[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13095-13098]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0072; Notice 2]

Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR), on behalf of
Jaguar Land Rover Limited, has determined that certain model year (MY)
2012-2018 Jaguar motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems.
JLR filed a

noncompliance report dated June 22, 2017. JLR also petitioned NHTSA on
July 20, 2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. For the reasons
stated below, NHTSA grants the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Finneran, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    JLR, on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover Limited, has determined that
certain MY 2012-2018 Jaguar motor vehicles do not fully comply with
FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.135). JLR filed
a noncompliance report dated June 22, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. JLR also
petitioned NHTSA on July 20, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 1, 2017, in the Federal Register
(82 FR 41677). One comment was received. To view the petition, any
comments, and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2017-0072.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 126,127 of the following Jaguar motor vehicles,
manufactured between February 8, 2012, and June 19, 2017, are
potentially involved:
 2017-2018 Jaguar F-Pace
 2017-2018 Jaguar XE
 2017-2018 Jaguar XF
 2014-2018 Jaguar F-TYPE
 2013-2017 Jaguar XJ
 2012-2015 Jaguar XK

III. Noncompliance

    JLR explains that the noncompliance is that the brake fluid warning
statement label on the subject vehicles is not permanently affixed as
required by paragraph S5.4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, JLR
installed a label that fits over the neck of the brake fluid reservoir
that can be removed when the brake fluid reservoir cap is removed.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 135 titled ``Reservoir Labeling''
includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
     Each vehicle equipped with hydraulic brakes shall have a
brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at
least 3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch) high:
    ``WARNING: Clean filler cap before removing. Use only ____fluid
from a sealed container.'' (inserting the recommended type of brake
fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., ``DOT 3.'').
     Permanently affixed, engraved or embossed.

V. Summary of JLR's Petition

    As background, in JLR's noncompliance report, JLR stated that a
Product Safety and Compliance Committee (PSCC) Investigation was opened
on June 6, 2017, following communication from a safety compliance
engineer from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The
communication highlighted a concern that the brake reservoir label was
not permanently affixed to the brake fluid reservoir as required by
FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. On June 13, 2017, JLR's
PSCC concluded that the concern should be forwarded to the Recall
Determination Committee (RDC). The RDC reviewed all information on June
15, 2017, and concluded that the issue represented a compliance concern
related to FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, but that the
condition was considered inconsequential and requested that a petition
for decision of inconsequential noncompliance be filed with NHTSA.
    JLR described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, JLR submitted the following reasoning:
    1. The installed label will not fall off or become displaced during
normal vehicle use or operation.
    2. The installed label provides mechanical resistance to being
removed.
    3. There is interference between the installed label and reservoir
filler neck such that a minimum of 2mm interference exists.
    4. The installed label is only able to be removed when the brake
fluid reservoir cap is displaced which, based on routine maintenance
schedules, is once every 3 years in service.
    5. The filler cap shows clearly the specification of brake fluid
required.
    6. The filler cap provides clear symbols including one for caution
and one referring to handbook instructions. The owner's handbook
descriptions indicate the proper brake fluid specification to be used
in the vehicle.
    7. The installed cap conforms to the requirements of ISO9128:2006
which is a requirement of UN-ECE Regulation 13 and 13h. NHTSA has
previously granted petitions to accept ISO symbols in the absence of
FMVSS labeling:
    a. Jaguar Land Rover petition regarding controls and displays
including brake system-related telltales (78 FR 66101-03).
    b. Ford petition regarding controls and displays including brake
system-related telltales (78 FR 69931-32)
    c. Hyundai petition regarding lower anchorage identification (73 FR
38290-91).
    8. JLR has not received any customer complaints on this issue.
    9. There have been no accidents or injuries as a result of this
issue.
    10. Vehicle production has been corrected to fully conform to FMVSS
No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, S5.4.3(a) with a new filler cap.
    JLR concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. Public Comments

    Comments were received from one individual who was opposed to NHTSA
granting JLR's petition and provided a wide-ranging list of objections,
many of which were not directly related to the petition issue of a non-
permanent brake master cylinder reservoir label. Applicable comments
included the following:
    1. Brake fluid is a toxic, flammable and combustible liquid that
requires a permanently affixed warning label;
    2. Jaguar cannot say with 100% certainty or any probability that
the label will not fall off or be displaced during vehicle use or
operation;
    3. Subsequent purchasers will be exposed to known and undisclosed
danger;
    4. The vehicles have no routine maintenance schedule and are
brought in to be serviced within days or months of purchase;
    5. The filler cap alone does not adequately serve as a warning
label and is not a permanent fixture;
    6. A filler cap can be easily removed and replaced with any other
cap that has the same measurements;
    7. Jaguar has received customer complaints which have not been
provided to NHTSA; and

