[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29635-29636]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11973]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9349-8]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Several Student
Services Contractors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA will be authorizing several Student Services contractors
to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all
sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the
information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on or about April 30,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Pamela Moseley, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8956; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information about this clearance
contact Scott M. Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) in
Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors
are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed
through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the
building and returned upon departure.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under Order Number EP-12-H-000389, a Student Services contractor
will assist the Office of Science Policy (OSCP), Office of Research and
Development (ORD) in the research on hydraulic fracturing impact on
drinking water. This includes data analysis of data from nine hydraulic
fracturing companies and nine well owner/operators. In time several
other Student Services contractors will be involved in this activity
under different order numbers. No further notice will be given for
these persons clearances.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
Order Number EP-12-H-000389, Student Services contractors will require
access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform
successfully the duties specified under the contract. Student Services
contractors personnel will be given access to information submitted to
EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed
or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all

sections of TSCA that EPA may provide Student Services contractors
access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access
to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in
accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until August 30,
2014. If the contracts are extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contracts without further notice.
    The Student Services contractors personnel will be required to sign
nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security
procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    Dated: May 5, 2012.
Mario Caraballo,
Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2012-11973 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47541-47546]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19382]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75589; File No. SR-CFE-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice
of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Disruptive Trading Practices

August 3, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2015 CBOE Futures
Exchange, LLC (``CFE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by CFE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. CFE also
has filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC''). CFE filed a written certification with the CFTC
under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') \2\ on July
16, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to disruptive
trading practices. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the
application of the rule amendments to security futures that are
permitted for trading on CFE. The only security futures that previously
traded on CFE were traded under Chapter 16 of CFE's Rulebook, which is
applicable to Individual Stock Based and Exchange-Traded Fund Based
Volatility Index security futures. No security futures are currently
listed for trading on CFE. The text of the proposed rule change is
attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached to the
publication of this notice.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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.
CFE 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 CFE rule amendments included as part of
this rule change is to amend CFE Rule 620 (Disruptive Practices) and
add CFE Policy and Procedure XVIII (Disruptive Trading Practices (Rule
620)) to provide further guidance on prohibited disruptive trading
practices. The rule amendments included as part of this rule change are
to apply to all products traded on CFE. As previously noted, no
security futures are currently listed for trading on the Exchange.
    CFE Rule 620 currently prohibits the disruptive practices
enumerated in Section 4c(a)(5) of the CEA,\3\ which were added to the
CEA by Section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act.\4\ Specifically, Section
4c(a)(5) and Rule 620 prohibit any trading, practice, or conduct that
``(A) violates bids or offers; (B) demonstrates intentional or reckless
disregard for the orderly execution of transactions during the closing
period; or (C) is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the
trade as, `spoofing' (bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the
bid or offer before execution).'' Additionally, on May 28, 2013, the
CFTC made effective an interpretive guidance and policy statement
regarding the scope and application of these prohibitions.\5\ The
amendments amend CFE Rule 620 and add CFE Policy and Procedure XVIII to
the Policies and Procedures section of the CFE Rulebook to provide
greater detail regarding the type of activity that is prohibited under
Rule 620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(5).
    \4\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1739, Sec. 747 (2010).
    \5\ Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 78 FR 31890 (May 28,
2013), available at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to CFE Rule 620
    The amendments add new paragraph (b) to Rule 620, which sets forth
particular types of disruptive order entry and trading practices that
CFE considers to be abusive to the orderly conduct of trading or the
fair execution of transactions. Specifically, the amendments add the
following language as new subsection (b) to Rule 620:
    (b) All Orders must be entered for the purpose of executing bona
fide transactions. Additionally, all non-actionable messages must be
entered in good faith for legitimate purposes.
    (i) No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an Order or quote
with the intent, at the time of entry, to cancel the Order or quote
before execution or to modify the Order or quote to avoid execution;
    (ii) No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or
non-actionable message or messages with intent to mislead other market
participants;
    (iii) No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or
non-actionable message or messages with intent to overload, delay, or
disrupt the systems of the Exchange or other market participants; and
    (iv) No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or
non-actionable message with intent to disrupt, or with reckless
disregard for the adverse impact on, the orderly conduct of trading or
the fair execution of transactions.
