[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17841-17842]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP04-366-003 and CP04-425-001]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

March 31, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 23, 2006, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South), 20 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77046,
filed in Docket Nos. CP04-366-003 and CP04-425-001, an application to
amend and clarify the limited-term certificate issued on November 9,
2004, in Docket No. CP04-425-000, to make it a permanent certificate,
and contingent upon an order granting the amendment, vacate the
permanent certificate issued on March 24, 2005, in Docket No. CP04-366-
000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding this application should be directed
to J. Kyle Stephens, Director of Certificates, by mail to: Gulf South
Pipeline Company, LP, 20 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 900, Houston, Texas
77046; by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; by fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should
submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of
the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the
Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the
environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental
commenters

will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other
parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in
opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the
applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of
all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission
(except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the
Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: April 21, 2006.

Magalie Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5097 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


NOTE SUBJECT: Consultation with Oklahoma Department of Transportation TO: File FROM: Stephen Hoffman DATE: 2/ 27/ 06 The purpose of this note is to document the nature and scope of consultation USEPA had with the Materials Division of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. An initial telephone teleconference was held with OKDOT on September 14, 2005 with Reynolds Toney, Morris Bell, Scott Seiter, Danny Gierhart, and Kenny Seward all of the Materials Division. I introduced the basic elements of the rule and requested information from ODOT regarding the current use of chat in asphalt and concrete pavement. ODOT indicated that the state has published highway design specifications and that it was their experience that chat may not be a good aggregate substitute in concrete. ODOT also pointed out that they were aware of chat being used in hot mix asphalt and that up to 25 percent of aggregate could be substituted for other aggregates. I indicated that I would provide ODOT versions of the draft rule as time allowed.

I conducted follow up telephone calls with Scott Seiter approximately once a month from September through January. I also sent Scott versions of the draft rule and sought comment from ODOT. ODOT has been very cooperative and replied to all of EPA's requests for data.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67324-67325]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26509]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation
Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public
telephonic meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. (ET).

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by telephonic conference call.
There will be no physical meeting place. Members of the public may
listen to the live audiocast of the telephonic meeting on the
Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 11:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. Members of the public may listen to the live audiocast of
the telephonic meeting on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On November 26, 2019, the Commission
published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10729),
indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the
public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act
notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend
the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and
regulations

affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities
laws.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please
contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26509 Filed 12-5-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50255-50257]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0655]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Little Egg Harbor, Beach Haven, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of Little Egg Harbor in Beach Haven, NJ. The
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by barge-based fireworks
displays. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Delaware Bay.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on September 3, 2022, through
10:30 p.m. on September 23, 2022. This rule will be enforced from 8
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 3, 2022, or those same hours on
September 4, 2022, in the case of inclement weather on September 3,
2022. It will also be enforced from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on
September 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0655 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Dylan Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector
Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a
reasonable comment period prior to the event. The rule must be in force
by September 3, 2022, the date the first fireworks display is scheduled
for. We are taking immediate action to ensure the safety of spectators
and the general public from hazards associated with a barge based
fireworks display. Hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.
    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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The rule needs to be in place by September 3, 2022, to mitigate the
potential safety hazards associated with a barge based fireworks
display in this location.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority granted in 46
U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port,
Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with a barge based fireworks display will be a safety concern for
anyone within a 150-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule
is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety
zone before, during, and after a barge based fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of
Little Egg Harbor in Beach Haven, NJ, during a barge based fireworks
display. The first fireworks display is scheduled to take place between
8 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on September 3, 2022, with a rain date of
September 4, 2022. The second fireworks display will occur those same
hours on September 23, 2022. The safety zone will extend 150 yards
around the barge, which will be anchored at approximate position
latitude 39[deg]34'10'' N, longitude 074[deg]14'31'' W. The duration of
the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters during the barge based fireworks
display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
factors: (1) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative
during the enforcement period, they may operate in the surrounding
area; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized
by the COTP Delaware Bay; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or Local Notice to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this

rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or
operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone that prohibits persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on
the navigable waters in Little Egg Harbor, during a barge based
fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0655 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0655   Safety Zone; Little Egg Harbor, Beach Haven, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Little Egg Harbor in Beach Haven, NJ within 150 yards of the fireworks
barge anchored in approximate position latitude 39[deg]34'10'' N,
longitude 074[deg]14'31'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty
officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel
or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting
the Captain of the Port (COTP), Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this
part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of
this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or 215-271-
4807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) No vessel may take on bunkers or conduct lightering operations
within the safety zone during its enforcement period.
    (4) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in law
enforcement, aids to navigation servicing, and emergency response
operations.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This zone will be enforced from 8 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on September 3, 2022, or those same hours on September
4, 2022, in the event of inclement weather on September 3, 2022. It
will also be enforced from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 23,
2022.