    8. Jaguar cannot accurately assert that there has been no accidents
or injuries regarding the issue in question.

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential petition
submitted by JLR and has considered the applicable comments received
from the public, and has determined that this particular noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, paragraph
S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 135 requires that each vehicle equipped with
hydraulic brakes have a brake fluid warning statement with specific
language that is (a) permanently affixed, engraved or embossed, (b)
located so as to be visible by direct view either on or within 100 mm
of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap, and is (c) a color
that contrasts with its background if it is not engraved or embossed.
JLR in its submittal of its Part 573 acknowledged that the brake fluid
warning label is not permanently affixed as it can be removed once the
filler cap is removed. However, the warning statement wording on the
label is correct, and requirements (b) and (c) above are met.
    NHTSA has concluded that the noncompliance is inconsequential based
on two principal reasons: (1) Although the label can be removed, the
chance of it becoming detached is highly improbable, and (2) in the
unlikely event of label displacement, the required information
specified on the label is available from other locations or sources.
These reasons are further explained below:
    Addressing item (1) above, the installed label appears to be made
of a durable plastic material which is positioned on the filler neck
and is retained by the filler cap. During normal vehicle use and
operation, the filler cap remains attached to the reservoir, and the
label is effectively permanently affixed. The reservoir filler cap and
label are positioned within the engine compartment and in many cases,
further sealed below plastic trim. Thus, to access and remove the label
requires intentional actions by an owner or service technician by hood
release, secondary hood release, trim removal, cap removal and finally
pulling the label itself off. This multi-step process will not occur
inadvertently.
    JLR explains that the routine maintenance schedule for the brake
fluid is once every 3 years in service. Unless a brake fluid issue
arises during the intervening time period, the cap should remain
affixed and the label in place. In addition, FMVSS No. 135 S5.4.4
requires the brake fluid reservoir to be so constructed that the level
of fluid can be checked without the need for the reservoir to be
opened. Thus, the frequency with which the cap will be removed and
therefore the time frame in which the label can be removed is
exceedingly limited. We further note that the removal of the brake
filler cap for fluid addition, replacement or flush is predominately
performed by trained service technicians, not vehicle owners, who will
have no reason to remove a warning tag and are knowledgeable on
precautions when dealing with brake fluid.
    Addressing item (2) above, the S5.4.3 warning statement that is
required to be on or near the reservoir filler opening has four
essential components as listed below:

1. The word ``Warning''
2. The statement ``Clean filler cap before removing''
3. Fluid specification ie., ``DOT 4'' fluid, and
4. The statement ``Brake fluid from a sealed container''.

    In the unlikely event the label is removed, these four specified
items contained on the warning label are available from other locations
or sources. The filler cap itself has four embossed yellow symbols on a
black background. One symbol is for the brake system, indicating that
the reservoir is brake related. The second symbol is an exclamation
point within a triangle, generally recognized as a pictorial equivalent
to the word ``warning,'' and the third is a symbol representing the
owner's manual, implying that the document should be reviewed prior to
tampering with the reservoir system. The owner's manual provides
instructions for topping off the brake fluid, stating ``always use the
brake fluid with the correct specifications, only use new fluid from an
airtight container, and to clean the brake fluid filler cap before
removing . . .'' Thus, the reservoir cap symbols pictorially warn and
instruct that prior to cap removal, the owner's manual should be
reviewed where all the pertinent maintenance information is described
and is redundant to the label statements. Therefore, in the unlikely
situation where the label has been removed, the technician is still
warned and guided as to the proper procedures for working with the
master cylinder reservoir opening. The fourth cap marking is ``DOT 4,''
which is redundant to the label listing and is arguably the most
important caution, as the fluid used is critical to the performance and
durability of the brake system. Even without the label, the appropriate
fluid is clearly indicated.
    Furthermore, as indicated by JLR there have been no customer
complaints or accidents as a result of this issue. As the noncompliance
has existed for some models since 2012, a significant amount of time
has elapsed in which the problem could have arisen, yet it has not been
noted by any complaints or implicated in any accidents.
    Although the S5.4.3 warning label is not technically permanently
affixed as required in S5.4.3 (a) the noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety because the likelihood of the tag being
displaced under normal vehicle operation and usage is exceedingly
small, and all the information required by S5.4.3 even in the absence
of the label is detailed in the owner's manual which is pictorially
referenced by symbols on the cap itself. Lastly, it is likely that only
trained service technicians will remove the cap leaving the label in
place, and the critical fluid specification ``DOT 4'' is both on the
label and the cap.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that JLR has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 135 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, JLR's petition is
hereby granted and JLR 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 subject vehicles that JLR no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after JLR notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-06478 Filed 4-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 34548]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0021; OMB No. 1660-0105]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Community Preparedness and Participation
Survey