    The provisions of this Rule apply to all market states, including
the pre-opening period, the closing period, and all trading sessions.
    These amendments are consistent with similar rules and guidance
established and provided by other designated contract markets
(``DCMs'') regarding disruptive practices.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These DCMs are the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and its
affiliated DCMs (``CME''), ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (``ICE'') and
NASDAQ Futures, Inc. (``NFX''), which each submitted self-
certification rule filings to the CFTC pursuant to CFTC Regulation
Sec.  40.6(a) to effectuate their respective changes. Copies of
these filings (CME Submission No. 14-367 (August 28, 2014); ICE
Submission No. 14-144 (December 29, 2014); and NFX Submission No.
15-16 (April 6, 2015)) may be accessed at the CFTC's Web site. CME
amended its filing and submitted CME Submission No. 14-367R on
September 12, 2014. That filing may be accessed at the CME's Web
site.
    The Exchange understands that there is a desire by many market
participants for uniformity and consistency among DCMs to have
similar rules and interpretations regarding disruptive trading
practices. CFE states that this current filing closely tracks the
provisions adopted by CME, ICE and NFX and deviates as needed when
issues or topics addressed by the other DCMs do not apply to CFE,
e.g., CFE does not have all of the same order types as some of the
other DCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New CFE Policy and Procedure XVIII
    The amendments add new CFE Policy and Procedure XVIII, which lists
various factors that the Exchange may consider in assessing whether
conduct violates CFE Rule 620 and provides a non-exhaustive list of
examples of activity considered by CFE to be in violation of Rule 620.
Specifically, the amendments provide the following as new Policy and
Procedure XVIII:
    Rule 620 prohibits disruptive trading practices as described by the
Rule. The following are a non-exclusive list of factors that the
Exchange may consider in assessing whether conduct violates Rule 620.
A. Factors the Exchange May Consider in Assessing Whether Conduct
Violates Rule 620
    The Exchange may consider a variety of factors in assessing whether
conduct violates Rule 620, including, but not limited to:
     Whether the market participant's intent was to induce
others to trade when they otherwise would not;
     whether the market participant's intent was to affect a
price rather than to change the market participant's position;
     whether the market participant's intent was to create
misleading market conditions;
     market conditions in the impacted market(s) and related
markets;
     the effect on other market participants;
     the market participant's historical pattern of activity;
     the market participant's Order \7\ entry and cancellation
activity;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of this Policy and Procedure, all references to
Orders include Orders and quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the size of the Order(s) relative to market conditions at
the time the Order(s) was placed;
     the size of the Order(s) relative to the market
participant's position and/or capitalization;
     the number of Orders;
     the ability of the market participant to manage the risk
associated with the Order(s) if fully executed;
     the duration for which the Order(s) is exposed to the
market;
     the duration between, and frequency of, non-actionable
messages;
     the queue position or priority of the Order in the order
book;
     the prices of preceding and succeeding bids, offers, and
trades;
     the change in the best offer price, best bid price, last
sale price, or other price (such as the Expected Opening Price
(``EOP'')) that results from the entry of the Order; and
     the market participant's activity in related markets.

B. Meaning of the Term ``Misleading'' in the Context of Rule 620(b)(ii)
    The language is intended to be a more specific statement of the
general requirement that market participants are not permitted to act
in violation of just and equitable principles of trade. This section of
the Rule prohibits a market participant from entering Orders or
messages with the intent of creating the false impression of market
depth or market interest. The Exchange generally will find the
requisite intent where the purpose of the participant's conduct was,
for example, to induce another market participant to engage in market
activity.
C. Specific Amount of Time an Order Should Be Exposed to the Market
    Although the amount of time an Order is exposed to the market may
be a factor that is considered when determining whether the Order
constituted a disruptive trading practice, there is no prescribed safe
harbor. The Exchange will consider a variety of factors, including
exposure time, to determine whether an Order or Orders constitute a
disruptive practice.