    Dated: August 10, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-17555 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13002-13004]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0071; Notice 2]

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. (SRI), on behalf of itself
and its subsidiary Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc. (SRNA), have
determined that certain Falken truck tires do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. SRI filed a noncompliance report dated
June 20, 2017. SRI also petitioned NHTSA on July 10, 2017, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: SRI, on behalf of itself and its subsidiary SRNA, have
determined that certain Falken truck tires do not fully comply with
paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and
Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). SRI filed a noncompliance report dated
June 20, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. SRI also petitioned NHTSA on July 10, 2017,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 22, 2017, in the Federal Register
(82 FR 44488). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0071.''
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 5,408 Falken truck tires (Model
RI151), size 225/70R19.5, manufactured between October 17, 2016, and
April 28, 2017, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: SRI explains that the noncompliance is that the
number of plies indicated on the sidewall of the subject tires do not
match the actual number of plies in the tire construction, and
therefore, do not meet all applicable requirements specified in
paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, the tires are marked
with ``TREAD 5 PLIES STEEL'' whereas the correct marking should be
``TREAD 4 PLIES STEEL.''
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, titled
``Tire Markings'' includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
     Each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of paragraph S6.5.
     The actual number of plies and the composition of the ply
cord material in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area.
    V. Summary of SRI's Petition: As background, On June 12, 2017, SRI
discovered that a population of 5,408 Falken brand truck tires, Model
RI151, size 225/70Rl9.5 128/126L, manufactured from October 17, 2016
through April 28, 2017 at the company's plant in Miyazaki, Japan, were
marked with the incorrect number of plies. On July 13, 2017, SRNA was
informed of the marking error, shipments of the subject tires were
halted, and the company determined that the subject tires failed to
comply with the tire labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, S6.5. Specifically, the subject tires
were incorrectly marked ``TREAD 5 PLIES STEEL,'' although they should
have been marked ``TREAD 4 PLIES

STEEL.'' Accordingly, these tires do not conform to the marking
requirements of FMVSS No. 119, S6.5. The subject tires comply with the
performance requirements and other marking requirements of FMVSS No.
119.
    SRI submitted a Part 573 noncompliance report on June 20, 2017.
NHTSA Recall No. l7T-012. SRI corrected the production molds. SRI began
manufacturing correct versions of these tires on June 17, 2017.
    SRI described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, SRI submitted the following reasoning:
    Under the Safety Act, each Federal motor vehicle safety standard
promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) must be ``practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety,
and be stated in objective terms.'' 49 U.S.C. 3011l(a). The Safety Act
defines ``motor vehicle safety'' as:

``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a
way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents
occurring because of the design, construction or performance of a
motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.''

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8) (emphasis added).
    The Safety Act exempts manufacturers from the Safety Act's notice
and remedy requirements when the Secretary of Transportation determines
that a defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d). Section 30118(d)
demonstrates Congress's acknowledgment that there are cases where a
manufacturer has failed to comply with a safety standard, yet the
impact on motor vehicle safety is so slight that an exemption from the
notice and remedy requirements of the Safety Act is justified. NHTSA
has stated that the relevant consideration in evaluating an
inconsequentiality petition is ``whether an occupant who is affected by
the noncompliance is likely to be exposed to a significantly greater
risk than an occupant in a compliant vehicle.'' 69 FR 19897, 19900
(April 14, 2004) (emphasis added).
    In the context of tires specifically, the agency has similarly
stated that it ``believes that one measure of inconsequentiality to
motor vehicle safety is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on
the operational safety of vehicles on which the tires are mounted.
Another measure of inconsequentiality . . . is the safety of people
working in the tire retread, repair and recycling industries.'' See 72
FR 18210 (April 17, 2017) (granting petition for determination of
inconsequential noncompliance with respect to SRI tires marked with the
incorrect number of plies).
    We believe the labeling noncompliance at issue here is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The subject Falken tires were
manufactured as designed and meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS No.
119 performance standards. Furthermore, all of the sidewall markings
related to tire service (load capacity, corresponding inflation
pressure, etc.) are correct and the tires correctly show that they
contain steel plies. SRI does not believe the mislabeling of these
tires presents a safety concern for consumers or retreading and
recycling personnel. As noted above, the affected tire mold has been
corrected and tires produced on and after June 17, 2017, are marked
with the correct number of plies.
    NHTSA has previously granted petitions involving similar
noncompliances. In the most recent of these, the agency explained:

    ``Although tire construction affects the strength and durability
of tires, neither the agency nor the tire industry provides
information relating tire strength and durability to the number of
plies and types of ply cord material in the tread sidewall.
Therefore, tire dealers and customers should consider the tire
construction information along with other information such as the
load capacity, maximum inflation pressure, and tread wear,
temperature, and traction ratings, to assess performance
capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgement, the
incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an
inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most
consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters
on the number of plies in a tire.''