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or, Jacqueline Snelling, Senior Advisor, FEMA,
National Preparedness Directorate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 at 82 FR
23023 with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Preparedness and Participation Survey.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0105.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 008-0-15, Community Preparedness
and Participation Survey.
    Abstract: The Individual and Community Preparedness Division uses
this information to more effectively improve the state of preparedness
and participation from the general public by customizing preparedness
education and training programs, messaging and public information
efforts, and strategic planning initiatives.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,040.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,040.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,260 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $32,760.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: None.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $627,432.28.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: July 19, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-15577 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 911-46-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13536-13538]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-31-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Perulack
Compressor Units Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Perulack Compressor Units Replacement
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Juniata County,
Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this environmental document in
its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 5, 2021. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on January 15, 2021, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP21-31-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-
31-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances
and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe.
These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive
notification and provide a link to the document files, which can reduce
the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to abandon and remove four existing
compressor units (one GE Frame 5 unit and three Clark DC-900 units),
install two new compressor units, and construct auxiliary appurtenant
facilities at its existing Perulack Compressor Station in Juniata
County, Pennsylvania. The Project would consist of the following new
facilities:
     Installation of two new 18,100-horsepower (hp) Solar Titan
130 natural gas-fired turbines;

     installation of related software controls that would limit
the total hp of each compressor unit to 17,400 hp;
     installation of a new 585 hp Waukesha VGF-H24GL emergency
generator;
     construction of a new compressor building to house the two
new compressor units;
     conversion of an existing compressor building into a
storage warehouse;
     construction of a new service entry building, two new
electric buildings, two natural gas-fired heaters, two space heaters,
four new filter/separator vessels, and six new gas coolers; and
     construction of a new stormwater management retention
basin.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The station is located on approximately 48.4 acres property owned
by Texas Eastern and lies within a fenced area encompassing
approximately 36.9 acres. Construction of the Project would disturb
36.1 acres of land, including 27.2 acres of land within the existing
fence line of the station, 3.4 acres of additional temporary workspace
outside (northwest) of the station fence line, and 5.5 acres for the
temporary construction yard outside (south) of the station fence line.
The proposed additional temporary workspace would be in open space on
property Texas Eastern owns. Following construction, Texas Eastern
would maintain its 27.2 acres for permanent operation of the Project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to
former uses.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the proposed Project under the relevant general resource areas:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed Project or portions of the Project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
Project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this Project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
Project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following:
    (1) Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP21-31-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: March 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04855 Filed 3-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40725-40727]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0466]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Oregon Inlet Channel, Marc Basnight
Bridge, Dare County, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigational area (RNA) for navigable waters of Oregon Inlet Channel.
Due to severe shoaling in the Oregon Inlet Channel, the navigational
channel will be moved until shoaling can be mitigated by dredging
crews. The new, temporary, channel through the Marc Basnight Bridge may
not be suitable for vessels of 100 gross tons (GT) or greater. This
temporary RNA is needed to protect personnel, vessels, bridge
infrastructure, and the marine environment from potential hazards
associated with the transit of vessels 100 GT or greater until the
original channel can be restored. Transit of vessels 100 GT or greater
through this area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 8, 2022,
through June 30, 2023. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will
be used from July 5, 2022, until July 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0466 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Ken Farah, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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 due to the safety
hazard associated with the extreme shoaling in this area and shifiting
of the main navigational channel. The potential safety hazards
associated with vessels 100 GT or greater transiting this span of the
Marc Basnight Bridge must be mitigated until the original channel can
be restored. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM and consider the
public comments because we must establish this temporary RNA
immediately in order to address significant shoaling, and protect
vessels, infrastructure, and the marine environment.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to restrict the transit of vessels of 100 GT or greater
through this dangerous span of the Marc Basnight Bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The District 5 Commader has
determined that potential hazards associated with vessels 100 GT or
greater transiting the Marc Basnight Bridge in the new, temporary,
Oregon Inlet Channel will be a safety concern to the public. This rule
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, bridge infrastructure, and the
marine environment until the original channel is restored.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary regulated navigational area for
navigable waters of Oregon Inlet Channel until the original Oregon
Inlet Channel is restored. Due to severe shoaling at Oregon Inlet
Channel, Aids to Navigation Team (ANT) Wanchese established a new
channel which passes from the Oregon Inlet Entrance Channel through
Marc Basnight Bridge temporary navigable span 34 to the west side of
the bridge. The original Oregon Inlet Channel crossing under the Marc
Basnight Bridge (NC-12) at spans 23-31 has been relocated north-west to
span 34, between bents 33 and 34. This temporary span provides vertical
clearance of approximately 37 feet above mean high water and a
horizontal clearance of approximately 146 feet. However, this section
of the bridge is not equipped with fenders to protect the spans from
potential vessel allisisions. This necessicates the restriction of
vessels transiting under this portion of the Marc Basnight Bridge.
Vessels of 100 GT or greater may present a significant hazard to this
section of the bridge. This temporary RNA will be in place until U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) crews completes the dredging of the
original Oregon Inlet Channel.
    This temporary navigational restriction is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, bridge infrastructure, and the marine environment
from potential hazards associated with the transit of vessels 100 GT or
greater until the original Oregon Inlet Channel can be restored. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the original channel
is being restored. No vessels 100 GT or greater will be permitted to
enter this RNA without first obtaining permission from the Captain of
the Port North Carolina or a designated representative.

