[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27343-27344]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0352]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0126

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0126,
Requirements for Vessels that Perform Certain Aquaculture Support
Operations; without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to
collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 12,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0352] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. In response to your comments, we
may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2019-0352], and
must be received by August 12, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Requirements for Vessels that Perform Certain Aquaculture
Support Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0126.
    Summary: This information is required to ensure that a vessel
engaged in certain aquaculture operations has

applied for and received a waiver. A vessel owner or operator must
notify Coast Guard and provide a copy of the waiver.
    Need: The Coast Guard regulations are prescribed in 46 CFR part
106. The Coast Guard uses the information in this collection to ensure
compliance with the requirements.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of aquaculture operations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1
hour to 2 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual
number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 6, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2019-12357 Filed 6-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65549-65555]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27277]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65579; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt NASD
Rule 2320 (Best Execution and Interpositioning) and Interpretive
Material (``IM'') 2320 as FINRA Rule 5310 in the Consolidated Rulebook

October 17, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 4, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2320 (Best Execution and
Interpositioning) and Interpretive Material (``IM'') 2320 (Interpretive
Guidance with Respect to Best Execution Requirements) as a FINRA rule
in the consolidated FINRA rulebook with four notable changes. The
proposed rule change would combine and renumber NASD Rule 2320 and IM-
2320 as FINRA Rule 5310 in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 2320 (Best Execution and Interpositioning) and IM-2320
(Interpretive Guidance with Respect to Best Execution Requirements) as
a FINRA rule in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with several changes,
which are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2320 requires a member, in any transaction for or with a
customer or a customer of another broker-dealer, to use ``reasonable
diligence'' to ascertain the best market for a security and to buy or
sell in such market so that the resultant price to the customer is as
favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions. The rule
identifies five factors that are among those to be considered in
determining whether the member has used reasonable diligence: (1) The
character of the market for the security; (2) the size and type of
transaction; (3) the number of markets checked; (4) the accessibility
of the quotation; and (5) the terms and conditions of the order as
communicated to the member. The rule also includes provisions related
to interpositioning (i.e., interjecting a third party between the
member and the best available market), the use of a broker's broker,\4\
the staffing of order rooms, and the application of the best execution
requirements to other parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed rule change moves part of the provision
concerning the use of a broker's broker from paragraph (b) of the
rule to Supplementary Material .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these provisions, NASD Rule 2320(f) (commonly
referred to as the ``Three Quote Rule'') generally requires members
that execute transactions in non-exchange-listed securities on behalf
of customers to contact a minimum of three dealers (or all dealers if
three or fewer) and obtain quotations from those dealers if there are
fewer than two quotations displayed on an inter-dealer quotation system
that permits quotation updates on a real-time basis. The Three Quote
Rule was adopted in 1988 to further define a firm's best execution
obligation to customers by setting forth additional requirements for
transactions in non-exchange-listed securities, particularly
transactions involving securities with non-transparent prices.\5\ Since
that time, the Three Quote Rule has been amended on multiple occasions
to exclude certain securities and transactions.\6\ The Three Quote Rule
establishes a minimum standard, and compliance with the Three Quote
Rule, in and of itself, does not mean that a member has met its best

