[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1907-1910]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68578; File No. SR-BOX-2012-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule for Trading on BOX

DATE: January 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 26, 2012, BOX Options Exchange LLC (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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule for
trading on BOX. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend certain
Exchange Fees for Professionals set forth in Section I of the Fee
Schedule so that Professional accounts are assessed the same fees as
Broker-Dealers. While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become
operative on January 2, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend certain Exchange Fees for
Professionals set forth in Section I of the Fee Schedule so that
Professional accounts are assessed the same fees as Broker-Dealers.
    For Auction Transactions,\5\ the Exchange proposes to increase
Professional fees for Improvement Orders in the PIP and Responses in
the Solicitation and Facilitation mechanisms from $0.15 to $0.35, the
same fee Broker-Dealers are currently charged. Note that Exchange Fees
for Primary Improvement Orders, Facilitation Orders, and Solicitation
Orders will continue to be based upon a Participant's monthly average
daily volume (``ADV'') in Auction Transactions as calculated at the end
of each month as set forth in Section I.A. of the Fee Schedule. The
Exchange notes that the proposed fees for Professionals are within the
range of Professional fees presently assessed in the industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Auction Transactions are those transactions executed through
the Price Improvement Period (``PIP''), Solicitation, and
Facilitation auction mechanisms.
    \6\ Professional customers are charged $0.33 per contract for
Select Symbols on the International Securities Exchange (``ISE''),
$0.32 per contract for taking liquidity on NYSE Amex, and $0.45 or
more per contract on the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') for adding
or removing liquidity in non-Penny Pilot securities. See ISE fee
schedule, available at: http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf, NYSE Amex Options Fee
Schedule, available at: https://globalderivatives.nyx.com/sites/globalderivatives.nyx.com/files/nyse_amex_options_fee_schedule_12_01_12_.pdf, and see NOM Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=OptionsPricing.

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

    Also, the Exchange proposes to implement a $0.22 per contract
surcharge for Professionals for all transactions in options on the
Nasdaq-100[supreg] Index (NDX) and on the Mini-NDX[supreg] Index (MNX).
BOX currently charges Market Makers and Broker-Dealers $0.22 per
contract for transactions in NDX and MNX. BOX incurs licensing fees for
transactions in these classes of options and believes it is appropriate
and reasonable to pass that fee through to BOX Participants, including
Professional accounts.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among BOX Options Participants
and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change for Professionals in
Auction Transactions is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it charges Professionals, whose activity on BOX
is akin to the order flow activity and system usage to that of Broker-
Dealers, the same fee for competing in Auction Transactions as the fee
charged to Broker-Dealers. BOX does not assess ongoing systems access
fees, ongoing fees for access to BOX market data, or fees related to
order cancellation. Professional accounts, while Public Customers by
virtue of not being broker-dealers, generally engage in trading
activity more similar to broker-dealer proprietary trading accounts
(more than 390 orders per day on average). BOX notes that as of
December 2012, orders for Professionals generally account for a
majority of the orders BOX receives on a given trading day. This level
of trading activity draws on a greater amount of BOX system resources
than that of non-Professional Public Customers, and thus, greater
ongoing BOX operational costs. Simply, the more orders submitted to
BOX, the more messages sent to and received from BOX, the more orders
potentially routed to away exchanges, and the more BOX system resources
utilized. As such, rather than passing the costs of these higher order
volumes along to all market participants, the Exchange believes it is
more reasonable and equitable to assess those costs to the persons
directly responsible. To that end, BOX aims to recover costs incurred
by assessing Professional accounts a market competitive fee for
competing in Auction Transactions.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to increase Professional
fees is not unfairly discriminatory as the fees will apply to all
Professionals and Broker-Dealers competing in Auction Transactions
equally. Further, Professionals and Broker-Dealers are free to change
the manner in which they access BOX. A Professional may, by sending
fewer than 390 orders per day across the industry, begin participating
as a non-Professional, Public Customer and potentially reduce
transaction fees. Additionally, Professionals will still benefit from
certain priority advantages as a customer in Auction Transactions.\9\
As noted above, Professionals' order sending behavior and trading
activity tend to be more similar to Broker-Dealers trading on a
proprietary basis. This is particularly true in considering orders in
response to BOX auction mechanisms. As such, the Exchange believes it
is not unfairly discriminatory to charge them the same fee as Broker-
Dealers when competing for customer order flow in these Auction
Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rules 7150(f)(4) and 7270 regarding allocation and
executions within each BOX auction mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professionals may elect to register as a Broker-Dealer and, once
registered, may apply to become a BOX Market Maker, subject to Exchange
Fees based on their ADV. The Exchange believes the proposed Auction
Transaction fees for Professionals is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because such Participants are not subject to the same
obligations as Market Makers when providing liquidity to the market. In
particular, Market Makers must maintain active two-sided markets in
appointed classes, and must meet certain minimum quoting requirements.
As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate that Market Makers be
charged comparably lower Auction Transaction fees as compared to
Professionals when the Market Makers provide greater volumes of
liquidity to the market. In light of the ability to access BOX in a
variety of ways, each of which is priced differently, Professionals,
Broker-Dealers, and other market participants may each select the most
economically beneficial manner to access BOX.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will assure that retail
investors (non-Professional, Public Customers) continue to receive the
appropriate marketplace advantages for Auction Transactions on BOX,
while furthering fair competition among marketplace professionals by
treating them equally when they compete for these desirable customer
orders. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to assess
Auction Transaction fees for Professionals that are the same as those
fees for Broker-Dealers because it applies a pricing structure that
groups these sophisticated market participants together when they are
competing in this manner.
    Generally, competing options exchanges assess Professionals fees at
comparable rates to those proposed by the Exchange, and comparable to
fees charged to Broker-Dealers.\10\ The Exchange operates within a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to any of several other competing venues if they deem
fees at a particular venue to be excessive. As such, the Exchange
believes the proposed increases are reasonable and equitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals generally do not
initiate Auction Transactions, unlike some Broker-Dealers. Doing so
requires, in part, guaranteeing a customer order and execution.
Initiating an Auction Transaction for the benefit of the customer
order, an [sic] taking on this guarantee provides these Participants
potentially discounted fees.\11\ The Exchange believes it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge
Professional accounts the same fee as Broker-Dealers to compete for
customer orders in Auction Transactions because when acting in response
to an auction, as opposed to initiating the transaction, Professionals'
behavior, systems' sophistication, and trading activity are similar to
Broker-Dealers, and distinct from the retail investors on the opposite
side of the Auction Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section I.A. of the Fee Schedule that provides Tiered
Fees with potential discounts for Participants that Initiate Auction
Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for Public Customers to be charged lower fees than
Professionals and Broker-