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. 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).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the RNA. Most vessel traffic will be able to
safely transit this regulated area. There are only a few vessels of 100
GT or more that transit this area. Vessel traffic is mostly comprised
of vessels smaller than 100 GT. Vessels of 100 GT or more can contact
the Coast Guard for permission to enter the RNA or for alternative
instructions on how to transit the area. The Coast Guard will publish a
notice in the Local Notice to Mariners.

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
call or email 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.

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 an 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
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves RNA
that will prohibit entry of vessels of 100 GT or greater from entering.
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. 1.
A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket,
see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0466 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0466  Regulated navigation area; Oregon Inlet Channel,
Marc Basnight Bridge, Dare County, NC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area
(RNA): Span 34, between bents 33 and 34, of the Marc Basnight Bridge of
the temporary Oregon Inlet Channel between Rodanthe and Nags Head, NC,
in Dare County, NC.
    (b) Regulations. In addition to the general RNA regulations in
Sec.  165.13, the following regulations apply to the RNA described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) No vessel 100 GT or greater may enter, stop, moor, transit, or
loiter in the RNA without explicit permission from the Captain of the
Port North Carolina (COTP).
    (2) A vessel transiting through the RNA must make a direct passage.
No vessel may stop, moor, anchor, or loiter within the RNA at any time
unless it is engaged or intending to engage in bridge construction work
in the RNA or dredging operations. All movement within the RNA is
subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. No vessel may produce a wake
or attain speeds greater than 5 knots unless a higher minimum speed is
necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
    (3) The operator of any vessel transiting in the RNA must comply
with all lawful directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-
scene representative.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from July 5,
2022, until June 30, 2023, or until the original Oregon Inlet Channel
is restored. If the COTP determines this section need not be enforced
during these times on a given day, he or she will use marine broadcast
notices to mariners to announce the specific periods when this section
will not be subject to enforcement.

    Dated: July 5, 2022.
Shannon Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-14558 Filed 7-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7954-7955]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0092 FRL-7761-5]

Pesticide Product; Registration Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register
pesticide products containing a new active ingredient not included in
any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of
section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0092, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0092. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0092. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage athttp://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered
products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice
of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the
Agency on the applications.