D. Modification or Cancellation of an Order Once it has Been Entered
    An Order, entered with the intent to execute a bona fide
transaction, that is subsequently modified or cancelled due to a
perceived change in circumstances does not constitute a violation of
Rule 620.
E. Orders Entered by Mistake
    An unintentional, accidental, or ``fat-finger'' Order will not
constitute a violation of Rule 620, but such activity may be a
violation of other Exchange rules, including, but not limited to, Rule
608 (Acts Detrimental to the Exchange; Acts Inconsistent with Just and
Equitable Principles of Trade; Abusive Practices). Market participants
are expected to take steps to mitigate the occurrence of errors, and
their impact on the market. This is particularly true for entities that
run algorithmic trading applications, or otherwise submit large numbers
of automated Orders to the market.
F. Partial Fill of an Order
    While execution of an Order, in part or in full, may be one
indication that an Order was entered in good faith, an execution does
not automatically cause the Order to be considered compliant with Rule
620. Orders must be entered in an attempt to consummate a trade. A
variety of factors may lead to a violative Order ultimately achieving
an execution. The Exchange will consider a multitude of factors in
assessing whether Rule 620 has been violated.
G. Making a Two-Sided Market With Unequal Quantities (e.g., 100 Bid at
10 Offered)
    Market participants are not precluded from making unequal markets
as long as the Orders are entered for the purpose of executing bona
fide transactions. If either (or both) Order(s) are entered with
prohibited intent, including recklessness, such activity will
constitute a violation of Rule 620.
H. Stop Limit Orders Entered for Purposes of Protecting a Position
    Market participants may enter Stop Limit Orders as a means of
minimizing potential losses with the hope that the Order will not be
triggered. However, it must be the intent of the market participant
that the Order will be executed if the specified condition is met. Such
an order entry is not prohibited by this Rule.
I. Entering Order(s) at Various Price Levels Throughout the Order Book
in Order to Gain Queue Position and Subsequently Canceling Those Orders
as the Market Changes
    It is understood that market participants may want to achieve queue
position at certain price levels, and given changing market conditions
may wish to modify or cancel those Orders. In the absence of other
indicia that the Orders were entered for disruptive purposes, they
would not constitute a violation of Rule 620.
J. ``Actionable'' and ``non-actionable messages in relation to rule
620(b)(ii), (iii), and (iv)
    Actionable messages are messages that can be accepted by another
party or otherwise lead to the execution of a trade. An example of an
actionable message is an Order message. Non-actionable messages are
those messages submitted to the Exchange that relate to a non-
actionable event. An example of a non-actionable message is a Request
for Quote.
K. The Exchange's Definition of ``orderly conduct of trading or the
fair execution of transactions''
    Whether a market participant intends to disrupt the orderly conduct
of trading or the fair execution of transactions or demonstrates a
reckless disregard for the orderly conduct of trading or the fair
execution of transactions may be evaluated only in the context of the
specific instrument, market conditions, and other circumstances present
at the time in question. Some of the factors that may be considered in
determining whether there was orderly conduct or the fair execution of
transactions were described by the Commission as follows: ``[A]n
orderly market may be characterized by, among other things, parameters
such as a rational relationship between consecutive prices, a strong
correlation between price changes and the volume of trades, levels of
volatility that do not dramatically reduce liquidity, accurate
relationships between the price of a derivative and the underlying such
as a physical commodity or financial instrument, and reasonable spreads
between contracts for near months and for remote months.''
Antidisruptive Practices Authority, 78 FR at 31,895-96. Volatility
alone, however, will not be presumptively interpreted as disorderly or
disruptive as market volatility can be consistent with markets
performing their price discovery function.
L. Entering Orders That May Be Considered Large for a Particular
Market, and Thus May Have a Potential Impact on the Market
    The size of an Order or cumulative Orders may be deemed to violate
Rule 620 if the entry results in disorderliness in the markets,
including, but not limited to, price or volume aberrations. Market
participants should further be aware that the size of an Order may be
deemed to violate Rule 620 if that Order distorts the integrity of the
settlement prices. Accordingly, market participants should be cognizant
of the market characteristics of the products they trade and ensure
that their Order entry activity does not result in market disruptions.