Dealers for Auction Transactions on BOX. The securities markets
generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve
markets for investors and develop various features within the market
structure for the benefit of non-Professional, Public Customers.\12\ As
such, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for Professional customer
transactions are appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange believes it promotes the best interests of investors to have
lower Auction Transaction costs for non-Professional, Public Customers,
and that the BOX fee structure will continue to attract this customer
order flow to these auction mechanisms which BOX believes will provide
greater potential price improvement to these investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note that BOX has historically imposed different, and
higher, routing fees for Professionals as compared to non-
Professional Public Customers. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 65538 (October 12, 2011), 76 FR 64413 (October 18, 2011)
(Adopting a $0.50 per contract routing fee for Professionals while
providing routing to non-Professional Public Customers at no
charge), and 68149 (November 5, 2012), 77 FR 67693 (November 13,
2012) (Continuing to charge Professionals $0.50 per contract
executed on away exchanges and exempting Public Customer accounts
from a routing fee for Directed Orders, provided 33% or more of a
Participant's Public Customer Directed Orders received during the
month are executed through PIP, and less than 45% of a Participant's
Directed Orders received during the month are routed to and executed
on an away exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the surcharge for transactions in NDX and MNX, due to a
licensing agreement with The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'') to
use various indices and trademarks in connection with the listing and
trading of these index options, BOX will pay a per contract license fee
of $0.22 to NASDAQ OMX for NDX and MNX options contracts traded on BOX.
The Exchange proposes to assess a surcharge fee for Professional
transactions in NDX and MNX options to offset the costs BOX incurs for
each such transaction. The Exchange believes that passing this cost
through to BOX Options Participants that trade these options, including
Professionals, is the most equitable means of recovering the costs of
the license.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Market Makers a $.22 per contract surcharge for transactions in MNX and
NDX, as compared to no surcharge being assessed to non-Professional
Public Customers, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange believes that a lower fee for non-Professional, Public
Customers benefits all BOX market participants by incentivizing market
participants to transact a greater number of Public Customer orders,
which results in increased liquidity on BOX.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees will keep BOX
competitive with other exchanges and will apply in an equitable manner
among BOX Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are
fair and reasonable and must be competitive with fees in place on other
exchanges.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The BOX auction mechanisms, the
PIP in particular, provide the opportunity for market participants to
compete for customer orders. The PIP has no limitations regarding the
number of Market Makers, Options Participants that are not Market
Makers, and customers that can participate and compete for orders in
the PIP. BOX asserts that Participants are actively competing for
customer orders, which is clearly supported by the simple fact that
price improvement occurs in the PIP. Since the PIP began in 2004,
customers have received more than $400 million in savings through
better executions on BOX, a monthly average of more than $3.5 million
over that time.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed fee change will inhibit
Professionals' ability to compete within BOX Auction Transactions.
Broker-Dealers currently compete actively within the PIP, and BOX does
not believe assessing Professionals a $0.35 per contract fee equivalent
to that of Broker-Dealers, would impede Professionals' ability, or the
incentive for Professionals, to compete therein. BOX notes that its
market model and fees are generally intended to benefit retail
customers by providing incentives for Participants to submit their
customer order flow to BOX, and the PIP in particular. BOX makes a
substantial amount of PIP-related data and statistics available to the
public on its Web site www.boxexchange.com. Specifically, PIP Fee Pilot
reports are available at: http://boxexchange.com/boxrReports_en; daily
PIP volumes and average price improvement at: http://boxexchange.com/volumes_en; and BOX execution quality reports at: http://boxexchange.com/executionQualityReport_en. The data indisputably
supports that the PIP provides price improvement for customer orders.
    The fee change proposed would charge Professionals the same fee as
Broker-Dealers when competing in Auction Transactions. Because this
change would charge Professionals similarly to Broker-Dealers in this
particular circumstance, charge them a fee comparable to what
Professionals and Broker-Dealers pay on competing exchanges,\13\ and
for additional reasons as stated above, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\15\
because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge
applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2012-025 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-BOX-2012-025. 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 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; 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-BOX-2012-025 and should be
submitted on or before January 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00257 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 52950]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2703-000]