execution obligations under NASD Rule 2320.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25637 (May 2, 1988),
53 FR 16488 (May 9, 1988).
    \6\ See NASD Rule 2320(f)(3)(B), (C). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 56004 (July 2, 2007), 72 FR 37285 (July 9,
2007); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43319 (September 21,
2000), 65 FR 58589 (September 29, 2000).
    \7\ See NASD Notice to Members 00-78 (November 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IM-2320 was adopted in 2006 to codify interpretive guidance that
FINRA staff had provided involving compliance with NASD Rule 2320.\8\
Specifically, IM-2320 addresses issues involving the term ``market''
for purposes of the rule as well as the application of the rule to debt
securities and to broker-dealers that are executing a customer's order
against the broker-dealer's quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54339 (August 21,
2006), 71 FR 50959 (August 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new FINRA Rule 5310, which is based
largely on NASD Rule 2320. IM-2320 will be adopted, in substantially
the same form, as Supplementary Material to Rule 5310. FINRA is also
proposing several changes, which are described below, to the rule.
    (1) The Three Quote Rule
    Since the adoption of the Three Quote Rule over twenty years ago,
the market for non-exchange-listed securities has changed
dramatically.\9\ FINRA has found that in certain circumstances the
Three Quote Rule can hinder, rather than further, investor protection
by causing significant delays in obtaining execution of customer
orders. As a result, FINRA has created several exclusions to the Three
Quote Rule since it was adopted. For example, in 2000, FINRA determined
that where there were two transparent, firm quotes for a security, the
costs associated with delayed executions resulting from Three Quote
Rule compliance outweighed the benefits of obtaining three telephone
quotes.\10\ Consequently, the Three Quote Rule currently applies only
to non-exchange-listed securities with one or no public quotation.\11\
More recently, in 2007, the SEC approved amendments to the Three Quote
Rule to exclude certain transactions in non-exchange-listed securities
of foreign issuers that are part of the FTSE All-World Index and to
exclude certain transactions in Canadian securities executed on a
Canadian exchange.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of the Three Quote Rule, a ``non-exchange-
listed security'' is any equity security that is not traded on any
national securities exchange, but does not include restricted
securities. See NASD Rule 2320(f)(4)(C).
    \10\ See NASD Notice to Members 00-78 (November 2000); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43319 (September 21, 2000), 65
FR 58589 (September 29, 2000).
    \11\ See NASD Rule 2320(f)(3)(A).
    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56004 (July 2, 2007),
72 FR 37285 (July 9, 2007). See Regulatory Notice 07-40 (August
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the original concerns the Three Quote Rule was designed to
address are still valid, FINRA believes that the current requirements
in the Three Quote Rule, even with the various exclusions, are overly
prescriptive and can often result in unnecessary delay in the execution
of a customer's order or impose requirements that do not benefit the
customer. Accordingly, rather than maintain the Three Quote Rule and
the various exclusions in their current format, the proposed rule
change replaces the Three Quote Rule with Supplementary Material
emphasizing a member's best execution obligations when handling an
order involving any security, equity or debt, for which there is
limited pricing information available.\13\ The Supplementary Material
emphasizes that members must be especially diligent with respect to
best execution obligations where there is limited quotation or other
pricing information available regarding the security that is the
subject of the order and requires members to have written policies and
procedures in place to address the steps the member will take to
determine the best market for such a security in the absence of
multiple quotations or pricing information and to document how they
have complied with those policies and procedures.\14\ The Supplementary
Material specifically notes that, when handling orders for such
securities, members should generally seek out other sources of pricing
information or potential liquidity, which may include obtaining
quotations from other sources (e.g., other firms that the member
previously has traded with in the security). For example, in many
instances, particularly in the context of equity securities with
limited quotation information available, contacting other broker-
dealers may be necessary to comply with a member's best execution
obligations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NASD Rule 2320(f)(2), which is a subparagraph within the
Three Quote Rule, generally requires members that display priced
quotations on a real-time basis for a non-exchange-listed security
in two or more quotation mediums that permit quotation updates on a
real-time basis to display the same priced quotation in each medium
except for certain customer limit orders displayed on an electronic
communications network. Paragraph (f)(4) of the rule includes
definitions of terms used in paragraph (f)(2). At this time, FINRA
is proposing to move paragraph (f)(2) into the FINRA Rule 6400
Series (Quoting and Trading in OTC Equity Securities) as FINRA Rule
6438. FINRA is also proposing to replace the term ``non-exchange-
listed security'' with the term ``OTC Equity Security'' to conform
the rule language to other FINRA rules addressing non-NMS stocks.
The terms ``OTC Equity Security'' and ``quotation medium'' are
defined in FINRA Rule 6420. Because the provisions relate to the
quotation of OTC Equity Securities, FINRA believes that they should
be relocated into the FINRA rule series concerning quoting and
trading OTC Equity Securities rather than remain part of the Best
Execution Rule.
    \14\ NASD Rule 3110(b) (Books and Records) generally requires
members to indicate on the customer order ticket how they complied
with the Three Quote Rule, if applicable. FINRA is proposing to
replace this provision with a more general documentation requirement
in the Supplementary Material to proposed FINRA Rule 5310. Under
that provision, members would be required to retain records
sufficient to demonstrate that they had handled orders covered by
the rule in accordance with their policies and procedures.
    \15\ As noted above, FINRA believes that requiring compliance
with the Three Quote Rule in all circumstances covered by the rule
can cause unnecessary delay in the handling of some customer orders.
However, as the Supplementary Material recognizes, contacting other
broker-dealers can often be necessary for a firm to meet its best
execution obligations. In recognizing the importance of contacting
other broker-dealers for pricing or liquidity information, FINRA
notes that many firms may choose to adopt policies and procedures
that are substantially similar to the current Three Quote Rule but
may, for example, allow for firms to adapt their procedures for
certain situations if the firm reasonably concludes that those
requirements would result in unnecessary delay or otherwise not
benefit the customer. Firms must also continue to take into account
when developing their procedures that the Three Quote Rule is a
minimum standard, and contacting other dealers does not guarantee
that a firm has met its best execution obligations in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Regular and Rigorous Review of Execution Quality
    The proposed rule change includes Supplementary Material to
proposed FINRA Rule 5310 codifying a member's obligations when it
undertakes a regular and rigorous review of execution quality likely to
be obtained from different market centers. These longstanding
obligations are set forth and explained in various SEC releases and
NASD Notices to Members.\16\ The proposed rule change codifies this
guidance as Supplementary Material and does not alter existing
requirements regarding regular and rigorous review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A
(September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (September 12, 1996); NASD Notice
to Members 01-22 (April 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Orders for Foreign Securities With No U.S. Market
    While the determination as to whether a member has satisfied its
best execution obligations must take into account the market for a
security, NASD Rule 2320 does not specifically distinguish between
orders for domestic securities and orders for foreign securities, even
if there is no U.S. market for the security. Markets in foreign
jurisdictions often do not have identical best execution requirements
as those imposed by NASD Rule 2320 and, in many cases, may not have
comparable pre-trade or post-trade transparency standards. Thus, the
handling of orders for foreign securities with no U.S. market can
differ substantially from the handling of

