisfied with that outcome, may request, in writing, the
opinion of the District Commander of the district in which the LOR was
issued.
    (1) The request must explain why the person believes the COTP
should reconsider his or her recommendation.
    (2) A person making a request under paragraph (c) of this section
must send a copy of the request to the agency to which the LOR was
issued.
    (3) In response to the request described in paragraph (c) of this
section, the District Commander will do one of the following--
    (i) Send a written confirmation of the LOR to the agency to which
the LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request, the
owner or operator, and the COTP; or
    (ii) Instruct the COTP to reconsider the LOR, and send written
notification of that instruction to the agency to which the original
LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request and the
owner or operator.
    (d) The District Commander's written confirmation described in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section ends the reconsideration process
with respect to that specific request for reconsideration. If the COTP
issues an LOR pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) or (c)(3)(ii) of this
section, persons described in Sec.  127.009(c) may request
reconsideration of that revised LOR using the process beginning in
paragraph (a) of this section.

    Dated: December 9, 2011.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-32257 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36569]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, July
2, 2014 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    an adjudicatory matter; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 25, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15253 Filed 6-25-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48670-48672]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20882]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84239; File No. SR-MRX-2018-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Risk
Protections

September 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 11, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rules 100(a)(5) which contains
definitions, Rule 711, ``Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Rule
714, ``Automatic Execution of Orders.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    MRX proposes to amend Rule 714, Automatic Execution of Orders, by
placing all risk protections within this rule and further creating
sections to distinguish order protections, order and quote protections
and quote protections. The Exchange believes that providing Members
with a single rule with all risk protections will provide an easy
reference to the mandatory single leg risk protections on MRX.
    The Exchange is amending Rule 714(b) to rename the caption from
``Other Order Protections'' to ``Other Risk Protections.'' The Exchange
is amending references to ``order protections'' to ``risk protections''
within that rule to more broadly describe the type of protections
offered on MRX. Finally, the Exchange is relocating rule text from Rule
714(c) to the end of proposed Rule 714(b), which states, ``In the event
of unusual market conditions and in the interest of a fair and orderly
market, the Exchange may temporarily establish the levels at which the
order protections contained in this paragraph are triggered as
necessary and appropriate.'' These non-substantive rule changes are
intended to bring greater clarity to the rule.
    The Exchange proposes to add the following to proposed Rule
714(b)(1), ``The following are order risk protections on MRX:'' The
Exchange proposes to list all order protections within Rule 714(b)(1).
The Exchange proposes to relocate Limit Order Price Protection from
Rule 714(b)(2) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(A). The Exchange also
proposes to add a new sentence to the end of proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(A)
which provides, ``Limit Order Price Protection shall not apply to the
Opening Process or during a trading halt. The Exchange is adding this
sentence, which was not contained in the initial rule change, to make
clear the limitations as to when this protection is available on MRX.
The Exchange notes the Limit Order Price Protection rejects orders to
buy (sell) as the greater of the Exchange's best offer (bid) plus
(minus) either an absolute dollar or a percentage. The Exchange notes
that the bid or offer is not established until after an option series
options for trading. Applying this protection during the Opening
Process is not necessary as the quote width allowance is tighter during
the Opening Process.\3\ With respect to trading halts, Opening Process
procedures will be used to reopen an option series after a trading
halt, therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening Process
will apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive boundaries would
apply.\4\ This sentence memorializes the Exchange's current practice.
The Exchange believes that this rule text will bring greater clarity to
the Limit Order Price Protection functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening
Market is required. A Quality Opening Market a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange and published on
the Exchange's website. See MRX Rule 701(a)(7).
    \4\ See MRX Rule 701(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate and re-number Market Order Spread
Protection from Rule 711(c) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(B). The Exchange
also proposes to add a sentence which provides, ``Market Order Spread
Protection shall not apply to the Opening Process or during a trading
halt.'' The Exchange believes that the Market Order Spread Protection
is unnecessary during the Opening Process and during a trading halt
because protections are in place during the Opening Process to ensure
that the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a
reasonable range.\5\ The Opening Process has more restrictive
boundaries than those proposed for the Market Order Spread Protection.