Pattern Energy Management Services LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Pattern Energy Management Services LLC's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 13, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 24, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18653 Filed 8-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15404-15408]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 6

Public Health Service

42 CFR Part 1

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 404

Office of the Inspector General

42 CFR Part 1000

Office of the Secretary

45 CFR Part 8

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300

[Docket No. HHS-OS-2020-0012]
RIN 0991-AC24

Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely;
Administrative Delay of Effective Date; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date and correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or
Department) is postponing, pending judicial review, the effective date
of a final rule entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory
Evaluations Timely'' (SUNSET final rule) and published in the Federal
Register of January 19, 2021. This document also corrects certain
errors in the SUNSET final rule.

DATES: As of March 19, 2021, the effective date of the final rule
published January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), is delayed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 705 for one year until March 22, 2022.
    This correction is effective as of March 22, 2022, and amendatory
instruction #10 in FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19,
2021, is corrected.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Barry, Acting General
Counsel, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at 1-877-696-6775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUNSET final rule was scheduled to take
effect on March 22, 2021. On March 9, 2021, a lawsuit was filed seeking
to overturn the SUNSET final rule. HHS finds that the interests of
justice require that the SUNSET final rule's effective date be
postponed pending judicial review because: Based on HHS's initial
review of the Complaint, HHS believes that the Court could find merit
in some of Plaintiffs' claims; Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are
credible; a postponement will permit HHS to review the SUNSET final
rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation; and the balance
of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the
effective date to preserve the status quo while the Court considers the
challenge to the SUNSET final rule. This document also corrects certain
errors in the SUNSET final rule.
    In the Federal Register of November 4, 2020 (85 FR 70096), HHS
published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Securing Updated
and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely'' (SUNSET). Under the rule
as proposed, subject to certain exceptions, Department regulations
would expire at the end of (1) two calendar years after the year that
the SUNSET rule first became effective, (2) ten calendar years after
the year of the regulation's promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the Department ``assessed'' and, if
required, ``reviewed'' the regulation, whichever was latest. Thus,
under the proposed rule, unless HHS ``assessed'' and, if required,
``reviewed'' most of its regulations within a certain timeframe
specified in the rule (for most existing regulations, within two years)
and every ten years thereafter, the regulations would expire. The
proposed rule also provided that if a ``review'' led to a finding that
a regulation should be amended or rescinded, the Department must amend
or rescind the regulation within a specified timeframe (generally two
years). In addition, the proposed rule contained certain publication
requirements, including that (1) the Department publish the results of
all ``assessments'' and ``reviews,'' including the full underlying
analyses and data used to support the results, in the Federal Register,
and (2) the Department announce the commencement of an ``assessment''
or ``review'' of a particular regulation on the agency website, with an
opportunity for public comment. The proposed rule provided that
comments could be submitted until December 4, 2020, except for comments
on the portion of the rule amending 42 CFR parts 400-429 and parts 475-
499, which were due by January 4, 2021.
    In the Federal Register of November 16, 2020 (85 FR 73007), HHS
announced a public hearing, scheduled for November 23, 2020, to receive
information and views on the proposed rule (Public Hearing).
    In the Federal Register of January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), HHS
issued the SUNSET final rule. The final rule provides that all
regulations, subject to certain exceptions, issued by the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) or their
delegates or sub-delegates in titles 21, 42, and 45 of the CFR shall
expire at the end of (1) five calendar years after the year that the
SUNSET final rule first becomes effective, (2) ten calendar years after
the year of the regulation's promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the Department ``assessed'' and, if
required, ``reviewed'' the regulation, whichever is latest. Thus, the
final rule contains the same basic expiration framework as the proposed
rule, but extends the timeframe for ``assessment'' and any applicable
``review'' of most existing regulations from two calendar years to five
calendar years. The final rule also provides for ``continuation'' of a
regulation that is subject to expiration if the Secretary makes a
written determination that the public interest requires continuation.
In addition, the final rule contains exemptions for a small set of
certain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. The final rule
maintains the timeframe for amendment or rescission of regulations, as
well as the publication requirements, and includes a new Federal
Register publication requirement. The final rule also expands its reach
to include additional provisions regarding parts of HHS not
specifically included in the proposed rule. The final rule states that
its effective date is March 22, 2021.
    On March 9, 2021, the County of Santa Clara, California Tribal
Families Coalition, National Association of Pediatric Nurse
Practitioners, American Lung Association, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the
Department seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Complaint, County of Santa Clara v.
HHS, Case No. 5:21-cv-01655-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that the
SUNSET final rule is ultra vires, see id. ]] 123-30; arbitrary and
capricious, see id. ]] 131-33; in violation of the APA's notice-and-
comment requirements, see id. ]] 134-39; and in violation of HHS's
Tribal Consultation Policy, see id. ]] 140-44. Plaintiffs further
allege that the SUNSET final rule threatens imminent and irreparable
harm to them and the general public, including by creating regulatory
confusion and uncertainty that will impede their ongoing operations,
budgeting, and planning activities. See, e.g., id. ]] 100-02; see
generally id. ]] 95-122.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the APA, an agency ``may postpone the
effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review,'' when
the ``agency finds that justice so requires.'' HHS has concluded that
the interests of justice require that the SUNSET final rule be stayed
pending judicial review. As discussed in greater detail below, HHS
believes that the Court may find merit in some of Plaintiffs' claims,
that Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are credible, and that the balance
of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the
effective date pending judicial review. Accordingly, the interests of
justice require a postponement in order to preserve the status quo,
because, if the rule took effect while HHS was evaluating the rule in
light of the claims raised in litigation, it could create significant
obligations for HHS, cause confusion for the public, including
Plaintiffs, and may lead to compliance costs as entities, including
Plaintiffs, plan steps necessary to deal with the rule's
implementation, as explained below. HHS is unaware of any benefits from
the implementation of the SUNSET final rule that would be significantly
curtailed from a stay of its effective date.
    The Department is taking a fresh and critical look at the SUNSET
final rule in light of the allegations in the Complaint (although many
of these concerns were also raised during the comment period on the
proposed rule). The Complaint alleges serious legal vulnerabilities of
the rule, and, while HHS does not concede any of these claims at this
time, HHS requires additional time to evaluate the SUNSET final rule
given the pending litigation. In addition, the Complaint raises the
question as to whether the SUNSET final rule, issued in the final days
of the last administration, is consistent with the policies and goals
of the current administration, both in terms of the appropriate role of
regulatory oversight of the health care industry and necessary
engagement with the public, including tribal organizations.
    The Complaint makes numerous allegations that the substantive
provisions of SUNSET final rule violate the law. The Complaint alleges
that the SUNSET final rule is contrary to and