Exigent circumstances may be considered in determining whether a
violation of Rule 620 has occurred and, if so, what the appropriate
sanction should be for such violation.
M. Meaning of the ``closing period'' in Rule 620
    ``Closing period'' typically refers to the period during which
transactions, bids, and offers are reviewed for purposes of informing
settlement price determinations.
N. Factors the Exchange Will Consider in Determining if an Act Was Done
With the Prohibited Intent or Reckless Disregard of the Consequences
    Proof of intent is not limited to instances in which a market
participant admits the market participant's state of mind. Where the
conduct was such that it more likely than not was intended to produce a
prohibited disruptive consequence, intent may be found. Claims of
ignorance, or lack of

knowledge, are not acceptable defenses to intentional or reckless
conduct. Recklessness has been commonly defined as conduct that
``departs so far from the standards of ordinary care that it is very
difficult to believe the actor was not aware of what he or she was
doing.'' See Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. CFTC, 850 F.2d 742, 748
(D.C. Cir. 1988).
O. Orders Entered for the Purpose of Igniting Momentum in the Market
    A ``momentum ignition'' strategy occurs when a market participant
initiates a series of Orders or trades in an attempt to ignite a price
movement in that market or a related market.
    This conduct may be deemed to violate Rule 620 if it is determined
the intent was to disrupt the orderly conduct of trading or the fair
execution of transactions, if the conduct was reckless, or if the
conduct distorted the integrity of the determination of settlement
prices. Further, this activity may violate Rule 620(b)(i) if the
momentum igniting Orders were intended to be canceled before execution,
or if the Orders were intended to mislead others. If the conduct was
intended to create artificially high or low prices, this may also
constitute a violation of Rule 603 (Market Manipulation).
P. ``Flipping'' Orders
    Flipping is defined as the entry of Orders or trades for the
purpose of causing turns of the market and the creation of volatility
and/or instability.
    A ``flip'' Order typically has two main characteristics. First, it
is an aggressor Order (i.e., an Order that takes liquidity). Second,
shortly before the entry of the Order, the market participant cancels
an Order(s) on the opposite side of the market, typically at the same
price as the aggressor Order. The market participant, for example, has
flipped from offering to bidding at the same price. The Exchange
recognizes there are many variables that can cause a market participant
to change that market participant's perspective of the market. This
Rule, therefore, does not prohibit a market participant from changing
that market participant's bias from short (long) to long (short).
    Flipping activity may, however, be disruptive to the marketplace.
For example, repeated instances of a market participant entering
flipping Orders that are each large enough to turn the market (i.e.,
being of a sufficient quantity to sweep the entire quantity on the book
at the particular price level and create a new best bid or best offer
price with any remaining quantity from the aggressor flipping Order)
can be disruptive to the orderly conduct of trading or the fair
execution of transactions. In considering whether this conduct violates
Rule 620, the Exchange would consider, among other factors:
     The impact on other market participants;
     price fluctuations;
     market conditions in the impacted market(s) and related
markets;
     the participant's activity in related markets;
     whether the flip involved the cancellation of a large
sized Order(s) relative to the existing bid or offer depth; and
     whether repeated flipping turns the market back and forth
(e.g., the first flip turns the market in favor of the offer (bid) and
the second flip turns the market in favor of the bid (offer)).
Q. Cancelling an Order Via the Exchange's Self-Trade Prevention
Functionality or Other Self-Match Prevention Technology
    The means by which an Order is cancelled, in and of itself, is not
an indicator of whether an Order violates Rule 620. The use of self-
trade prevention functionality in a manner that causes a disruption to
the market may constitute a violation of Rule 620. Further, if the
resting Order that was cancelled was non-bona fide ab initio, it would
be considered to have been entered in violation of Rule 620.
R. Type of Pre-Open Activity Prohibited by Rule 620
    Orders entered during the pre-opening period and opening rotation
period must be entered for the purpose of executing bona fide
transactions upon the opening of the market.
    The entry and cancellation of Orders during the pre-opening period
and opening rotation period for the purpose of either manipulating the
EOP or attempting to identify the depth of the order book at different
price levels is prohibited and may be deemed a violation of Rule 620 or
other rules.