Products Containing Active Ingredients not Included in any Previously
Registered Products:

    1. File Symbol: 70787-E. Applicant: Jabb of the Carolinas, P.O. Box
310, Pine Level, NC 27568. Product Name: balEnce. Type of product:
microbial insecticide, End-use Product. Active ingredient: Beauveria
bassiana HF23 at 1.18%. Proposed classification/Use: Microbial
pesticide/to control house flies in chicken manure.
    2. File Symbol: 70787-R. Applicant: Jabb of the Carolinas, P.O. Box
310, Pine Level, NC 27568. Product Name: Beauveria bassiana HF23. Type
of product: microbial insecticide. Active ingredient: Beauveria
bassiana HF23 at 95%. Proposed classification/Use: For formulation into
End-use Products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated:
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-2160 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 23455-23456]
[DOCID:fr19my09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59905; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Amend Trade Reporting Rules To
Require a Related Market Center Indicator on Certain Non-Tape Reports
Submitted to FINRA

May 12, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On September 12, 2007, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its trade reporting rules to require
members to record a related market center indicator on certain non-tape
reports submitted to FINRA. On December 18, 2007, FINRA filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 28, 2007.\3\ The Commission received three
comments on the proposal.\4\ FINRA filed Amendment No. 2 on March 27,
2009.\5\ This order approves to the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57020 (December 20,
2007), 72 FR 73930 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated January 24, 2008 (``SIFMA Letter''); letter from
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., dated February 1, 2008 (``Citi
Letter''); and letter from Financial Information Forum, dated
February 29, 2008 (``FIF Letter'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, FINRA: (1) Addressed the comments
received in response to the publication of the Notice and proposed
certain minor modifications and clarifications in response to the
comments; (2) reflected changes to the underlying rule text adopted
pursuant to two intervening rule changes and made conforming
modifications to the proposed rule change. This Amendment is a
technical amendment and therefore not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As discussed more fully in the Notice, certain transactions can be
reported in related tape (i.e., the transaction is reported to the tape
for publication) and non-tape reports.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Non-tape reports can be (1) ``non-tape, non-clearing,''
i.e., the transaction is not reported to the tape but is submitted
to FINRA for regulatory (not clearing) purposes, or (2) ``clearing-
only,'' i.e., the transaction is not reported to the tape and is
submitted to FINRA for clearing (and perhaps also regulatory)
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, agency transactions where one member acts as agent on behalf
of another member can be reported in related tape and non-tape reports.
Similarly, a riskless principal transaction,\7\ which is a functional
equivalent of an agency trade, can be submitted to FINRA as a single
trade report properly marked as riskless principal, or as two separate
reports: (1) A tape report to reflect the initial leg of the
transaction and (2) a non-tape report to reflect the offsetting,
``riskless'' leg of the transaction. Currently, a non-tape report does
not provide specific information pertaining to the related tape report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of over-the-counter trade reporting
requirements applicable to equity securities, a ``riskless
principal'' transaction is a transaction in which a member, after
having received an order to buy (sell) a security, purchases (sells)
the security as principal (the initial leg) and satisfies the
original order by selling (buying) as principal at the same price
(the offsetting, ``riskless'' leg). See FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-
38 (August 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposed to amend FINRA Rules 7130 (relating to the ADF/
TRACS), 7230A (relating to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF), 7230B (relating to
the FINRA/NYSE TRF), and 7330 (relating to OTC RF) \8\ to require
members for any non-tape report (either a non-tape, non-clearing report
or a clearing-only report) submitted to a FINRA Facility associated
with a previously executed trade that was not reported to that same
FINRA Facility, to identify the facility or market to which the
associated trade was reported. The proposed rule change also requires
that members retain and produce to FINRA, upon request, documentation
relating to the associated trade (e.g., a confirmation from the
exchange identifying the ``street side'' of a riskless principal
transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The original filing contained different Rule numbers, which
were revised in Amendment No. 2 to account for intervening rule
filings. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also proposed that where a single non-tape report is related
to multiple tape reports: (1) If the multiple tape reports were made to
a single exchange or, in the case of over-the-counter trades, a single
FINRA Facility, that exchange or facility must be properly reflected on
the single non-tape report; and (2) if the multiple tape reports were
made to different exchanges and/or FINRA Facilities, the member will
not be required to identify the specific exchanges or facilities; it
will be required to populate the Related Market Center field with a
standard indicator: ``multiple venues.'' \9\ In