exceeds the Department's authority under the APA, substantive organic
statutes, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because it schedules
the rescission of thousands of regulations that were required by
statute, amends regulations without the same level of process and
statutory considerations required for the original regulations, and
provides for automatic elimination of regulations without considering
the requirements of the RFA. The Complaint further alleges that the
SUNSET final rule is arbitrary and capricious and lacks a rational
basis because, among other reasons, it assumes that HHS will conduct
RFA reviews at an implausible pace; does not adequately consider the
extreme degree of regulatory uncertainty the SUNSET final rule creates;
underestimates the burden imposed on Plaintiffs for monitoring HHS
regulations to ensure they do not expire; and fails to consider the
specific regulations being amended to automatically expire.
    Given the volume of HHS agency regulations that the Department
would need to assess and, as applicable, review in a short period of
time, HHS now believes it is likely some regulations would expire
without any additional administrative process (contrary to the
conclusions reached in the SUNSET final rule). Under the SUNSET final
rule, for each covered regulation, HHS agencies would need to: Collect
data to conduct the relevant evaluation, perform an assessment and
possibly a review, consider any comments to the public docket related
to the evaluation, publish the results of this process in the Federal
Register (``including the full underlying analyses and data used to
support the results,'' 86 FR at 5712), and, if warranted, complete a
rulemaking to amend or rescind the regulation, which would itself
require an additional investment of agencies' resources and public
input. If the work is unable to be conducted within the final rule's
time frames, the regulations would expire.
    That outcome could raise interrelated administrative law questions
regarding: Whether regulations promulgated through notice and comment
rulemaking can be terminated through an umbrella rule without
individualized consideration of the expiring regulations, including any
reliance interests of parties affected by them; and, if so, whether the
proposed/final rule provided an adequate justification for implementing
a process of automatic expiration.
    The expiration component of the SUNSET final rule also raises
significant policy and public health questions concerning the value of
the assessment and review processes and whether those processes are so
important that they outweigh the value of the regulations that would
likely expire.
    The potential automatic expiration of regulatory programs could
create uncertainty and unpredictability regarding large swathes of the
rules governing health care, which would upend the status quo and in
turn could result in compliance costs to HHS grantees, contractors, and
health care providers and suppliers, many of whom may have structured
matters such as financial arrangements and business operations to
satisfy the conditions set forth in the current regulations. The
resulting disruption in the marketplace could impact stakeholders who
rely on the regulatory functions of each HHS agency. This uncertainty
could have serious implications for insurance markets, hospitals,
physicians, and patients, among other affected parties, which could
lead physicians and other regulated entities to forgo future
investments because of the lack of clarity. In addition, because States
depend on HHS to set national standards and have built vast regulatory
systems within that framework, the possibility that many regulations
would lapse could pose a direct threat to the States' healthcare
systems and the health and safety of individuals. The expiration of
regulations could also muddle the clarity and predictability of
existing regulations, which in turn would impede program implementation
and reduce HHS's overall efficiency.
    HHS is similarly concerned that the SUNSET final rule may have
significantly underestimated the burden of the assessments and reviews
for this magnitude of regulations and fails to account for the
substantial resources that would be needed for the HHS agencies to
simultaneously evaluate thousands of regulations in a short period of
time. For example, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included in the
final rule appears to focus on the number of staff and staff hours
required for ``reviews,'' but provides an incomplete estimate for the
cost of the initial ``assessment'' phase. That raises questions
regarding whether the RIA significantly underestimated the costs that
will be incurred by agencies and overestimates the purported cost
savings. Currently, there is no accurate impact analysis of the
substantial redirection of resources (both financial and employee)
required to provide the necessary expertise and input from economists,
epidemiologists, medical officers, legal and regulatory counsel, and
other subject matter experts.
    The Complaint also alleges that the promulgation of the SUNSET
final rule suffered from procedural deficiencies. Plaintiffs allege
that, despite widespread requests for more time, HHS issued the SUNSET
final rule after providing 30 days to comment on the rule's effect on
non-Medicare regulations and 60 days to comment on its effects on
Medicare regulations, seriously interfering with meaningful public
participation. The comments likewise raised concerns about the adequacy
of the comment period for a rule with this magnitude of impact and the
timing of the proposal, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, both
of which may have impeded the full and deliberate consideration of all
of the potential issues related to the SUNSET rule. For example, at the
Public Hearing, almost all commenters agreed that HHS should have
lengthened the comment period, and offered several reasons in support
of a longer comment period, all of which were expressed by multiple
commenters: That a proposal with this breadth, scope, and potential
harmful impact, including unintended detrimental consequences to
regulated industries, merited more time for thoughtful public input;
that impacted stakeholders included small businesses that would not be
able to digest and comment on a rule of this breadth in such a short
period of time; that it was irresponsible for HHS to engage in this
rulemaking during the height of the pandemic when stakeholder resources
were devoted to addressing the public health emergency; and that the
already short comment period included Thanksgiving weekend, which
exacerbated the time-crunch for commenters. See Transcript, Public
Hearing on the Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations
Timely Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Public Hearing Transcript) (Nov.
23, 2020) (available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OS-2020-0012-0501). As with Plaintiffs' above substantive claims, HHS
requires additional time to review the SUNSET final rule's compliance
with these procedural obligations, in light of Plaintiffs' claims,
before determining how to proceed in litigation and before creating
uncertainty among the regulated community. The SUNSET final rule is
uniquely situated in that it affects an extraordinarily large number of
regulations, which lends support for Plaintiffs' procedural claims.
    The Complaint also alleges that, despite the SUNSET final rule's
sweeping scope and tribal implications, the Department neglected to
consult