    Other activity related to the pre-opening period may also be
considered disruptive, including but not limited to the entry of orders
prior to the commencement of the pre-opening period in an attempt to
``time'' the price-time priority queue for Trade at Settlement
(``TAS'') transactions, or other similar purposes.
S. Orders Entered Into the CBOE System for the Purpose of Testing, Such
as To Verify a Connection to the CBOE System or a Data Feed From the
CBOE System
    The entering of an Order(s) without the intent to execute a bona
fide transaction, including for the purpose of verifying connectivity
or checking a data feed, is not permissible. CFE provides a testing
environment and test symbols in CBOE Command for TPHs to use for the
purpose of testing.
T. Creation or Execution of User-Defined Spreads for the Purposes of
Deceiving or Disadvantaging Other Market Participants
    Trading Privilege Holders are not permitted to attempt to create
any user-defined spreads (i.e., spreads created by Trading Privilege
Holders on their own) in the CBOE System. If a Trading Privilege Holder
would like a type of CFE spread to be created that is not already
available in the CBOE System, the Trading Privilege Holder should
contact the Help Desk to request creation of the spread.
    Market participants are reminded that knowingly creating and/or
trading spreads in a manner intended to deceive or unfairly
disadvantage other market participants is considered a violation of
Rule 620.
U. Examples of Prohibited Activity
    The following is a non-exhaustive list of various examples of
conduct that may be found to violate Rule 620.
     A market participant enters one or more Orders to generate
selling or buying interest in a specific contract. By entering the
Orders, often in substantial size relative to the contract's overall
pending order volume, the market participant creates a misleading and
artificial appearance of buy- or sell-side pressure. The market
participant places these large Orders at or near the best bid and offer
prevailing in the market at the time. The market participant benefits
from the market's reaction by either receiving an execution on an
already resting Order on the opposite side of the book from the larger
Order(s) or by obtaining an execution by entering an opposing side
Order subsequent to the market's reaction. Once the smaller Orders are
filled, the market participant cancels the large Orders that had been
designed to create the false appearance of market activity. Placing a
bona fide Order on one side of the market while entering Order(s) on
the other side of the market without intention to trade those Orders
violates Rule 620.
     A market participant places buy (or sell) Orders that the
market participant

intends to have executed, and then immediately enters numerous sell (or
buy) Orders for the purpose of attracting interest to the resting
Orders. The market participant placed these subsequent Orders to induce
or trick other market participants to execute against the initial
Order. Immediately after the execution against the resting Order, the
market participant cancels the open Orders.
     A market participant enters one or more Orders in a
particular market (Market A) to identify algorithmic activity in a
related market (Market B). Knowing how the algorithm will react to
order activity in Market A, the participant first enters an Order or
Orders in Market B that the market participant anticipates would be
filled opposite the algorithm when ignited. The participant then enters
an Order or Orders in Market A for the purpose of igniting the
algorithm and creating momentum in Market B. This results in the market
participant's Order(s) in Market B being filled opposite the algorithm.
This conduct violates Rule 620(b)(i), as the Orders in Market A were
not intended to be executed, and Rule 620(b)(ii), as the Orders in
Market A were intended to mislead participants in related markets. If
the conduct resulted in a disruption to the orderly execution of
transactions, it may also violate Rule 620(b)(iv).
     A market participant enters a large aggressor buy (sell)
Order at the best offer (bid) price, trading opposite the resting sell
(buy) Orders in the book, which results in the remainder of the
original aggressor Order resting first in the queue at the new best bid
(offer). As the market participant anticipated and intended, other
participants join the market participant's best bid (offer) behind the
market participant in the queue. The market participant then enters a
large aggressor sell (buy) Order into the market participant's now
resting buy (sell) Order at the top of the book. The market
participant's use of CFE's Self-Trade Prevention functionality or other
wash blocking functionality cancels the market participant's resting
buy (sell) Order, such that market participant's aggressor sell (buy)
Order then trades opposite the Orders that joined and were behind the
market participant's best bid (offer) in the book.