addition, where a member routes an order and has no basis for
identifying where the trade was ultimately executed or, in the case of
over-the-counter trades, where the trade was ultimately reported, the
member will be required to populate the Related Market Center field
with a standard indicator: ``unknown venue.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 2.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ in
that it is designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will result
in a more complete and accurate audit trail and ensure that members are
not using non-tape reports to circumvent FINRA or Commission rules.
FINRA stated that currently it is difficult to determine with certainty
where the associated trade was reported, especially if that trade was
reported to an exchange or another FINRA Facility.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Currently, FINRA must manually match non-tape reports with
associated tape reports for purposes of monitoring member compliance
with trade reporting rules. FINRA stated that by requiring that
firms identify the market center or facility to which the associated
tape report was submitted, the universe of tape reports that must be
reviewed as part of the matching process will be significantly
narrowed, and accordingly, the effectiveness and certainty of the
matching process will be enhanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters in
response to the Notice.\14\ The three commenters generally oppose the
proposal and state that the potential costs, including required system
changes, outweigh the benefits of the proposal. In addition, the
commenters raise several concerns about the practical difficulties of
complying with the proposed rule change. First, the commenters indicate
it would be difficult (if not impossible) to identify multiple
exchanges and/or FINRA Facilities where a single non-tape report is
associated with multiple executions on multiple markets. Second, the
three commenters point out that when a firm routes an order, it may not
know the ultimate execution destination. Third, the commenters argue
that even if a firm knows that a trade in an NMS stock was executed
over-the-counter, the firm may not know where the trade was reported
because FINRA's Uniform Service Bureau/Executing Broker Agreement
(``USBEBA'') allows the reporting party to report to any TRF or ADF,
without providing notice to the other party to the trade.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 4.
    \15\ See SIFMA Letter and Citigroup Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA replied to the comments in Amendment No. 2 and revised and
clarified the original proposal to alleviate the commenters' concerns.
In particular, FINRA clarified that where a single non-tape report is
related to multiple tape reports: (1) If the multiple tape reports were
made to a single exchange or, in the case of over-the-counter trades, a
single FINRA Facility, that exchange or facility must be reflected on
the single non-tape report; and (2) if the multiple tape reports were
made to different exchanges and/or FINRA Facilities, the member will be
required to populate the Related Market Center field with a standard
indicator: ``multiple venues.'' \16\ In addition, FINRA provided that
where a member routes an order and has no basis for identifying the
relevant exchange or FINRA Facility to determine where the trade was
ultimately executed or, in the case of over-the-counter trades, where
the trade was ultimately reported, the member will be required to
populate the Related Market Center field with a standard indicator:
``unknown venue.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent technological enhancements are required, FINRA stated
that it intends to provide adequate time for members to make the
necessary changes and revised the original proposal to provide for the
implementation of the proposed rule change at least 90 days following
implementation on August 3, 2009, of the amendments to FINRA trade
reporting rules adopted pursuant to SR-FINRA-2008-011.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-08 (January 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA's approach that tailors the
proposed reporting requirement to reflect informational limitations
described by the commenters is reasonable, in that it reflects FINRA's
expectation that members provide as much information as is reasonably
available at the time the non-tape report is submitted. Further, the
Commission notes that FINRA clarified that where a member routes to an
exchange and has a reasonable basis for reporting that the trade was
executed on that exchange, FINRA would not consider it a violation if,
unbeknownst to the member, the trade is ultimately executed somewhere
other than the routed exchange.\18\ The Commission also notes that it
would expect FINRA to incorporate the proposed changes into its
surveillance and examination programs to ensure that members are not
improperly using the ``multiple venue'' or ``unknown venue''
indications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The same approach would apply to reporting to other FINRA
Facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2007-012), as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto, be and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11607 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8101-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62933-62936]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84683; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2018-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Eliminate the Liquidity Swap Component of the Discretionary
Range Instruction

November 29, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 23, 2018, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed
the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to eliminate the liquidity swap component of the
Discretionary Range instruction in connection with the recent
introduction of a ``high inverted'' fee model.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate the
liquidity swap component of the Discretionary Range instruction in
connection with the introduction of a ``high inverted'' fee model, as
discussed in more detail