with tribal governments. Again, these same concerns were raised in the
written comments on the SUNSET proposed rule. Under Executive Order
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments,'' HHS is required, before any action is taken that will
significantly affect Indian Tribes, to consult with Indian Tribes in
the development of the proposed rule to the extent practicable and
permitted by law. 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). This required
consultation is in recognition that Tribes should be afforded an
opportunity to comment meaningfully on the rule's impact. However,
multiple comments from representatives of several Tribes and related
groups explained that, despite the enormous impact that this rule, if
implemented, would have on Tribes, HHS failed to consult with Tribal
governments (or even notify them regarding the proposal), contrary to
procedures required under Executive Order 13175. See, e.g., Comments
from the: Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Chickahominy Indian Tribe; Jena
Band of Choctaw Indians; Nez Perce Tribe; Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians; Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut; Tanana Chiefs
Conference; Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation; Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium; United South and Eastern Tribes
Sovereignty Protection Fund; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board; Quinault Indian Nation; California Tribal Families Coalition;
National Indian Child Welfare Association; Tribal Law and Policy
Institute; Tribal Technical Advisory Group; Native American Rights
Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OS-2020-0012-0001/comment. In
light of the allegations in the Complaint, we need to reconsider the
conclusion in the SUNSET final rule that the rule does not
significantly affect Indian Tribes or have Tribal implications.
Accordingly, HHS requires additional time to review the SUNSET final
rule in light of the pending litigation.
    In publishing the SUNSET final rule, the Department previously took
the position that the rule complies with the APA and that the comment
period was adequate, among other things. The Department's conclusions
rested on certain assumptions that the Complaint challenges. For
example, the Department expressed a view that it has the resources to
complete assessments and reviews and avoid expiration, thus avoiding
many of the legal concerns related to automatic repeal of regulations.
See, e.g., 86 FR 5694, 5705 (``The regulatory impact analysis in this
final rule explains how HHS has the resources and personnel to perform
the Assessments and Reviews called for by this final rule.''); id. at
5710 (``HHS does not intend to allow a regulation to simply expire.'');
id. at 5711 (``HHS believes that this final rule does not significantly
affect Indian Tribes or have Tribal implications . . . HHS intends that
all rules will be Assessed and (if necessary) Reviewed timely.
Therefore, this final rule would have no direct impact on Indian
Tribes''); id. at 5714 (``The Department does not intend for any
regulations to inadvertently sunset, and it is unlikely that any
regulations with significant benefits would slip through the
cracks.''). However, the Complaint alleges that ``there is no realistic
probability that the Department will be able to conduct the number of
reviews required to prevent automatic rescission,'' based in part on
the quantity of analyses that would be required in the first five years
and the agency's past practices. Complaint, ]] 84-85. As noted above,
the Department now believes that the RIA developed for the SUNSET final
rule may not have fully taken into account all of the resource
implications of this rule and therefore misjudged the likely expiration
of existing regulations, elevating the administrative law concerns and
concerns about the adequacy of the RIA.
    In addition, the Department previously took the view that a 30-day
comment period was adequate. However, the Complaint challenges the
sufficiency of a 30-day comment period for complex rules, Complaint, ]
54, and the SUNSET rule's unique breadth, affecting an extraordinarily
large number of regulations, could add force to such claims. The
Department also took the view that the lack of tribal consultation was
mitigated by the fact that Tribes will be able to comment on
regulations during the Assessment and Review processes, 86 FR at 5711,
but, as noted above, HHS is reconsidering that conclusion in light of
the claims raised in the Complaint.
    The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs and others are
immediately harmed by the SUNSET final rule. The Complaint alleges that
the uncertainty resulting from its implementation impacts the entire
healthcare sector, which accounts for nearly one-fifth of the U.S.
economy and secures individual and community health for hundreds of
millions of Americans, and that participants in every single industry
the Department regulates, including Plaintiffs, must plan their futures
and operations without knowing what regulations will govern their
businesses in these notoriously complex regulatory arenas. See
Complaint, ]] 2, 95-122. While HHS does not concede that Plaintiffs
would establish irreparable harm in litigation, HHS agrees that it is
appropriate to postpone the effective date of the SUNSET final rule to
preserve the status quo and to ensure that HHS has time to evaluate the
rule before it takes effect to avoid the possibility of confusion among
the regulated community.
    In addition, given the scope of work and timeframes set forth in
the SUNSET final rule, the review required under the rule would divert
the Department's resources from mission-critical endeavors for HHS
agencies. For example, based on a count cited in the SUNSET final rule,
under the timeline and definitions provided in the final rule, over
7,000 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are more than ten years old or would
become more than ten years old during the first five years the rule
would be in effect, representing over 95 percent of its current
regulations. Unless one of the exemptions applied, these regulations
would need to be assessed within five years and, if applicable,
reviewed, or be subject to expiration. If the SUNSET final rule were to
become effective as scheduled on March 22, 2021, then, in order to meet
these new obligations within the specified timeframe to avoid automatic
expiration of its regulations, FDA and the Department would need to
immediately divert resources toward assessment and review during the
ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency. In that event, FDA's reviews
of medical product applications, fulfillment of user fee commitments,
and actions to address urgent public health matters such as ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic relief efforts, outbreaks of foodborne illness,
inspections, recalls, and other public health priorities would be
significantly impacted. This concentration of resources in conducting
regulatory review pursuant to the SUNSET rule could prevent FDA from
modernizing its regulatory oversight more efficiently and addressing
new regulatory needs. These considerations further support HHS's
determination that justice requires a postponement of the SUNSET final
rule's effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 705.
    The SUNSET final rule presents similar burdens for HHS's seven
other Public Health Service agencies and three human services agencies,
such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), with
implications for