     A market participant places large quantity Orders during
the pre-opening period in an effort to artificially increase or
decrease the EOP with the intent to attract other market participants.
Once others join the market participant's bid or offer, the market
participant cancels the market participant's Orders shortly before the
opening.
     During the pre-opening period, a market participant enters
a large Order priced at a bid higher than the existing best bid or at
an offer lower than the existing best offer, and continues to
systematically enter successive Orders priced further through the book
until it causes a movement in the best bid or best offer. These Orders
are subsequently cancelled. The market participant continues to employ
this strategy on both sides of the market for the purpose of
determining the depth of support at a specific price level for the
product before the market opens.
     A market participant enters a large number of messages for
the purpose of overloading the quotation systems of other market
participants with excessive market data messages to create
``information arbitrage.''
     A market participant enters messages for the purpose of
creating latencies in the market or in information dissemination by the
Exchange for the purpose of disrupting the orderly functioning of the
market.
    As with the amendments to CFE Rule 620, these amendments are
consistent with similar rules and guidance established and provided by
other DCMs regarding disruptive practices.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) \10\ and 6(b)(7) \11\ in particular in
that it is designed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
     to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
     to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and
     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.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
strengthen its ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization by providing further guidance regarding the
type of activity that is prohibited under CFE Rule 620. CFE Rule 620
currently prohibits the disruptive trading practices that were added to
the CEA by the Dodd-Frank Act and are codified under Section 4c(a)(5)
of the CEA. The proposed rule change sets forth particular types of
disruptive order entry and trading practices that are prohibited under
Rule 620, lists various factors that the Exchange may consider in
assessing whether conduct violates Rule 620, and provides a non-
exhaustive list of examples of activity considered by CFE to be in
violation of Rule 620. By providing this further guidance, the proposed
rule change not only will provide greater clarity to market
participants regarding prohibited disruptive trading practices but also
will strengthen the Exchange's disciplinary program for these types of
violative behavior. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the amendments regarding disruptive trading practices will
apply equally to all market participants. In addition, the proposed
rule change will promote consistency in guidance for market
participants regarding disruptive trading practices by paralleling
similar guidance provided by other DCMs.

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

    CFE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change will enhance CFE's
ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any
aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its
competitors, or among market participants. Instead, the proposed rule
change is designed to make CFE's disruptive trading practice rules
consistent with the existing rules and guidance published by other
DCMs.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change will become effective on July 30, 2015. At
any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed
rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may
summarily abrogate the proposed rule

change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CFE-2015-005 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-CFE-2015-005. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CFE-2015-005, and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19382 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56850-56852]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23378]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65283; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for Trading Securities Listed on
the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

September 7, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 1, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its 2011 Price List (``Price List'')
for certain fees relating to trading pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP'') of securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC (``Nasdaq''). The proposed amendment to the Exchange's Price List
for equities is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for certain fees
relating to trading Nasdaq securities pursuant to UTP. The amended
pricing will become operative on September 1, 2011.
    Currently, market participants, Supplemental Liquidity Providers
(``SLPs'') and Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') are charged a fee of
$0.0027 per share for orders in Nasdaq securities with a share price of
$1 or more traded pursuant to UTP that take liquidity. Under the
proposal, there will be a fee of $0.0004 per share for orders that take
liquidity.
    Currently, market participants and DMMs are charged a fee of
$0.0029 per share for orders in Nasdaq securities with a share price of
$1 or more that route to other markets when reduced fee volume
requirements are not met. Under the proposal, there would be a fee of
$0.0025 per share for such orders.
    Market participants, other than DMMs and SLPs, that provide
liquidity in Nasdaq securities with a share price of $1 or more traded
pursuant to UTP are currently paid a rebate of $0.0030 per share. Under
the proposal, such market participants will be paid a rebate of $0.0010
per share.
    Currently, for orders in Nasdaq securities with a share price of $1
or more traded pursuant to UTP that provide liquidity, DMMs, as well as
SLPs that meet their quoting requirements pursuant to Rule 107B are
paid a rebate of $0.0031 per share, and SLPs that do not meet their
quoting requirements are paid a rebate of $0.0030 per share for orders
that provide liquidity. Under the proposal, the rebate will be $0.0011
per share for orders that provide liquidity for SLPs that meet their
quoting requirements while SLPs that provide liquidity but do not meet
their quoting requirements will be paid a rebate of $0.0010 per share.