below.\5\ All other functionality offered by the Discretionary Range
instruction would remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A liquidity swap occurs when a resting order that is posted
to the EDGA Book becomes the remover rather than the adder of
liquidity for fee purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discretionary Range is an instruction the User \6\ may attach to an
order to buy (sell) a stated amount of a security at a specified,
displayed or non-displayed ranked price with discretion to execute up
(down) to another specified, non-displayed price.\7\ Because the
Discretionary Range instruction indicates a willingness by the entering
User to trade at prices more aggressive than the order's ranked price,
orders entered with this instruction also liquidity swap with certain
incoming orders. Specifically, Rule 11.6(d) provides that a resting
order with a Discretionary Range instruction would remove liquidity
against: (1) An incoming Post Only order at its displayed or non-
displayed ranked price that does not remove liquidity on entry pursuant
to Rule 11.6(n)(4), and (2) an incoming order with a time-in-force
(``TIF'') other than Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') or Fill-or-Kill
(``FOK'') that is priced within its discretionary range. All other
orders follow normal handling for the execution of an incoming order
and remove liquidity when trading with a resting order with a
Discretionary Range instruction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``User'' means any Member or Sponsored Participant
who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule
11.3. See Rule 1.5(ee).
    \7\ See Rule 11.6(d). An order with a Discretionary Range
instruction resting on the EDGA Book will execute at its least
aggressive price when matched for execution against an incoming
order that also contains a Discretionary Range instruction, as
permitted by the terms of both the incoming and resting order. Id.
    \8\ For example, an incoming order that executes at the ranked
price of the Discretionary Range order, or an IOC or FOK order that
executes at a price within the discretionary range would execute as
the liquidity remover. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that a resting order with a Discretionary
Range instruction would no longer perform a liquidity swap against any
incoming orders, such that the incoming order would always act as the
taker of liquidity, and the resting order with a Discretionary Range
instruction would act as the maker of liquidity. As incoming Post Only
orders always remove liquidity on entry in an inverted market where it
is economically beneficial to remove liquidity,\9\ this change would
chiefly impact the execution of Discretionary Range orders against
incoming orders with a TIF other than IOC or FOK priced within the
discretionary range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 11.6(n)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA has operated with an ``inverted'' fee schedule whereby orders
that remove liquidity are provided a rebate and orders that add
liquidity pay a fee.\10\ On November 1, 2018, the Exchange filed an
immediately effective change to its fee schedule to introduce a ``high
inverted'' market model that increased both the rebate provided to
orders that remove liquidity and the fee paid by orders that add
liquidity.\11\ With the recent changes to the fee schedule, an order
that removes liquidity is provided a base rebate of $0.0024 per share,
and an order that adds liquidity pays a base fee of $0.0030 per
share.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Cboe EDGA U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84599 (November 15,
2018), 83 FR 58795 (November 21, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGA-2018-017).
    \12\ Members also have the opportunity to qualify for a lower
fee or higher rebate based on volume executed on EDGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current order handling, an order that executes
immediately on entry, which would ordinarily be paid a rebate of
$0.0024 per share based on the new high inverted fee structure, could
instead end up adding liquidity and paying a fee of up to $0.0030 per
share--i.e., a swing of $0.0054 per share--if the incoming order
liquidity swaps when trading with a posted order that contains a
Discretionary Range instruction. For example, assume the national best
bid and offer is $10.00 x $10.05, and there is an order to buy on the
EDGA Book priced at $10.00 with discretion to pay up to $10.03. If the
Exchange were to receive an incoming Day order to sell at $10.02, the
incoming order would be posted to the EDGA Book and then trade with the
Discretionary Range order at $10.02 as the adder of liquidity, paying a
fee of $0.0030 per share instead of receiving the expected rebate of
$0.0024 per share.
    Although likely to be a rare occurrence, the Exchange believes that
paying a $0.0030 per share fee in this scenario may be contrary to the
expectations of Users that enter an order that trades on entry, who may
instead expect to receive a $0.0024 per share rebate for sending
marketable order flow to EDGA. The Exchange therefore proposes to
eliminate the liquidity swap component of the Discretionary Range
instruction. As proposed, an order entered with a Discretionary Range
instruction would never perform a liquidity swap with an incoming
order. Since an order entered with a Discretionary Range instruction
would not liquidity swap with an incoming order under any
circumstances, the Exchange proposes to reflect this change by
providing that any contra-side order that executes against a resting
order with a Discretionary Range instruction at its displayed or non-
displayed ranked price, or a price in the discretionary range, will
remove liquidity against the order with a Discretionary Range
instruction.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to describe in Rule 11.6(d) how
the Exchange would handle orders entered with a Discretionary Range
instruction in the event that it changes its fees such that an incoming
order with a Post Only instruction does not always remove liquidity on
entry. As previously discussed, the Exchange is amending the
Discretionary Range instruction such that orders entered with a
Discretionary Range instruction would not liquidity swap with incoming
orders, including orders entered with a Post Only instruction. Instead,
the Exchange proposes that where an incoming order with a Post Only
instruction does not remove liquidity on entry pursuant to Rule
11.6(n)(4) against a resting order with a Discretionary Range
instruction, the discretionary range of the resting order with a
Discretionary Range instruction would be shortened to equal the limit
price of the incoming contra-side order with a Post Only instruction.
While under an inverted fee schedule incoming orders with a Post Only
instruction remove liquidity on entry, this language would be relevant
if the Exchange were to move to a different market model (e.g., maker/
taker). In such an event, the Discretionary Range instruction would
behave in a manner similar to recently adopted MidPoint Discretionary
Orders (``MDO'') on its affiliate Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'').\13\ Like the proposed handling for EDGA orders entered with
a Discretionary Range instruction, MDOs on EDGX are not willing to
perform a liquidity swap, and would instead have their discretionary
range shortened if an order with a Post Only instruction were to be
posted within the discretionary range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84327 (October 1,
2018), 83 FR 50416 (October 5, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-041). The
Exchange also offers MDOs on EDGA that follow the handling described
in this filing for orders entered with a Discretionary Range
instruction. See Rule 11.8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of