orders in securities that trade in the U.S. Consequently, the proposed
rule change includes new Supplementary Material concerning members'
best execution obligations when handling orders for foreign securities,
and in particular foreign securities with no U.S. trading activity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed more fully in Section 2(C)(2) below, in
Regulatory Notice 08-80 FINRA had proposed a different approach
regarding orders for foreign securities with no U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new Supplementary Material recognizes that markets for
different securities can vary dramatically and that the standard of
``reasonable diligence'' must be assessed by examining specific
factors, including ``the character of the market for the security'' and
the ``accessibility of the quotation.'' Accordingly, the determination
as to whether a member has satisfied its best execution obligations
necessarily involves a ``facts and circumstances'' analysis.
    The new Supplementary Material notes that even though a foreign
security may not trade in the U.S., members still have an obligation to
seek best execution for customer orders involving the security.
Consequently, a member that handles customer orders for foreign
securities that do not trade in the U.S. must have specific written
policies and procedures in place regarding its handling of customer
orders for these securities that are reasonably designed to obtain the
most favorable terms available for the customer, taking into account
differences that may exist between U.S. markets and foreign markets.
The Supplementary Material further notes that a member's best execution
obligations also must evolve as changes occur in the market that may
give rise to improved executions, including opportunities to trade at
more advantageous prices. Members must therefore regularly review their
policies and procedures to assess the quality of executions received
and update or revise the policies and procedures as necessary.
(4) Customer Instructions Regarding the Routing of Orders
    When placing an order with a member, customers may specifically
instruct the member to route the order to a particular market for
execution.\18\ The proposed rule change includes Supplementary Material
to proposed FINRA Rule 5310 addressing situations where the customer
has, on an unsolicited basis, specifically instructed the member to
route its order to a particular market.\19\ Under those circumstances,
the member would not be required to make a best execution determination
beyond that specific instruction; however, the Supplementary Material
mandates that members process the customer's order promptly and in
accordance with the terms of the order. The Supplementary Material also
makes clear that where a customer has directed the member to route an
order to another broker-dealer that is also a FINRA member, the
exception would not apply to the receiving broker-dealer to which the
order was directed.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ When the order is for an NMS security, these orders are
often referred to as ``directed orders.'' See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(19).
Of note, directed orders are excluded from the order routing
statistics required to be produced under Rule 606 of SEC Regulation
NMS. See 17 CFR 242.606.
    \19\ FINRA also has proposed technical amendments to paragraph
(e) of the rule to clarify that a member's best execution
obligations extend to all customer orders and to avoid the potential
misimpression that the paragraph limits the scope of the rule's
requirements.
    \20\ For example, if a customer of Member Firm A directs Member
Firm A to route an order to Member Firm B, Member Firm B would
continue to have best execution obligations to that customer order
received from Member Firm A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. The implementation date will be no later
than 90 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\21\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change adds
needed clarification and provisions to the existing best execution
requirements that enhance investor protection and promote just and
equitable principles of trade. FINRA believes that codifying members'
obligations regarding directed orders, regular and rigorous review, and
orders involving foreign securities will bring needed clarification to
these areas and ensure that all members are aware of their obligations.
As discussed above, FINRA believes that replacing the Three Quote Rule
with the proposed Supplementary Material will improve the handling of
customer orders involving securities with limited quotation or pricing
information by decreasing the likelihood that execution of these orders
will be unnecessarily delayed while still ensuring that members
recognize that their best execution obligations apply to these orders.
FINRA believes that each of these provisions will help promote just and
equitable principles of trade and will protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in Regulatory
Notice 08-80 (December 2008). A copy of Regulatory Notice 08-80 is
attached as Exhibit 2a. The comment period expired on February 27,
2009. FINRA received nine comment letters in response to the Regulatory
Notice.\22\ A list of the comment letters received in response to
Regulatory Notice 08-80 is attached as Exhibit 2b. Copies of the
comment letters received in response to Regulatory Notice 08-80 are
attached as Exhibit 2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter from first allied (``First Allied''), dated January
27, 2009; Letter from Sidley Austin LLP (``Sidley''), dated January
28, 2009; Letter from Scottrade, Inc. (``Scottrade''), dated January
29, 2009; Letter from National Association of Independent Broker-
Dealers, Inc. (``NAIBD''), dated February 16, 2009; Letter from
Cutter & Company, Inc. (``Cutter''), dated February 17, 2009; Letter
from Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA''), dated February 26, 2009; Letter from Financial Services
Institute (``FSI''), dated February 27, 2009; Letter from Pink OTC
Markets, Inc. (``Pink OTC''), dated March 20, 2009; Letter from
Liquidnet, Inc. (``Liquidnet''), dated April 24, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) General Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
    Although most commenters addressed particular issues in the rule
changes proposed in Regulatory Notice 08-80, some commenters raised
broader concerns regarding best execution obligations and NASD Rule
2320 in general. SIFMA expressed concerns about the application of the
Best Execution Rule to debt securities and reiterated the concerns
previously expressed by the Bond Market Association in response to
prior amendments to NASD Rule 2320.\23\ In essence, SIFMA asserts that
fundamental differences in the operation of the equity and fixed