The rebate will be $0.0020 per share for orders that provide liquidity
for DMMs.
    Currently, market participants and SLPs are paid a rebate of
$0.0036 per share for executions of displayed liquidity in Nasdaq
securities with a share price of $1 or more when they are adding
liquidity in orders that originally display a minimum of 2,000 shares
with a trading price of at least $5.00 per share, as long as the order
is not cancelled in an amount that would reduce the original displayed
amount below 2,000 shares. Under the proposal, such market participants
and SLPs will be paid a rebate of $0.0020 per share.
    Currently, DMMs receive a rebate of $0.0036 per share in Nasdaq
securities with a share price of $1 or more traded pursuant to UTP for
executions of the displayed portions of s-Quotes that provide liquidity
and display 2,000 shares or more at the time of execution with a
trading price of at least $5.00 per share. Under the proposal, DMMs
will be paid a rebate of $0.0020 per share.
    In a rule filing submitted on March 29, 2011,\4\ the Exchange
adopted a new tier with a reduced ``take'' fee of $0.0019 per share
(compared with $0.0027 then in effect) and a reduced routing fee of
$0.0019 per share (compared with $0.0029 then in effect) for market
participants and DMMs that meet certain average daily executed volume
requirements in either shares or a combination of shares and contracts
traded on the NYSE Amex options market. Under the proposal, this tier
and the related routing fee will be

eliminated for all Nasdaq securities traded pursuant to UTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64195 (April 5,
2011), 75 FR 20428 (April 12, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated member organizations will be charged
the same amount and access to the Exchange's market is offered on fair
and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the reduction of fees for taking liquidity, the
Exchange believes that the reduction of fees will attract more volume
to the Exchange from participants that are seeking to lower their
overall transaction costs and thereby will result in a more competitive
market in the trading of Nasdaq securities pursuant to UTP.
Additionally, the approach for lowering fees for taking liquidity was
previously adopted by NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. in 2009 in Tape A and C
securities, lowering the fee for taking liquidity from $0.0014 per
share to a rebate of $0.0006 per share.\7\ The Exchange further
believes that lowering the rebate for DMMs, SLPs, and market
participants is appropriate in light of the reduction of fees for
taking liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59682 (Apr. 1,
2009), 74 FR 16015 (Apr. 8, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ OMX BX-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to lowering the fee for routing to other markets to
$0.0025, the Exchange notes that the practice of offering routing fees
at a discount to the fees of taking liquidity at most other markets has
been previously adopted by other markets, including BATS BYX with its
CYCLE routing fee of $0.0028 per share.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, available at http://batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BYX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the reduction in rebates to market participants,
SLPs, and DMMs for providing liquidity in 2,000 or more share orders
for securities priced at $5 or more, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rebates are fair given that the Exchange is reducing the fee
for taking liquidity. The Exchange believes the fee change will attract
more liquidity, lower transaction costs, and improve overall trading.
    The Exchange believes that maintaining a tier that allows market
participants, SLPs, and DMMs to qualify for a reduced fee for taking
liquidity will no longer be necessary as the fee for taking liquidity
was greatly reduced.