See 82 FR 18210 (April 17, 2017).
    Regarding potential safety risks to the tire service industry, the
agency concluded that a misstatement of the number of plies ``will have
no measurable effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and
recycling industries. The use of steel cord construction in the
sidewall and tread is the primary safety concern of these industries.
In this case, because the sidewall markings indicate that some steel
plies exist in the tire sidewall, this potential safety concern does
not exist.'' As noted above, the markings on the subject tires
correctly indicate that they contain steel plies (although the number
is misstated as 5 instead of 4).
    NHTSA also granted similar petitions involving tires manufactured
by Cooper Tire and SRI (Dunlop). See 74 FR 10804 (March 12, 2009)
(granting petition submitted by SRI where tires were labeled ``Tread 3
Polyester + 2 Steel,'' whereas the correct marking should have been
``Tread 2 Polyester + 2 Steel+ 2 Polyester''); and 82 FR 17075 (April
7, 2017) (granting petition submitted by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
where tires were marked ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 2 PLY
POLYESTER,'' whereas the correct marking should have been ``TREAD 1 PLY
NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 1 PLY POLYESTER.''
    SRI is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports, customer
complaints, legal claims, or any incidents or injuries related to the
subject condition.
    SRI concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA'S Analysis: The agency agrees with SRI that the noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that
one measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is that there
is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles
on which these tires are mounted. Another measure of inconsequentiality
which is relevant to this petition is the safety of people working in
the tire retread, repair and recycling industries.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability of
tires, neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information
relating tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types
of ply cord material in the tread sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire construction information along with
other information such as the load capacity, maximum inflation
pressure, tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings, to assess
performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgement,
the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have
an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most
consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on
the number of plies in a tire.
    The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measureable
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries. The use of steel cord

construction in the sidewall and tread is the primary safety concern of
these industries. In this case, because of the sidewall marking
indicate that some steel plies exist in the tire sidewall, this
potential safety concern does not exist.
    NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that SRI has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
119 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, SRI's petition is hereby granted and SRI
is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification
of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject tires that SRI no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after SRI notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Claudia Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-05983 Filed 3-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 7976-7977]
[DOCID:fr22fe07-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414; FRL-8279-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
Coating Operations, EPA ICR Number 0658.09, OMB Control Number 2060-
0004

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0414, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without

change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 0658.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0004.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) renewal is
being submitted for the NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart RR), which were
promulgated on October 18, 1983. These regulations apply to each
coating line used in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and
label materials, and on which construction or reconstruction commenced
after the proposal date. Facilities that input 45 megagrams of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) or less per 12 month period are not subject to
the emission limit established by the subpart. The affected entities
are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60
subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions
specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart RR.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25
(rounded) hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Pressure sensitive tape and label
surface coating operations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 37.
    Frequency of Response: Initially and semi-annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,353.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $263,323, which includes $7,000
annualized capital/start-up costs, $64,800 in annualized Operating &
Maintenance (O&M) costs, and $191,523 in annualized Labor Costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 129 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to a correction.

    Dated: February 13, 2007.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-3015 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10823-10824]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05514]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0501; FRL-9989-10-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat
and Power Partnership (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Green Power Partnership and
Combined Heat and Power Partnership (EPA ICR Number 2173.07, OMB
Control Number 2060-0578) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through March 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on September 14, 2018 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ -OAR-2004-0501, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB
Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Kent, Climate Protection
Partnerships Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, MC 6202A
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: In 2002, EPA's Energy Supply and Industry Branch (ESIB)
launched two partnership programs with industry and other stakeholders:
The Green Power Partnership (GPP) and the Combined Heat and Power
Partnership (CHPP). These voluntary partnership programs, along with
others in the ESIB, encourage organizations to invest in clean,
efficient energy technologies, including renewable energy and combined
heat and power. To continue to be successful, it is critical that EPA
collect information from these program stakeholders to ensure these
organizations are meeting their clean energy goals and to assure the
credibility of these voluntary non-regulatory programs.
    EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect
information from organizations participating in the GPP and CHPP, and
other ESIB voluntary programs. Organizations that join these programs
voluntarily agree to the following respective actions: (1) Designating
a Green Power or CHP liaison and filling out a Partnership Agreement or
Letter of Intent (LOI) respectively, (2) for the GPP, reporting to EPA,
on an annual basis, their progress toward their green power commitment
via a 3-page reporting form; (3) for the CHP Partnership, reporting to
EPA information on their existing CHP projects, new project
development, and other CHP-related activities via a one-page reporting
form (for projects) or via an informal email or phone call (for other
CHP-related activities). In addition to these actions, organizations
may voluntarily apply for recognition to the programs' established
annual recognition events, which require submitting additional
information. EPA uses the data obtained from its Partners to assess the
success of these programs in achieving their national energy and
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Partners are organizational
entities that have volunteered to participate in either Partnership
program.
    Form numbers: EPA-430-K-013, EPA-430-F-05-034; EPA-5900-353.
    Respondents/affected entities: Company, institutional, and public-
sector organizations that voluntarily participate in the EPA's Green
Power Partnership (GPP) or Combined Heat and Power Partnership (CHPP).
These include both service and goods providing industries, educational
institutions and non-governmental organizations, commercial and