income markets render the Best Execution Rule inappropriate for the
fixed income market. SIFMA states that the current Best Execution Rule,
as well as many of the amendments in the proposed rule change, may be
appropriate for the equity markets but ``create problems of
interpretation, application and enforcement'' in the context of the
fixed income markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA disagrees. As SIFMA's letter notes, these concerns have been
raised numerous times in recent years, and for the same reasons FINRA
has noted before, FINRA believes that the Best Execution Rule is broad
enough to apply to both the equity and fixed income markets. As FINRA
stated in 2005:

    [The] Best Execution Rule looks at a number of factors,
including the character of the market for the security, to determine
whether a member or associated person(s) has used reasonable
diligence. Accordingly, it can be applied in a variety of different
markets that can possess divergent characteristics, including the
U.S. debt market.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52637 n.15 (October
19, 2005), 70 FR 61861, 61863 n.15 (October 26, 2005).

    The Best Execution Rule requires the use of ``reasonable
diligence'' when handling a customer order. One of the enumerated
factors in assessing whether reasonable diligence has been used is
``the character of the market for the security.'' \25\ This language
makes readily apparent that a determination of best execution must take
into account the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the
market in which a security trades, whether that is an exchange market,
the over-the-counter equity market, or the fixed income market.
Different securities trade in myriad ways, and no single rule can
address each and every nuance of various types of markets. Moreover,
market structure is itself subject to continuous evolution and
development; a rule focused on a specific market structure would
quickly become outdated. For all of these reasons, the Best Execution
Rule is intentionally broad and encompasses all market types by its
recognition that a best execution determination cannot be made without
first determining the type of market in which the security that is the
subject of the order trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NASD Rule 2320(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that proposed Supplementary Material .01
regarding prompt execution of a marketable customer order \26\ be
clarified to note that a firm's acceptance of an order ``starts the
clock'' as opposed to the time a customer enters an order or the time
an order is received.\27\ The Supplementary Material requires
``prompt'' execution and does not dictate a specific timeframe because
FINRA believes the principle-based standard of acting promptly would
encompass all reasonable factors that a prescriptive standard could not
address in all cases. Best execution requires firms to minimize the
time between order receipt, order acceptance, and order entry. Firms
may not defend their failure to act promptly in respect of an order
because such an order languished between its receipt and entry. In
addition, FINRA has already codified the obligation to handle and
execute marketable customer orders promptly in FINRA Rule 5320.07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In Regulatory Notice 08-80, FINRA proposed to apply the
prompt requirement in Supplementary Material .01 to customer market
orders. The proposed rule change applies the prompt requirement in
proposed Supplementary Material .01 to ``marketable customer
orders'' to clarify that the requirement applies to both market
orders and marketable limit orders.
    \27\ See Scottrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Comments Regarding Orders for Foreign Securities With No U.S.
Market
    In Regulatory Notice 08-80, FINRA proposed to adopt a new provision
regarding a member's best execution obligations for foreign securities
with no U.S. market. Under that provision, a member would have been
deemed to have exercised reasonable diligence pursuant to Rule 5310(a)
with respect to an order if:
    (i) The order was for a non-U.S. traded security; \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes of the provision, FINRA proposed to define a
``non-U.S. traded security'' as any non-exchange-listed security
issued by a corporation or other entity incorporated or organized
under the laws of any foreign country for which there is no
quotation or indication of interest displayed in any inter-dealer
quotation system generally available in the United States at the
time the member receives the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The member had adopted written policies and procedures
regarding its handling of orders for non-U.S. traded securities that
are reasonably designed to obtain the most favorable terms available
for the customer;
    (iii) The member reviewed those policies and procedures at least
annually, or more frequently as appropriate, to assess the quality of
the execution venues included in the member's policies and procedures
to determine whether they provide for the most favorable terms
reasonably available and whether the policies and procedures needed to
be updated or revised;
    (iv) The member had obtained its customers' consent to its policies
and procedures regarding the handling of orders for non-U.S. traded
securities; and
    (v) The member handled the order in accordance with its policies
and procedures.
    The proposed provision did not except these orders from the
reasonable diligence requirement; rather, in recognition of the
differences in how such orders are handled, it provided an alternative
mechanism, other than the current list of factors in the rule, in
determining whether a firm had met the reasonable diligence obligation.
    Although several commenters generally supported the proposed
provision addressing foreign securities with no U.S. market, commenters
raised numerous issues with specific aspects of the provision. Multiple
commenters questioned the requirement that a customer consent to the
member's policies and procedures.\29\ In addition, commenters also
requested guidance on several of the provision's terms and
requirements, including asking for additional guidance of ``a non-
exclusive list of elements for what a typical set of execution
protocols might cover,'' \30\ clarification that the presence of
American Depositary Receipts with an active market in the U.S. would
not affect the analysis with respect to the issuer's ordinary
shares,\31\ and questioning portions of the definition of non-U.S.
traded security.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See First Allied, Scottrade, SIFMA.
    \30\ SIFMA.
    \31\ See Sidley.
    \32\ See Sidley, Pink OTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA continues to believe it is appropriate to address
specifically as part of the Best Execution Rule issues involving
members' best execution obligations when handling orders for foreign
securities with no U.S. market; however, as noted above, FINRA has
replaced the proposed provision with Supplementary Material that more
generally describes the obligations members have regarding these
orders.
(3) Comments on Proposed Supplementary Material .06 (Orders Involving
Securities With Limited Quotations or Pricing Information)
    Six commenters addressed the proposal to replace the Three Quote
Rule with more general Supplementary Material regarding a member's
obligations when handling an order for a security for which there is
limited pricing information available. Of the six commenters, five
supported the proposal,\33\ and one commenter opposed the proposed
change because