With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening Market is
required. A Quality Opening Market requires a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table \6\ to be determined by the Exchange.\7\ The
Exchange's requirements during the Opening Process are more restrictive
than the proposed initial setting for the Market Order Spread
Protection, which is proposed at $5. As provided in Rule 701(d),
trading halts are subject to the reopening process as provided for in
Rule 701(e). The same protections noted for the Opening Process above
will apply for trading halts. The Exchange believes that the Market
Order Spread Protection is unnecessary during the Opening Process and
during a trading halt because other protections are in place to ensure
that the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are

within a reasonable range. The Exchange is adding this sentence to make
clear the limitations as to when this protection is available on MRX.
The Exchange believes that this rule text will bring greater clarity to
the Market Order Spread Protection functionality. The Exchange is also
memorializing a sentence which was contained in the filing which
adopted Market Order Spread Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See note 3 above. With respect to trading halts, Opening
Process procedures will be used to reopen an option series after a
trading halt, therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening
Process will apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive
boundaries would apply. See MRX Rule 701(d).
    \6\ The table is located at: https://business.nasdaq.com/media/MRXSystemSettings_tcm5044-46766.pdf.
    \7\ The calculation of Quality Opening Market is based on the
best bid and offer of Valid Width Quotes. The differential between
the best bid and offer are compared to reach this determination. The
allowable differential, as determined by the Exchange, takes into
account the type of security (for example, Standard Penny Issues,
Non-Penny Issues and Special Penny Issues), volatility, option
premium, and liquidity. The Quality Opening Market differential is
intended to ensure the price at which the Exchange opens reflects
current market conditions. See MRX Rule 701(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange noted in the adopting filing that the Exchange may
establish differences other than the referenced threshold for one or
more series or classes of options.\8\ At this time, the Exchange
proposes to memorialize this capability within Rule 714(b)(1)(B) by
stating, ``The Exchange may establish different thresholds for one or
more series or classes of options.'' The Exchange believes that adding
this provision to the rule will add transparency to the Exchange's
capability to establish different thresholds per options series or
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80815 (May 30, 2017), 82
FR 25827 (June 5, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate Size Limitation from Rule
714(b)(3) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(C) without any amendments. The
Exchange proposes to add the following to proposed Rule 714(b)(2),
``The following are order and quote risk protections on MRX:''. The
Exchange proposes to list all order and quote protections within Rule
714(b)(2). The Exchange proposes to re-letter Acceptable Trade Range
from Rule 714(b)(1) to proposed Rule 714(b)(2)(A).
    The Exchange proposes to relocate Market Wide Risk Protection from
Rule 714(d) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(D). The Exchange is only
amending cross references within this rule to reflect the new location
of this text.
    The Exchange proposes new rule text at Rule 714(b)(3) which
provides, ``The following are Market Maker risk protections on MRX:''.
The Exchange proposes to list all Market Maker protections within Rule
714(b)(3). The Exchange proposes to relocate Anti-Internalization from
Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 804 to proposed Rule 714(b)(3)(A).
The Exchange proposes to replace the words ``market participant
identifier'' with ``Market Maker identifiers.'' The Exchange also
proposes to replace the words ``Exchange account identifier'' with
``account number.'' \9\ The Exchange believes these modifications will
bring more clarity to the functionality. The Exchange is removing the
words ``Notwithstanding Rule 804(d)(1) above'' which refer to the firm
quote.\10\ The Exchange notes that the submission of bids and offers
must be firm notwithstanding any protection offered by the Exchange,
not just Anti-Internalization. The Exchange does not believe it is
necessary to specifically cite this caveat for this order protections.
The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the defined term Market Maker
in this sentence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An ``account number'' shall mean a number assigned to a
Member. Members may have more than one account number. See Rule
100(a)(1).