industrial organizations, and local, state, or federal government
agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 6,871 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually, on occasion, one time.
    Total estimated burden: 6,598 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $731,382 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is minimal decrease in hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. Since the last ICR renewal, both the GPP and CHPP have
introduced program efficiencies to reduce program burden and simplified
collection forms into pre-populated spreadsheets or documents. As a
result of these changes, the average number of hours per Partner has
decreased from 3.2 hours to 2.87 hours, even though the total hour
burden for Partners increased due to an increase in the number of
Partners.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-05514 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81982-81987]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27726]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90645; File No. SR-IEX-2020-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX Rule 11.510 To Reduce the
Outbound Latency That Presently Applies to All Trading Messages Sent
From IEX Back to Users of the Exchange

December 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 9, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 11.510 to reduce the outbound
latency that presently applies to all trading messages sent from IEX
back to Users \6\ of the Exchange to include only the actual geographic
distance and related network connectivity, as well as to make
conforming changes to the outbound latency that applies to all trading
messages sent from the IEX System \7\ to the System routing logic \8\
with respect to routable orders. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange's website at www.iextrading.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See IEX Rule 1.160(qq).
    \7\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
    \8\ See IEX Rule 2.220(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.510 to reduce the
outbound latency that presently applies to all trading messages sent
from the IEX System at its primary data center back to Users of the
Exchange to include only the actual geographic distance and related
network connectivity, as well as to make conforming changes to the
outbound latency that applies to all trading messages sent from the IEX
System to the System routing logic with respect to routable orders.
    The Exchange is not proposing to make any changes to the additional
latency that applies in a symmetrical manner to all inbound order
messages (i.e., orders, modifications or cancellations) regardless of
whether such orders are to make or take liquidity. This additional
latency on inbound order messages, commonly referred to as the ``IEX
Speedbump,'' continues to be a critical part of the IEX system and is
designed to protect the interests of investors, brokers, and market
makers that rest orders on IEX.
    As described in more detail below, the additional latencies that
are currently applied to both inbound and