the commenter believed that the current Three Quote Rule promotes
``straightforward best execution compliance.'' \34\ As FINRA has
stressed in the past, the Three Quote Rule is a minimum standard that
members are required to meet with respect to non-exchange-listed
securities with one or no public quotation; compliance with the Three
Quote Rule does not, in and of itself, mean that a member has met its
best execution obligations.\35\ Thus, contrary to the commenter's
assertion that the Three Quote Rule established a straight-forward
compliance standard, it sets forth only a non-exhaustive minimum
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Cutter, First Allied, Liquidnet, NAIBD, SIFMA.
    \34\ Pink OTC.
    \35\ See, e.g., NASD Notice to Members 00-84 (December 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, best execution requires the exercise of reasonable
diligence. If a security has little or no price transparency, FINRA
agrees that a member with an order for such a security should generally
seek out other sources of pricing information or potential liquidity,
which could include contacting other dealers. Consequently, the
Supplementary Material specifically notes that members ``should
generally seek out other sources of pricing information or potential
liquidity, which may include obtaining quotations from other sources *
* *.'' However, FINRA believes that there continue to be instances
where contacting additional dealers may not be in the customer's best
interest (and, indeed, may be detrimental to the customer).\36\
Although the proposed Supplementary Material gives members the ability
to determine when that is the case, members continue to have best
execution obligations in handling the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ For example, one commenter asserted that contacting
multiple dealers regarding an order in a fixed income security could
have the effect of moving the market away from the customer in some
circumstances. See SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also requested that FINRA ``state, whether in the
text of the Rule or the Supplementary Material, that member firms must
execute customer orders at an equal or better price as displayed in any
Inter-Dealer Quotation System that permits quotation updates on a real-
time basis.'' \37\ FINRA does not believe it is necessary to
specifically address this point with respect to the types of orders
currently covered under the Three Quote Rule. As is already the case
today, paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule requires that members use
reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the subject
security and buy or sell in such market so that ``the resultant price
to the customer is as favorable as possible under prevailing market
conditions.'' That standard has always applied to orders covered by the
Three Quote Rule (indeed, it applies to all customer orders) and will
continue to apply under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Pink OTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, as part of replacing the Three Quote Rule with
Supplementary Material, FINRA has proposed replacing the specific
recordkeeping requirements in NASD Rule 3110(b) with a more general
recordkeeping requirement. One commenter requested additional guidance
on the documentation requirement; \38\ however, FINRA is unable to
provide specific guidance to a recordkeeping requirement that will vary
with the adaptive practices of firms in meeting the principle-based
requirements of the rule. Each member must retain sufficient
documentation to demonstrate that it has complied with the policies and
procedures that it has in place. Because there will no longer be
uniform treatment of these types of orders and different firms will
have different procedures under the proposal, there can be no uniform
recordkeeping requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Comments on Proposed Supplementary Material .09 (Regular and
Rigorous Review of Execution Quality)
    Five commenters addressed proposed Supplementary Material .09,
which codifies the obligations of some firms to regularly and
rigorously review execution quality.\39\ One commenter questioned the
rationale of codifying these obligations, which are already ``well
understood'' by the industry and asserted that codification would take
them away from being ``fluid and evolving'' standards and make them
more rigid and difficult to change.\40\ FINRA disagrees. As noted
above, the proposed Supplementary Material does not alter existing
obligations or standards, and the language of the proposed provision is
sufficiently flexible to allow the obligations to evolve along with the
markets. Although the commenter expressed concern about the ability to
change or amend the provision once it is codified within a FINRA rule,
the general obligations of regular and rigorous review have not changed
substantially since FINRA issued Notice to Members 01-22 in 2001.
Moreover, FINRA retains the ability to continue to publish interpretive
guidance on the requirements or amend the requirements through
rulemaking even if their general contours are codified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Cutter, First Allied, NAIBD, Pink OTC, SIFMA.
    \40\ SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters suggested that the requirement to periodically
review the execution quality of orders not apply to introducing firms
with respect to those orders placed through their clearing firm.\41\
One commenter stated that, because of the lack of expertise among
introducing firms, the requirement leads to a ``pro forma review
process'' that does not meaningfully enhance investor protection.\42\
These commenters seem to suggest that, because the clearing firm itself
has a best execution obligation with respect to the order, the
introducing firm should be relieved of its best execution obligation.
FINRA does not find these comments persuasive and has consistently
rejected this rationale. Every member has an obligation to ensure that
each customer order it handles receives best execution, and regular and
rigorous review is one method by which firms that route orders to other
members (or execute orders internally) can meet their best execution
obligations. That is, regular and rigorous reviews are one way for
order entry firms and firms that internalize order flow to satisfy
their best execution obligations in lieu of an order-by-order best
execution analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Cutter, FSI.
    \42\ FSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters requested that FINRA provide more specific
guidance about the types of information introducing firms should review
(and clearing firms should provide) and the frequency of the reviews so
that introducing firms can ensure they meet their obligations if they
choose to rely on their clearing firm.\43\ One of these commenters
asked FINRA to confirm whether a review of ``those reports prepared and
disclosed by executing firms in meeting their obligations under order
routing regulations will suffice for the purposes of this review.''
\44\ FINRA has previously provided guidance on these questions, and the
guidance will continue to be applicable. For example, in Notice to
Members 01-22, FINRA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See FSI, NAIBD, SIFMA.
    \44\ NAIBD.