many initiatives. For example, comments at the Public Hearing from the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, National Immigration Law Center, and Service
Employees International Union raised concerns that the SUNSET rule
would undermine the regulations underpinning the Affordable Care Act,
potentially with catastrophic consequences for the health care of
millions of individuals and families. See Public Hearing Transcript. As
another example, Medicare regulations are numerous and have an
expansive reach, affecting many health care providers and suppliers in
this country. Permitting the rule to go into effect would require CMS
to assess thousands of regulations within a relatively short timeframe,
and would likely entail a massive expenditure of resources and
significantly increase the Department's workload. The rule would also
likely result in significant uncertainty and compliance costs to
Medicare providers and suppliers, many of which are small businesses.
In addition, this rule could cause the loss of program protections to
the beneficiaries of HHS programs and create uncertainty for
individuals and entities subject to administrative sanctions, or those
who seek reinstatement after exclusion from participation in Federal
health care programs. The National Health Law Program also commented at
the Public Hearing that the rule would create havoc in the Medicaid
industry. See Public Hearing Transcript. All of these potential
consequences would be detrimental to the public health, underscoring
that justice requires a postponement of the SUNSET final rule's
effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705.
    Because of these public health concerns, and the harms alleged by
the Plaintiffs and echoed in the comments, the balance of equities and
the public interest favor the issuance of a stay of the effective date
of the SUNSET final rule to preserve the status quo and allow for
judicial review of its legality before any implementation.
    Accordingly, HHS is issuing this stay of the effective date of this
final rule pending judicial review. This postponement applies to all of
the regulations established under the SUNSET final rule. As noted
above, the Complaint alleges that the SUNSET final rule suffers from a
variety of defects, including procedural defects related to its
promulgation. The Department believes it is appropriate to review the
entire rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation. Thus, this
postponement reaches the full rule, consistent with the Complaint's
prayer for relief.
    Separately, this document addresses and corrects several technical
errors identified by the Office of the Federal Register in the SUNSET
final rule.

Corrections

    In FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19, 2021, the
following corrections are made:
    1. On page 5694, first column, the list of CFR citations in the
heading under ``Administration for Children and Families'' that reads
``45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1390'' is corrected to read
``45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300.''
    2. On page 5751, first column, the reference to ``45 CFR part
1390'' in the List of Subjects is corrected to read ``45 CFR part
1300.''