outbound messages between IEX and Users were put in place for
completely different purposes. In contrast to the resting order
protective design of the additional inbound latency, the additional
outbound latency was designed simply to avoid potential information
leakage about an execution on IEX that could reduce a Member's \9\
ability to access liquidity on other markets after trading on IEX. As
discussed more fully below, since the IEX exchange launch in 2016 there
have been significant improvements in routing technology as well as
reductions in Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') market data
dissemination latencies, and as a result the Exchange believes that the
additional outbound latency is no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that no other national securities exchanges
currently provide for additional latency to outbound communications.
Thus, IEX does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or
novel material issues that have not already been considered by the
Commission in connection with the operations of other national
securities exchanges, or that Members could not readily incorporate
into their trading systems.
Background
Connectivity Description
    Currently, all Users, which include Members and Sponsored
Participants,\10\ access IEX through the Exchange-provided network
interface at the IEX Point-of-Presence \11\ or ``POP,'' located in
Secaucus, New Jersey.\12\ After entering through the POP, a User's
electronic message sent to the System traverses the IEX ``coil'' which
is a box containing approximately 38 miles of compactly coiled optical
fiber cable. After exiting the coil, the User's message travels an
additional geographic or physical distance to the System, located at
the Exchange's primary data center in Weehawken, New Jersey. The time
required for a message to traverse the coil combined with the physical
distance (and related networking) to the System equates to an
equivalent 350 microseconds of latency, referred to herein as the
``inbound latency.'' \13\ All inbound messages (e.g., orders to buy or
sell and any modification to a previously sent open order) from any
User traverse this connectivity infrastructure, including the coil, in
a symmetrical manner regardless of the type of message or whether the
User is seeking to buy, sell, make or take liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See IEX Rule 1.160(ll).
    \11\ A Point-of-Presence is the location at which customers of
an exchange (or other technological system) can connect to the
exchange.
    \12\ Please see discussion infra with respect to the
connectivity infrastructure applicable to routable orders.
    \13\ See IEX Rule 11.510(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, all outbound messages from IEX back to a User (e.g.,
confirmations of an execution that occurred on IEX), as well as
messages from IEX's TOPS, DEEP and DROP data products \14\
(collectively ``Data Products''), pass through the communication
infrastructure in reverse, referred to herein as the ``outbound
latency.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a).
    \15\ See IEX Rule 11.510(b)(2). IEX's backup data center, in
Chicago, Illinois, which only consumes market data from the SIPs,
does not have any inbound or outbound POP/coil latency, see IEX Rule
11.510 Supplementary Material .01, and is therefore unaffected by
this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other incoming and outgoing messages to and from IEX are not
subject to either the inbound or outbound latency. Instead, they are
sent and received directly to and from the System, subject only to the
latencies inherent in the geographic distances that the messages
travel. These other messages include (i) incoming proprietary market
data from other national securities exchanges and market data from the
SIPs and (ii) outgoing messages to the SIPs (to disseminate IEX's
quotation and last sale/execution information), the National Securities
Clearing Corporation (to transmit executed transactions) and other
national securities exchanges (to route orders for potential execution
on such exchanges). In addition, all IEX Order Book \16\ processing and
order executions on the IEX Order Book occur within the System and are
not subject to the inbound or outbound connectivity infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's affiliated broker-dealer, IEX Services LLC (``IEXS''), is a
Member of the Exchange and is subject to the same inbound and outbound
latency as other Members, as described in IEX Rules 2.220 and 11.510.
If a User sends a routable order to the Exchange for potential
execution on IEX, after traversing the inbound latency (including the
coil) to reach the System, it is directed to the System routing logic
rather than the IEX matching engine.\17\ Upon receipt of a routable
order, the System routing logic may route all or a portion of the order
to the IEX Order Book or to another national securities exchange. Any
such orders routed to the IEX Order Book by the System routing logic
are subject to an additional 350 microsecond inbound latency between
the IEX routing logic and the IEX Order Book. Similarly, the IEX
routing logic may only receive IEX Data Products subject to the same
350 microsecond outbound latency as other data recipients. These
additional inbound and outbound latency delays place IEXS in the same
position as any Member that is a third-party routing broker in reaching
the IEX Order Book, receiving outbound order messages, and receiving
IEX Data Products, i.e., IEXS has no speed or informational advantage
compared to other Members and data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See IEX Rule 11.230(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See IEX Rule 11.510 for a complete description of the manner in
which Participants \18\ and Extranet Providers \19\ may connect to,
access, and interact with the System including the applicable
latencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See IEX Rule 11.130(a).
    \19\ See IEX Rule 11.130(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Critical Function of the ``Speedbump''
    The IEX Speedbump, which applies additional latency to inbound
order messages (including modifications and cancellations), is designed
to enable IEX to more effectively manage and price orders resting on
its book when the market moves. This is because (as described above)
orders sent to IEX are delayed by 350 microseconds in reaching IEX's
matching engine but IEX does not delay its own receipt of market data
from other national securities exchanges and the SIPs. This approach is
designed to enable IEX's matching engine to timely process price
changes and to price or execute orders on the IEX Order Book at the
most accurate prices possible. As the Commission noted in approval of
IEX's application to operate as a national securities exchange in 2016:

    [T]he purpose of IEX's coil is to provide an intentional buffer
that slows down incoming orders to allow IEX's matching engine to
update the prices of resting ``pegged'' orders when away prices
change to protect resting pegged orders from the possibility of
adverse selection when the market moves to a new midpoint price. The
allowable price of a ``pegged'' order will change whenever the best
displayed price across all exchanges changes, but it takes time for
IEX's system to receive other exchange data feeds and recalculate
the price of each pegged order resting on its book. For various
reasons, IEX's systems may not recalculate prices as fast as some of
the fastest low-latency traders in the market are able to send
orders accessing pegged orders resting on IEX at potentially
``stale'' prices. The Commission believes that the application of
the POP/coil delay delays the ability of low-latency market
participants to take a ``stale''-priced resting pegged order

on IEX (i.e., before IEX finishes its process of re-pricing the
pegged order in response to changes in the NBBO) based on those
market participants' ability to more effectively digest direct
market data feeds and swiftly submit an order before IEX finishes
its process of updating the prices of pegged orders resting on its
book. (internal citations omitted) \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78101 (June 17,
2016), 81 FR 41141, 41155 (June 23, 2016) (``Exchange Approval
Order'').