    In cases where the introducing broker/dealer is relying on the
review conducted by its clearing firm or other executing broker/
dealer, the introducing firm must ensure that such analysis is
thorough, considers the execution quality of a broad range of market
centers, measures the execution quality provided by the clearing or
executing firm for the introducing firm's own orders, and considers
market centers to which the

clearing or executing firm currently routes its order flow as well
as market centers other than those to which the clearing or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
executing firm currently routes its order flow.

As is the case currently, an introducing firm must review information
sufficient to conclude that its clearing firm is providing best
execution and is conducting a thorough regular and rigorous review.
While in some instances a review of required regulatory reports may
suffice, in other instances such a review may not. For example, if a
review of required regulatory order routing reports raised concerns or
issues, then FINRA would expect the introducing firm to conduct a
further inquiry and review. This is currently the case under existing
FINRA rules and would remain the case under the proposed rule change.
As FINRA stated in Regulatory Notice 08-80, in codifying regular and
rigorous review standards, FINRA did not intend to alter existing
requirements or obligations.
    One commenter asked FINRA to state that regular and rigorous review
is only required with respect to ``retail-sized, held orders in equity
securities for which execution quality statistics are required to be
published by market centers pursuant to Rule 605 of Regulation NMS.''
\45\ The commenter further stated that regular and rigorous reviews are
not appropriate for not held orders and that ``the assessment of
execution quality for not held orders is effectively done on an
individual, order-by-order basis, in real-time and/or on a post-trade
basis.'' FINRA does not view regular and rigorous review as ever being
``required.'' Rather, regular and rigorous review permits order entry
firms and firms that internalize order flow to meet their best
execution obligations through the use of a periodic regular and
rigorous review of execution quality; this review stands in the place
of an order-by-order review. Therefore, conducting an order-by-order,
individual review for not held orders would eliminate the need for a
regular and rigorous review of those order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that ``efficiency of execution'' should be
added as a factor for members to consider when conducting their regular
and rigorous review.\46\ FINRA views ``efficiency of execution,'' not
as a separate factor, but rather as a term that would encompass several
of the existing listed factors (e.g., speed and size of execution).
Moreover, the list in the Supplementary Material is intended to be
illustrative, not exhaustive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Scottrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also suggests that the factors of speed, size, and
transaction costs should be qualified by a materiality standard. These
factors are already qualified by a materiality standard under proposed
Supplementary Material .09(b), which requires that, ``[i]n conducting
its regular and rigorous review, a member must determine whether any
material differences in execution quality exist among the markets
trading the security * * *.'' The Supplementary Material then goes on
to identify a number of factors a member should consider when reviewing
and comparing execution quality. However, as proposed in Regulatory
Notice 08-80, the first two factors identified included an additional
reference to ``materiality.'' To avoid confusion, FINRA has removed the
additional reference to materiality in the first two factors to avoid
the misimpression that the other factors do not have a materiality
standard.
(5) Comments on Proposed Supplementary Material .08 (Customer
Instructions Regarding Order Handling)
    Proposed Supplementary Material .08 addresses a member's
obligations when a customer directs, on an unsolicited basis, the
member to execute the order in a specific market. Only one commenter
opposed the proposed Supplementary Material, stating that ``it is the
firm's responsibility to always make a best execution determination in
all cases whether specifically instructed to route its order to a
particular market or not.'' \47\ FINRA agrees that members have best
execution responsibilities with respect to each and every customer
order the member accepts; however, when a customer directs a member to
execute an order in a specific market, the construct of paragraph
(a)(1) of the rule is no longer applicable. As noted above, paragraph
(a)(1) of the rule requires a member to use reasonable diligence to
ascertain the best market for the subject security. When a customer
specifies the market, that is no longer a determination that the member
can make. However, the Supplementary Material makes clear that members
are still required to handle the order promptly and in accordance with
its terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ First Allied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the ``unsolicited'' requirement not
apply to orders involving foreign securities.\48\ The commenter
suggested that a customer should not be deprived of the firm's advice
in this area. The rule was not intended to, and does not, deprive a
customer of a firm's advice regarding routing decisions; rather, it
simply recognizes that in those cases where a customer has made its own
routing decision, the member cannot choose a different market for
execution without violating the terms of the order. If a member, by
contrast, undertakes to advise the customer on routing venues, it
should be bound by general best execution obligations with respect to
the execution of that order. In addition, however, the commenter stated
that a firm and a customer ``may on the basis of long usage and course
of dealing have concluded that the customer's orders for foreign
securities are most effectively executed in the principal market for
such securities in the issuer's home country.'' In the alternative, the
commenter suggested that the exception could be available when a
customer has instructed that an order for a foreign security be
executed in the security's principal market. FINRA agrees with the
commenter to the extent that a customer need not provide the direction
on an order-by-order basis. Thus, for example, the rule would apply if
a customer has made a more general instruction with respect to
particular types of orders or securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Sidley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, while supporting the proposal, suggested that it be
broadened to include orders where the broker's judgment and discretion
are considerably restricted because of other order terms and
conditions.\49\ FINRA does not agree that the exception should be so
broadened. Paragraph (a)(1)(E) of the proposed rule already notes that
one of the factors in any analysis of best execution is the terms and
conditions of the order. FINRA believes that the exception should only
apply in those circumstances where the ultimate decision that must be
made with respect to the order (i.e., execution venue) is specifically
directed by the customer. All other terms and conditions are adequately
addressed in the rule itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Comments on Proposed FINRA Rule 6438
    FINRA received several comments regarding the proposal to move the
same quote requirements in NASD Rule 2320(f)(2) into a separate
rule.\50\ One commenter suggested that FINRA amend the provision to
require ``similar,'' rather than the ``same,'' quotes and questioned
the application of the provision if a member has multiple trading desks
that quote the