    With respect to the higher rebate of $0.0020 per share for DMMs
providing liquidity compared with the rebate of $0.0011 per share for
SLPs providing liquidity in stocks in which they meet their quoting
requirements, the Exchange notes that the approach of paying DMMs a
higher rebate than SLPs has been previously adopted by the New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') with NYSE DMMs receiving rebates of up to
$0.0035 per share compared with NYSE SLPs receiving rebates of up to
$0.0022 per share.\9\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates
are fair given the greater DMM obligations compared to SLP obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58921 (November 7,
2008), 73 FR 68478 (November 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-111) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
establish system of rebates for Designated Market Makers); 63642
(January 4, 2011), 76 FR 1653 (January 11, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2010-87)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to amend the Exchange Price List).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive
environment because it will broaden the conditions under which
customers may qualify for higher liquidity provider credits.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge imposed on its members by the Exchange. At any time within
60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEAmex-2011-67 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-NYSEAmex-2011-67. 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 the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-67 and should
be submitted on or before October 5, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23378 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23218-23220]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0320]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio
Rivers, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for parts of the navigable waters of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. This action is necessary to ensure safety
of life on these navigable waters during the weekend of the Luke Bryan
concert at Heinz Field. Persons and vessels are prohibited from
loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting in any
manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative. In
addition, persons and vessels are prohibited from loitering, anchoring,
stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from any riverbank unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or
a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 p.m. on June 29, 2018 through noon
on July 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0320 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-
0807, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
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

    Heinz Field has notified the Coast Guard that it would be holding a
concert from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. Heinz Field is located
in close proximity to the banks of the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers, which
are high vessel traffic areas used by both commercial and recreational
vessels. Due to the proximity of Heinz Field to these waterways, it
will be a destination for many recreational vessels that will anchor
and loiter throughout the concert weekend of June 29, 2018 to July 1,
2018. In response, on April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation;
Monongahela (MM 0.22), Allegheny (MM 0.8), and Ohio Rivers (0.8),
Pittsburgh, PA (83 FR 16808). There we stated why we issued the NPRM,
and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this
concert. During the comment period that ended May 2, 2018, we received
no comments.
    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 the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety concerns and
hazards that could occur in this area during the concert.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has
determined that this special local regulation is necessary to maintain
an open navigation channel and ensure the safety of vessels on these
navigable waters during the concert weekend. The Coast Guard is
concerned about possible collisions that could occur in this area and
the impact of vessel congestion on maritime commerce due to transit
delays. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of
vessels on the navigable waters adjacent to Heinz Field, the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers before, during, and after the Luke Bryan
concert weekend.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April
17, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a special local regulation from 4 p.m. on
June 29, 2018 through noon on July 1, 2018. The special local
regulation covers all navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela,
and Ohio Rivers between the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker
(MM) 0.8, Allegheny River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22,
Monongahela River, and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8,
Ohio River. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety
of vessels on these navigable waters during the concert weekend. This
special local regulation applies to any vessel operating within the
area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel engaged in
law enforcement, servicing aids to navigation, or surveying,
maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area. No vessel
is permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in any
manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. In addition, no vessel or person is
permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift more than 100 feet
from any riverbank unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. Persons and vessels seeking entry into the regulated
area must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter
this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply
with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the 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.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs
through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated as a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the special local regulation. The special local regulation
will impact a small section of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio
Rivers, less than three total miles. Moreover, the special local
regulation does not stop vessels from transiting the area, it only
establish certain areas where vessels are prohibited from loitering,
anchoring, stopping, or drifting. Finally, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to
enter 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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
a special local regulation covering less than 3 miles and lasting
approximately 3 days. It will prohibit persons and vessels from
loitering, anchoring, stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from any
riverbank or act in a manner that impedes the passage of another vessel
to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    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 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.T08-0320 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-0320  Special Local Regulation; Monongahela River (MM
0.22), Allegheny River (MM 0.8), and Ohio River (MM 0.8), Pittsburgh,
PA.

    (a) Location. The following is a special local regulation for all
navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between
the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8, Allegheny
River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22, Monongahela River, and West
End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8, Ohio River.
    (b) Applicability. This section applies to any vessel operating
within the area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel
engaged in:
    (1) Law enforcement;
    (2) Servicing aids to navigation; or
    (3) Surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the
regulated area.
    (c)  Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  100.801, no vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain,
drift, or act in any manner as to impede safe passage of another vessel
to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative.
    (2) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift at
any time more than 100 feet from any riverbank within the regulated
area unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Persons and vessels seeking entry into the regulated area must
request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. They may be contacted on VHF-FM
Channel 16.
    (4) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the regulated area must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 4 p.m. on June
29, 2018 through noon on July 1, 2018.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
L. Mcclain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-10626 Filed 5-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P