    In addition, with IEX's recent addition of its D-Limit order type,
the IEX speed bump helps IEX re-price D-Limit orders in the few seconds
of the day when IEX's Crumbling Quote Indicator \21\ detects that the
national best bid or offer is likely to move in a direction adverse to
the User of the order within two milliseconds.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89686 (August 26,
2020), 85 FR 54438 (September 1, 2020) (approving SR-IEX-2019-15)
(``D-Limit Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This application of the IEX Speedbump, and the benefits therein,
are distinct and different from the additional (and symmetrical)
latency imposed on outbound trading messages which was designed to
slightly delay news of an execution to the participants to the
execution and to IEX's Data Products. The outbound latency thus enables
a market participant using a serial routing technique \23\ that
executes a trade on IEX to avoid potential information leakage when
subsequently seeking to access liquidity on other markets before news
of the IEX execution could affect resting liquidity on those markets
\24\ (e.g., potentially resulting in cancellations or re-pricing of
such liquidity). Since the time of IEX's exchange approval in 2016
there have been a myriad of technology advances, including improvements
in smart-order routing techniques and a reduction in SIP latencies.\25\
Consequently, and as discussed more fully below and in the Statutory
Basis section, IEX does not believe that the considerations that
existed in 2016 necessitate continuing to impose additional latency on
outbound order messages or IEX Data Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Serial routing entails routing an order first to one
exchange, and then routing whatever shares remain in the order to
other exchanges.
    \24\ See Exchange Approval Order, supra note 20.
    \25\ The SIPs are comprised of three plans: The CTA Plan (trade
data on Tapes A&B), the CQ Plan (quote data on Tapes A&B), and the
UTP Plan (trade and quote data on Tape C). Since IEX's exchange
launch in September 2016, the average latencies for quote messages
on the SIPs has dropped from 470 [micro]s to 19.5 [micro]s (CQ Plan)
and from 762 [micro]s to 13.2 [micro]s (UTP Plan); and the average
latencies for trade messages on the SIPs has dropped from 320
[micro]s to 20 [micro]s (CTA Plan) and from 619.7 [micro]s to 15.7
[micro]s (UTP Plan). See ``Key Operating Metrics of Tape A&B U.S.
Equities Securities Information Processor (CTA SIP),'' available at
https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/CTAPLAN_Processor_Metrics_3Q2020.pdf and ``UTP Q3 2020--September
Tape C Quote Metrics'' and ``September Tape C Trade Metrics,''
available at https://www.utpplan.com/DOC/UTP_website_Statistics_Q3-2020-September.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.510 to reduce the
outbound latency that presently applies to all trading messages sent
from IEX back to Users to the actual geographic distance and related
network connectivity \26\ between the Exchange System and the IEX POP.
As proposed, all outbound communications (including execution and other
order report messages, as well as TOPS, DEEP and DROP messages) would
be treated in the same manner. The Exchange estimates that removal of
the coiled optical fiber would reduce the outbound latency to 37
microseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Ordinary course network connectivity includes switches and
cabling to connect the network access point at the POP to the
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX is not proposing any changes to the additional latency applied
to inbound orders, cancellations or modifications from any User,
regardless of making or taking liquidity or any other factors, which
will maintain the symmetry of IEX's Speedbump design for all Users.
Users would still be required to connect to IEX at the POP. IEXS would
continue to be subject to the existing additional inbound latency when
the IEX routing logic sends an order to the IEX Order Book (a total
delay of 700 microseconds for inbound routable orders) but would be
subject to the reduced outbound latency in receiving execution and
order messages as well as IEX Data Products in the same manner as those
of other Members and data recipients. Therefore, reducing the outbound
latency will have no impact on IEX's ability to provide the benefits of
protection from certain trading strategies when using pegged or D-Limit
orders.
    In addition, based on informal feedback from Members, IEX
understands that a reduction in the outbound latency would enhance
Members' execution and risk management processes, including with
respect to hedging and re-routing, by enabling them to receive reports
of IEX executions sooner than is currently the case. Moreover, IEX
believes that these benefits would apply to all Members, regardless of
business model, by supporting overall execution and risk management.
IEX further understands that receiving execution reports closer in time
to when an execution occurred would enable Members and their clearing
firms to incorporate the financial and other exposure of an execution
into their risk management systems and thereby enable enhanced
monitoring and control of applicable risks. IEX believes that these
execution and risk management benefits outweigh the concerns that
previously existed regarding the risk to serial routing techniques. As
the Commission has noted, current and commonplace routing techniques
seek to have orders arrive and execute simultaneously across multiple
venues and are able to capture liquidity across multiple venues
simultaneously without signaling those executions to the market in a
way that would impact prices or available liquidity.\27\ As a result,
IEX believes that Members and other market participants can use such
routing techniques instead of serial routing techniques to avoid
potential information leakage when subsequently seeking to access
liquidity on other markets after an IEX execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See D-Limit Approval Order supra note 22 at 54441-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX also believes that its Data Products would be more useful if
they were not subject to the additional outbound latency so that
Members can more effectively use IEX market data in their execution and
risk management decisions. Additionally, IEX notes that since its
exchange launch in 2016 the SIPs have materially reduced their average
latencies for dissemination of quote and trade messages, as discussed
above.\28\ Thus, IEX believes that these reduced latencies enable some
market participants to receive IEX market data messages from the SIPs
before they can receive such messages on TOPS and DEEP. In these
circumstances delaying IEX's Data Products effectively renders them of
limited utility. Consequently, as proposed, IEX Data Products will also
be subject to the reduced outbound latency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, IEX proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.510 to reflect the
changes described above as well as to streamline descriptions of the
communications infrastructure for inbound and outbound latency. As
proposed the changes are as follows:

     Add new language to paragraph (a) to add specificity to
the reference to the POP, including that it is an abbreviation for
the IEX point-of-presence and that its network address is specified
in the Exchange's Connectivity Manual. In addition, clarifying
language is added to specify and describe the latency for inbound
and outbound communications between the System and the POP,
including that outbound communications from the System to the POP do
not traverse the distance provided by

coiled optical fiber and are subject to an equivalent 37
microseconds of latency due to traversing the geographic
distribution and network connectivity between the System at the
primary data center and the network access point of the POP.
Conforming changes would be made to existing rule text to refer to
inbound communications separately from outbound communications and
replace the word ``with'' with ``to'' to be descriptive of the one-
way communications referenced. Conforming changes to subparagraph
(a)(1) would reflect that the Connectivity Manual was referenced and
abbreviated previously. Subparagraph (a)(2) would be revised to
replace the phrase ``traverse the POP'' with more descriptive
language ``traverse the connectivity infrastructure between the
System and the POP.''
     Paragraph (b) would be amended to replace the current
heading, ``IEX POP Connectivity'' with ``IEX Connectivity
Infrastructure'' which is more descriptive of the content of the
paragraph. In addition, references to ``inbound POP latency'' and
``outbound POP latency'' would each delete the word ``POP'' to align
with the clarifying changes to paragraph (a). Further, new language
would be added to reference that connectivity between the System
routing logic and the Order Book and the manner in which the System
routing logic may receive IEX's Data Products are described in
paragraph (c).
     Subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would each also be
amended to refer to the Exchange's connectivity infrastructure
rather than the POP in describing the design goals of the inbound
and outbound latency. Subparagraph (b)(2) would also be amended to
specify the outbound latency and to update references to the types
of messages included in the parenthetical examples.
     Paragraph (c)(1) would be amended to make conforming
terminology changes to those proposed for paragraph (b). In
addition, new language would be added to clarify and describe how
the changes to the outbound latency apply to the System routing
logic.
     Paragraph (c)(2) would be amended to make conforming
terminology changes to those proposed for paragraph (b). In
addition, new language would be added to specify that the System
routing logic may only receive IEX Data Products subject to 37
microseconds of outbound latency, equivalent to the outbound latency
applicable to all other data recipients.
     Paragraph (c)(3) would be amended to make conforming
terminology changes to those proposed for paragraph (b) and to
delete an extra space in a cross-reference to IEX Rule 11.240(d).
     Supplementary Material .02 would be amended to make
conforming terminology changes (including deleting the term ``POP''
from the heading) to those proposed for paragraph (b), to reference
the latency for the outbound latency, and to include the inbound and
outbound latencies for routable orders in the description of which
latencies are impacted by force majeure events.
     Supplementary Material .03 would be amended to clarify
when the outbound versus inbound latency applies to routable orders.
Implementation
    The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change in two
steps. In the first step, the Exchange would reduce the outbound
latency between the System and the POP from 350 to 37 microseconds, but
would retain the existing outbound latency between the System and the
System routing logic. In the second step, the Exchange would reduce the
outbound latency between the System and the System routing logic from
350 to 37 microseconds. The purpose of the two-step implementation is
to enable the IEX technology team to focus on each part separately,
thereby mitigating potential risks, in a manner consistent with
standard technology best practices. IEX is choosing to reduce the
outbound latency to the System routing logic in the second step to
avoid giving the System routing logic any preference over other Users.
The Exchange expects that there will be several days between the two
steps of the implementation and will provide at least ten (10) days'
notice to Members and market participants of the implementation
timeline.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ After step one and before step two, all outbound
communications between the System and the System routing logic will
continue to be subject to an equivalent 350 microseconds of latency.
Outgoing messages (i.e., responses) from the System routing logic to
Users (with respect to routable orders sent to IEX) would be subject
to the proposed reduced outbound latency of 37 microseconds.
Further, IEXS would be able to receive IEX Data Products subject to
the same 37 microseconds of latency as other Members and data
recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\30\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\31\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it is designed
to enhance IEX Members' execution and risk management efforts. As
described in the Purpose section, IEX believes that a reduction in the
outbound latency would enhance Members' execution and risk management
processes, including with respect to hedging and re-routing, by
enabling them to receive reports of IEX executions sooner than is
currently the case. IEX further believes that this reduction in
outbound latency will enable Members and their clearing firms to
incorporate the financial and other exposure related to IEX executions
into their risk management systems and thereby enable enhanced
monitoring and control of applicable risks. Moreover, IEX believes that
these benefits would apply to all Members, regardless of the details or
nature of a Member's business, by supporting overall execution and risk
management. Further, IEX believes that these execution and risk
management benefits outweigh the concerns that previously existed
regarding the risk to serial routing techniques. As discussed in the
Purpose section, and as the Commission has noted, current and
commonplace routing techniques seek to have orders arrive and execute
simultaneously across multiple venues and are able to capture liquidity
across multiple venues simultaneously without signaling those
executions to the market in a way that would impact prices or available
liquidity.\32\ As a result, IEX believes that Members and other market
participants can use such routing techniques instead of serial routing
techniques to avoid potential information leakage when subsequently
seeking to access liquidity on other markets after an IEX execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \32\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, and as discussed in the Purpose section, IEX believes
that its Data Products will be more useful for execution and risk
management purposes if they are disseminated closer in time to the
applicable execution or quote change. IEX believes that this is
particularly true with the recent material reduction in SIP latencies,
as detailed in the Purpose section.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will apply to all Members in the same manner. All outbound
communications will be subject to the same reduction in latency on a
fair and nondiscriminatory basis. Significantly, and as discussed in
the Purpose section, execution and other order messages from the System
to Users will be subject to the same latency as IEX's Data Products so
that the parties to an execution do not receive information regarding
the execution prior to other market participants. Although the existing
delay in dissemination of its Data Products was designed to enable an
order sender to avoid the potential for information