same security.\51\ Another commenter \52\ suggested that FINRA not
alter the definitions of the terms ``quotation medium'' and ``inter-
dealer quotation system'' from the way these terms are laid out in
Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(e).\53\ This commenter also suggested that
the same quote requirements apply to inter-dealer quotation systems
rather than quotation mediums. As noted above, at this time, FINRA is
proposing to transfer the provisions into a separate rule without
change; FINRA believes that the objectives behind adopting this
requirement are still valid and is not proposing to amend this
provision at this time. In addition, by relocating the provision into
the FINRA Rule 6400 Series, the defined terms at issue are already
defined in existing FINRA Rule 6420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Pink OTC, SIFMA.
    \51\ SIFMA.
    \52\ Pink OTC.
    \53\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-11(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) Other Comments
    Some commenters provided comments on portions of the rule that
FINRA has not proposed to change. For example, one commenter requested
that the language in proposed Rule 5310(d) be updated to refer to
defined industry terms (e.g., ``clearing firm'') rather than
descriptions (e.g., ``third party pursuant to established correspondent
relationships under which executions are confirmed directly to the
member acting as agent for the customer'').\54\ Although the term
``clearing firm'' is generally understood, it is not defined in any
FINRA rule; consequently, FINRA determined to retain the existing
descriptions to avoid any unintended changes in the scope of the rule
or any misunderstandings regarding the use of the term. In light of
this comment, however, FINRA has replaced the references to
``introducing firms'' and ``clearing firms'' in Supplementary Material
.09(c) in addition to clarifying the scope of that provision as
proposed in Regulatory Notice 08-80.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ FSI.
    \55\ See SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, one commenter asked FINRA to clarify the meaning of
proposed FINRA Rule 5310(c) (current NASD Rule 2320(c)) regarding costs
borne by a customer.\56\ That provision states that ``the channeling of
customers' orders through a broker's broker or third party pursuant to
established correspondent relationships under which executions are
confirmed directly to the member acting as agent for the customer * * *
are not prohibited if the cost of such service is not borne by the
customer.'' The commenter asked whether the provision applied to all
costs or, rather, to additional or undue costs. In light of this
comment, and the fact that the SEC has approved revisions to the
interpositioning provisions in the Best Execution Rule that address
sending orders through third parties,\57\ FINRA is proposing to delete
the sentence from the Best Execution Rule. FINRA believes that the
issues the provision covers are adequately addressed in the revised
interpositioning provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NAIBD.
    \57\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60635 (September 8,
2009), 74 FR 47302 (September 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-052. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make publicly
available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-
052 and should be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27277 Filed 10-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12303-12305]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0154]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; USS PORTLAND Commissioning, Portland,
OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated
area for certain waters of the Willamette River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Port of Portland Terminal 2, Portland, OR during a naval vessel
commissioning ceremony on April 14-23, 2018. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port