    \10\ MRX Rule 804(d)(1) provides that Market Maker bids and
offers are firm for orders and Exchange Market Maker quotations both
under this Rule and Rule 602 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange
Act (``Rule 602 of Reg NMS'') for the number of contracts specified
according to the requirements of paragraph 804(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate Automated Quotation Adjustments
from Rule 804(g) to proposed Rule 714(b)(3)(B). Rule 804(g) will be
reserved. The Exchange is amending references in the rule to reflect
the new placement within Rule 714 and replacing the words ``Exchange's
system (``System'')'' with the defined term System.\11\ Finally, the
term ``member'' was capitalized because it is a defined term. The
Exchange is also making clear within Rule 715(b)(3)(B)(vi) that Market
Maker must request the Exchange enable re-entry by contacting the
Exchange's Operations Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``System'' means the electronic system operated by
the Exchange that receives and disseminates quotes, executes orders
and reports transactions. See Rule 100(a)(66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of badge
within Rule 100 (a)(5) to state that a badge is an account number,
which may contain letters and/or numbers, assigned to Market Makers.
The Exchange may from time to time modify the manner in which a badge
is expressed systemically. This proposed language allows for latitude
in establishing badges within the System.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by grouping the various risk protections into a single rule
for ease of reference and adding headers to the rule to make clear
whether the risk protection is an order protection, order or quote
protection or a protection applicable to Market Makers. The Exchange
believes the reorganization of the existing rule and relocation of
various rules into Rule 714 is a non-substantive rule change. The
Exchange believes that this rule change is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will bring
greater transparency to the protections offered on MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposal to not apply the Limit Order Price
Protection during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act
because the Exchange rejects orders to buy (sell) as the greater of the
Exchange's best offer (bid) plus (minus) either an absolute dollar or a
percentage. The Exchange notes that the bid or offer is not established
until after an option series options for trading. Applying this
protection during the Opening Process is not necessary as the quote
width allowance is tighter during the Opening Process.\14\ With respect
to trading halts, Opening Process procedures will be used to reopen an
option series after a trading halt, therefore, the same protections
noted for the Opening Process will apply for a trading halt and the
same restrictive boundaries would apply.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 3 above.
    \15\ See MRX Rule 701(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to not apply the Market Order Spread
Protection during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act
because protections exist during the Opening Process to ensure that the
best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a reasonable
range. The Exchange's Opening Process Rule 701 \16\ and the reopening
process after a trading halt \17\ both contain more restrictive
boundaries than those proposed or the Market Order Spread Protection.
With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening Market is
required. A Quality Opening Market requires a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange.\18\ The Exchange's
requirements during the Opening Process are more restrictive than the
proposed initial setting for the Market Order Spread Protection, which
is set at $5. The same protections noted for the Opening Process above
will

apply for trading halts. The Exchange believes that the Market Order
Spread Protection is unnecessary during the Opening Process and during
a trading halt because other protections are in place to ensure that
the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a
reasonable range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 3 above.
    \17\ With respect to trading halts, Opening Process procedures
will be used to reopen an option series after a trading halt,
therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening Process will
apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive boundaries would
apply. See MRX Rule 701(d).
    \18\ The table is located at: https://business.nasdaq.com/media/MRXSystemSettings_tcm5044-46766.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Memorializing the ability of the Exchange to establish different
Market Order Spread Protection thresholds per options series or class
will also bring greater clarity to the rule. Today, the Exchange has
this ability, it is simply adding that text to the rule. Utilizing
defined terms within the Rulebook will also bring clarity to the rules.
The Exchange also believes using more discrete language within the
Anti-Internalization rule will clarify the functionality.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that expanding the definition of
badge is consistent with the Act because it allows the Exchange the
flexibility to administer the badges within its System.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
intra-market burden on competition with respect to the reorganization
and relocation of the various rules into Rule 714 because the various
risk protections are mandatory and will continue to apply uniformly to
all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the addition
of specific limitations to both the Limit Order Price Protection and
Market Order Spread Protection rules will provide market participants
with greater information as to when these protections will apply. These
limitations apply uniformly to all market participants. The remainder
of the rule changes are intended to bring greater transparency to the
current operation of the Exchange's rules.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \21\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
Exchange argues that waiver of the operative delay would allow the
Exchange to immediately incorporate all risk protections into Rule 714
and bring greater transparency to the risk protections offered on the
Exchange. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-30 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-MRX-2018-30. 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-MRX-2018-30, and should be submitted on
or before October 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20882 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P