the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and not to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers a Discretionary Range instruction that allows
Users to specify a non-displayed discretionary price in addition to a
displayed or non-displayed ranked price. As part of this instruction,
an order entered with a discretionary price would liquidity swap in
certain scenarios described in Rule 11.6(d), including when trading
within the order's discretionary range against an incoming order that
is entered with a TIF other than IOC or FOK. The Exchange believes that
this result is undesirable under an inverted fee structure since the
order that is negatively impacted by the swap from a rebate to a fee is
the incoming order, and not the resting order that has opted into this
handling by including a Discretionary Range instruction. Furthermore,
this issue would be exacerbated under the new high inverted fee
structure since the difference between the base fee for adding
liquidity and base rebate for removing liquidity is now $0.0054 per
share. The Exchange therefore believes that eliminating the possibility
of this liquidity swap is consistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors.
    With this change no resting orders on EDGA would liquidity swap
with an incoming order, thereby ensuring that the incoming order would
be the taker of liquidity, and paid the applicable rebate rather than
charged an unexpected fee. Although certain other order instructions
offered by the Exchange (e.g., Super Aggressive and Non-Displayed Swap)
\16\ contain a liquidity swap component, those order instructions do
not liquidity swap under an inverted fee structure where a Post Only
order would always remove liquidity on entry. The Exchange believes
that amending its order handling, as proposed, to ensure a similar
result in cases that involve the Discretionary Range instruction would
promote just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 11.6(n)(2), (n)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed operation of the
Discretionary Range instruction where an order with a Post Only
instruction posts in the discretionary range is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. While the Exchange
currently operates under an inverted fee schedule where an incoming
order with a Post Only instruction would remove liquidity on entry, the
Exchange believes that it would be appropriate to shorten the
discretion of a resting order with a Discretionary Range instruction if
necessary due to an incoming order with a Post Only instruction posting
at a price within the discretionary range, which would be possible, for
example, in the event the Exchange were to introduce a maker/taker
market model. Shortening the order's discretionary range in such
circumstances is intended to avoid the discretionary range extending
past the contra-side order's limit price, which could create a price
priority issue should a later order be entered and be eligible to
execute against the resting order within its discretionary range but at
a price that extends beyond the contra-side order with a Post Only
instruction. As mentioned in the purpose section of this proposed rule
change, similar behavior is already implemented for MDOs on EDGX.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 13 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to eliminate the possibility that a liquidity swap could cause
an incoming order that was expecting to receive a rebate as a remover
of liquidity to instead pay a fee. The Exchange believes that the
proposed handling accords with the expectation of its Users when
sending order flow to EDGA, which operates under an inverted fee model
that generally incentivizes marketable order flow that removes
liquidity on entry. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed
rule change would promote a fair and competitive market in securities
traded on EDGA.

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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 \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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 \20\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \21\ 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. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately amend
its rules to change its handling of orders entered with a Discretionary
Range instruction so that such orders, when resting, no longer may
liquidity swap with incoming orders with which they execute. The
Exchange believes that eliminating this potential for a liquidity swap
would be more consistent with the expectation of Exchange participants
who submit orders that trade on entry and, in light of the Exchange's
inverted fee structure, may expect to receive a rebate for such
executions instead of incurring a fee due to a liquidity swap. The
Exchange also believes that waiver of the operative delay will reduce
the possibility that Exchange participants are inadvertently
disadvantaged by a recent Exchange fee schedule change introducing
higher fees and rebates. For these reasons, 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ 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-CboeEDGA-2018-019 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-CboeEDGA-2018-019. 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-CboeEDGA-2018-019, and should be
submitted on or before December 26, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26399 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P