Columbia River or a designated representative. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0154 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, MSU Portland
Waterways;<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, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 14-23, 2018 the U.S. Navy will be conducting ceremonial
activities for the commissioning of the USS PORTLAND. The commissioning
activities will take place at the Port of Portland Terminal 2, with a
regulated area extending approximately 500 yards on each side of the
naval vessel on the Willamette River in Portland, OR. To provide for
the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels,
the Coast Guard proposes to temporarily restrict vessel traffic during
the commissioning activities.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within the regulated area, during, and after
the scheduled event and to prevent any disruption to the commissioning
ceremonies. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1233.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated area from 11:59
p.m. on April 14, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2018. The regulated
area would cover all navigable waters at Port of Portland Terminal 2 on
the Willamette River. Specifically, the navigable waters bounded by the
following points: 45[deg]33.34' N, 122[deg]42.34' W; 45[deg]33.12' N,
122[deg]42.51' W; 45[deg]32.71' N, 122[deg]41.37' W; and 45[deg]32.58'
N, 122[deg]41.54' W. The duration of the regulated area is intended to
ensure the safety of vessels, bystanders, and the navigable waters and
to prevent any disruption of the events associated with the
commissioning ceremony of the USS PORTLAND. The Coast Guard, at its
discretion, would allow the passage of affected vessels. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the regulated area. Although this proposal
would prevent traffic from transiting portions of the Willamette River,
the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the
limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect and would
allow waterway users to enter or transit through the zone when deemed
safe by the on-scene patrol commander. Moreover, the Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the regulated area.

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
proposed rule would 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
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a regulated area lasting less than 10 days that would limit
entry within approximately 500 yards of the USS PORTLAND. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A preliminary Memorandum for Record supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T13-0154 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T13-0154  Special Local Regulations; USS PORTLAND
Commissioning, Portland, OR.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is designated as a regulated
area: All navigable waters of the Willamette River within 500 yards of
the USS PORTLAND while moored at the Port of Portland Terminal 2,
specifically the navigable waters bounded by the following points:
45[deg]33.34' N, 122[deg]42.34' W; 45[deg]33.12' N, 122[deg]42.51' W;
45[deg]32.71' N, 122[deg]41.37' W; and 45[deg]32.58' N, 122[deg]41.54'
W.
    (b) Special local regulations. (1) The Coast Guard may patrol the
regulated area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol
Commander (PATCOM). PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8
MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM.'' Official patrol vessels may consist
of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law
enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Columbia River.
    (2) Entrance into the regulated area is prohibited unless
authorized by the PATCOM. The PATCOM may control the movement of all
vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled to stop by an
official patrol vessel, a vessel must come to an immediate stop and
comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a
lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both.
    (3) All vessels permitted to transit the regulated area must
maintain a separation of at least 100 yards away from the USS PORTLAND.
    (c) Enforcement period. This regulated area is subject to
enforcement from 11:59 p.m. on April 14, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on April
23, 2018.

D.G. Throop,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-05685 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31000-31001]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0010]

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the 1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2012-0010) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal
information, in the public docket, which may be made available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29
U.S.C. 657).
    The following sections describe who uses the information collected
under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of
these requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious
injury by ensuring that employment has been tested and is in safe
operating condition.
    The information collection requirements in the DBCP Standard
provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects
associated with exposure to DBCP. In this regard, the DBCP Standard
requires employers to: monitor workers' exposure to DBCP; monitor
worker health and provide workers with information about their
exposures and the health effects of exposure to DBCP.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to
protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection, and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    EPA canceled the registration of 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane in
1985. According to the TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) (2017), a single
facility was associated with 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane in the United
States in 2016. This facility is a waste disposal company in Ohio.
(https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp36-c5.pdf). This information
will not affect the 1-hour place holder for burden purposes because
there are less than 10 respondents (industry) that currently follow the
standard. There are no program changes or adjustments associated with
this ICR.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: The 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard (29 CFR
1910.1044).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0101.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 1.
    Number of Responses: 1.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: N/A.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); if your comments, including
attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. or (3) by hard copy. Please note: While
OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process submissions by
regular mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed
to the public and not able to receive submissions to the docket by
hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All comments,
attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0010). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so that the agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for information about materials not available from the website, and for
assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020
(85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 10, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-10797 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63761-63762]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-6-000.
    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC,
Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC, Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Noble
Chateaugay Windpark, LLC, Noble Great Plains Windpark, LLC, Noble
Wethersfield Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and
Expedited Consideration of Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-7-000.

    Applicants: Astoria Generating Company, L.P., Crete Energy Venture,
LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, New Covert Generating Company,
LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Astoria
Generating Company, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2952-005.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-10-08_SSR Cost Allocation
Compliance Filing to be effective 4/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2579-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-10-08_SA 2632 Amendment to
Facilities Charge Template to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-746-002.
    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Reactive Refund Report to be effective
10/8/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-36-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-8_PSC-WAPA-Con Fac
Agrmt-359-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 2/24/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-37-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment AE Revisions
Regarding MWP Formulas for Reg-Up and Reg-Down Mileage to be effective
10/9/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-38-000.
    Applicants: Kingbird Solar A, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities and Common
Ownership Agreements and Request for Waivers to be effective 10/9/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-39-000.
    Applicants: Kingbird Solar B, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities and Common
Ownership Agreements and Request for Waivers to be effective 10/9/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/8/15.
    Accession Number: 20151008-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 8, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26703 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P