SUBCHAPTER A [Corrected]

0
3. On page 5763, first column, in instruction 10, the heading for
subchapter A and the table of contents for part 1300 are corrected to
read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER A--Administrative Matters

PART 1300--REVIEW OF REGULATIONS

Sec.
1300.1 Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations.
1300.2 through 1300.5 [Reserved]

Norris Cochran,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05907 Filed 3-18-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4150-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19171-19173]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0062]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone: Electric Boat Shipyard, Groton, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the security zone
boundaries surrounding the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton,
Connecticut. The proposed amendment to the Security Zone is due to the
expanding operations at Electric Boat Shipyard. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0062 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Marine Science Technician 3rd Class
Ashley Dodd, Waterways Management Division, Sector Long Island Sound;
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Electric Boat Shipyard has a history of constructing vessels for
the United States Navy. For this reason a security zone is established
to safeguard from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
submersive acts, or other causes of a similar nature to its waterfront
facility and its vessels that they construct. In order for Electric
Boat Shipyard to assemble and launch the Columbia Class Submarine for
the U.S. Navy they are building a new submarine construction facility
and floating dry dock. Therefore, Electric Boat is requesting a
modification to expand the currently existing security zone.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to modify the location of the
existing security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.154(a)(2). Captain of the
Port Long Island Sound proposes to add a new point in the definition of
the security zone and replace two turning points. This would allow the
zone to encompass the new building for construction of submarines and
floating dry dock.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Part 165 of 33 CFR contains specific regulated navigation areas and
limited access areas to prescribe general regulations for different
types of limited or controlled access areas and regulated navigation
areas and list specific areas and their boundaries. Section 165.154
establishes Safety and Security Zones: Captain of the Port Long Island
Sound Zone Safety and Security Zones.
    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the location of the existing
security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.154(a)(2)(i) Safety and Security
Zones: Captain of the Port Zone Safety and Security Zones, to expand
the zone, as indicate in the illustration below, to protect a new
submarine construction facility and floating dry dock being built
adjacent to the current facility.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AP21.031

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic would be
able to safely transit around the security zone which would impact a
small designated area of the Thames River.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, 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 made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security
zone to limit access near Electric Boat Shipyard. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary 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. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for
email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 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; Departmemt of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. In Sec.  165.154, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.154   Safety and Security Zones; Captain of the Port Long
Island Sound Zone Safety and Security Zones.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Location. All navigable waters of the Thames River, from
surface to bottom, West of the Electric Boat Corportation Shipyard
enclosed by a line beginning at a point on the shoreline 41[deg]20'16''
N, 72[deg]04'47'' W; then running West to 41[deg]20'16.2'' N,
72[deg]04'58.0'' W; then running North to 41[deg]20'28.7'' N,
72[deg]05'01.7'' W; then North-Northwest to 41[deg]20'53.3'' N,
72[deg]05'04.8'' W; then North-Northeast to 41[deg]21'02.9'' N,
72[deg]05'04.9'' W; then running to shoreline at 41[deg]21'02.9'' N,
72[deg]04'58.2'' W (NAD 83).
    (ii) Application. Paragraphs (a), (e), (f) of Sec.  165.33 do not
apply to public vessels or to vessels owned by, under hire to, or
performing work for the Electric Boat Division when operating in the
security zone.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 8, 2021
E.J. Van Vamp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2021-07651 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35770-35771]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-474-000]

Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 14, 2017, Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline
(Kinder Morgan), 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas
77002, filed an application in Docket No. CP17-474-000 under section 3
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 153 of the Commission's
regulations for an amendment to the Presidential Permit and
authorization to Kinder Morgan by the Commission under Docket No. CP99-
564-000. Kinder Morgan is seeking authorization to amend its current
NGA section 3 authorization to increase the authorized design capacity
of its border facilities from approximately 300 million cubic feet per
day (MMcf/d) to 450 MMcf/d, 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 (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Melinda Winn Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline
LLC, 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 369-
8780, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    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 5 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.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: August 15, 2017.

    Dated: July 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16070 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48555-48556]
[DOCID:fr23se09-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0986; FRL-8437-8]

Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0986 and the pesticide petition number (PP)
6H5743, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0986 and the pesticide petition number (PP) 6H5743. EPA's policy
is that all comments received will be included in the docket without
change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Rodia, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition
to one complete version of the comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have a typical or disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance

    PP 6H5743. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0986. EPA has received a pesticide
petition PP 6H5743, from Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870 Technology
Way, Libertyville, IL 60048-6316, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d),
to amend 40 CFR part 180, by establishing a tolerance for residues of
allethrin in or on food items as a result of applications in food
handling establishments at 1.0 parts per million (ppm). EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FFDCA; however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may
be needed before EPA rules on the petition. Analytical methods for
determining residues of allethrin in a variety of food commodities have
been developed and submitted to the Agency. These methods use gas
chromatography (GC) with quantitation by an electron capture detector
(ECD) for determination of total allethrin residues. These methods have
been validated and are appropriate for the determination of allethrin
residues in a variety of food commodities after application in food
handling establishments.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Rachel C. Holloman,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-22939 Filed 9?-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61787-61789]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21605]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34026; File No. 812-15145]