leakage when accessing liquidity on other markets (as discussed in the
Purpose section), the Exchange believes this purpose is clearly
outweighed by the potential execution and risk management benefits to
market participants in receiving market data and execution reports more
quickly, and the concomitant benefit to efficient markets. Moreover, as
discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes that market
participants routinely utilize routing strategies and techniques to
avoid potential information leakage, by routing in a manner so that
child orders arrive at multiple markets near-simultaneously and that
the technology to do so is well established and has evolved since IEX
was approved as an exchange in 2016.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 22 at 54441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange notes that IEXS, its routing broker,
will continue to be on a level playing field compared to all other
Members, as it will be subject to the same outbound latency reduction,
except for the few days between stages one and two of the proposed
implementation. With respect to these few days, the Exchange notes that
the Act generally does not prohibit an exchange from treating its
affiliated routing broker in a manner that is less preferential than
other Members. Moreover, use of IEXS by other Members is optional and
any Member that does not want to use IEXS may use other routers to
route orders to away trading centers.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See IEX Rule 2.220(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that no other national securities exchanges
currently provide for additional latency to outbound communications.
Thus, IEX does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or
novel material issues that have not already been considered by the
Commission in connection with the operations of other national
securities exchanges. Moreover, because the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change is novel, it believes that IEX Members
will be readily able to accommodate the reduced outbound latency into
their trading systems.
    Finally, and for clarification purposes, IEX is not proposing any
changes to the additional latency applied to inbound orders,
cancelations, and modifications or to those communications and
processes that are not subject to the inbound or outbound latency,
which continue to be critical to the protection of pegged and D-Limit
orders, as described above.

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. To the contrary, the
proposal is designed to enable enhancement of Members' execution and
risk management processes, as described in the Purpose and Statutory
Basis sections.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because other
exchanges offer similar functionality. Moreover, the proposed rule
change would benefit other exchanges because it would enable them to
receive IEX's Data Products sooner than is currently the case which
could correspondingly enable them to update pegged orders more quickly.
Similarly, as with other Exchange Members, their outbound routing
brokers would receive order messages from IEX sooner than is currently
the case and could more quickly incorporate such information into any
further routing decisions.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition because it will apply
to all Members in the same manner, except for the few days between
stages one and two of the proposed implementation. With respect to
these few days, as noted in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange
notes that the Act generally does not prohibit an exchange from
treating its affiliated routing broker in a manner that is less
preferential than other Members. Moreover, use of IEXS by other Members
is optional and any Member that does not want to use IEXS may use other
routers to route orders to away trading centers.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2020-18 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-IEX-2020-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-18 and should

be submitted on or before January 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27726 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P