Arca U.S. Treasury Fund and Arca Capital Management, LLC

September 24, 2020.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption
from rule 23c-3 under the Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order under sections
6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption from certain provisions
of rule 23c-3 to permit certain registered closed-end investment
companies to make repurchase offers on a monthly basis.
    Applicants: Arca U.S. Treasury Fund (the ``Fund'') and Arca Capital
Management, LLC (the ``Adviser'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 22, 2020 and
amended on September 10, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be
received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 19, 2020, and should
be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an
affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: c/o
Kelley A. Howes, by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6915, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under
the Act as a diversified, closed-end management investment company that
operates as an interval fund. The Adviser is a Delaware limited
liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment
adviser to the Fund.
    2. Applicants request that any relief granted also apply to any
registered closed-end management investment company that operates as an
interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 for which the Adviser or any
entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the
Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,\1\ acts as
investment adviser (the ``Future Funds,'' and together with the Fund,
the ``Funds,'' and each, individually, a ``Fund'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ All entities currently intending to rely on the requested
relief have been named as applicants. Any entity that relies on the
requested order in the future will do so only in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Fund's common shares are not offered or traded in the
secondary market and are not listed on any exchange or quoted on any
quotation medium. The Fund issues its shares as digital securities
(``ArCoins''), meaning the securities are uncertificated securities,
the ownership and transfer of which are authenticated and recorded as
ERC-1404 compatible tokens on Ethereum, an electronic distributed
ledger that is secured using cryptography (referred to as a
``blockchain'').
    4. Applicants request an order to permit each Fund to offer to
repurchase a portion of its common shares at one-month intervals,
rather than the three, six, or twelve-month intervals specified by rule
23c-3.
    5. Each Fund will disclose in its prospectus and annual reports its
fundamental policy to make monthly offers to repurchase a portion of
its common shares at net asset value, less deduction of a repurchase
fee, if any, as permitted by rule 23c-3(b)(1). The fundamental policy
will be changeable only by a majority vote of the holders of such
Fund's outstanding voting securities. Under the fundamental policy, the
repurchase offer amount will be determined by the board of trustees of
the applicable Fund (``Board'') prior to each repurchase offer. Each
Fund will comply with rule 23c-3(b)(8)'s requirements with respect to
its trustees who are not interested persons of such Fund, within the
meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (``Disinterested Trustees'') and
their legal counsel. Each Fund will make monthly offers to repurchase
not less than 5% of its outstanding shares at the time of the
repurchase request deadline. The repurchase offer amounts for the then-
current monthly period, plus the repurchase offer amounts for the two
monthly periods immediately preceding the then-current monthly period,
will not exceed 25% of the outstanding common shares of the applicable
Fund.
    6. Each Fund's fundamental policies will specify the means to
determine the repurchase request deadline and the maximum number of
days between each repurchase request deadline and the repurchase
pricing date. Each Fund's repurchase pricing date normally will be the
same date as the repurchase request deadline and pricing will be
determined after close of business on that date.
    7. Pursuant to rule 23c-3(b)(1), each Fund will repurchase shares
for cash on or before the repurchase payment deadline, which will be no
later than seven calendar days after the repurchase pricing date. Each
Fund intends to make payment by the fifth business day or seventh
calendar day (whichever period is shorter) following the repurchase
pricing date. Each Fund will make payment for shares repurchased in the
previous month's repurchase offer at least five business days before
sending notification of the next repurchase offer. Each Fund may deduct
a repurchase fee in an amount not to exceed 2% from the repurchase
proceeds payable to

tendering shareholders, in compliance with rule 23c-3(b)(1).
    8. Each Fund will provide common shareholders with notification of
each repurchase offer no less than seven days and no more than fourteen
days prior to the repurchase request deadline. The notification will
include all information required by rule 23c-3(b)(4)(i). Each Fund will
file the notification and the Form N-23c-3 with the Commission within
three business days after sending the notification to its respective
common shareholders.
    9. Each Fund will not suspend or postpone a repurchase offer except
pursuant to the vote of a majority of its trustees, including a
majority of its Disinterested Trustees, and only under the limited
circumstances specified in rule 23c-3(b)(3)(i). Each Fund will not
condition a repurchase offer upon tender of any minimum amount of
shares. In addition, each Fund will comply with the pro ration and
other allocation requirements of rule 23c-3(b)(5) if common
shareholders tender more than the repurchase offer amount. Further,
each Fund will permit tenders to be withdrawn or modified at any time
until the repurchase request deadline, but will not permit tenders to
be withdrawn or modified thereafter.
    10. From the time a Fund sends its notification to shareholders of
the repurchase offer until the repurchase pricing date, a percentage of
such Fund's assets equal to at least 100% of the repurchase offer
amount will consist of: (a) Assets that can be sold or disposed of in
the ordinary course of business at approximately the price at which
such Fund has valued such investment within a period equal to the
period between the repurchase request deadline and the repurchase
payment deadline; or (b) assets that mature by the next repurchase
payment deadline. In the event the assets of a Fund fail to comply with
this requirement, the Board will cause such Fund to take such action as
it deems appropriate to ensure compliance.
    11. In compliance with the asset coverage requirements of section
18 of the Act, any senior security issued by, or other indebtedness of,
a Fund will either mature by the next repurchase pricing date or
provide for such Fund's ability to call, repay or redeem such senior
security or other indebtedness by the next repurchase pricing date,
either in whole or in part, without penalty or premium, as necessary to
permit that Fund to complete the repurchase offer in such amounts
determined by its Board.
    12. The Board of each Fund will adopt written procedures to ensure
that such Fund's portfolio assets are sufficiently liquid so that it
can comply with its fundamental policy on repurchases and the liquidity
requirements of rule 23c-3(b)(10)(i). The Board of each Fund will
review the overall composition of the portfolio and make and approve
such changes to the procedures as it deems necessary.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of the Act or
rule thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act.
    2. Section 23(c) of the Act provides in relevant part that no
registered closed-end investment company shall purchase any securities
of any class of which it is the issuer except: (a) On a securities
exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after
reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of
securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under such other
circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or
orders for the protection of investors.
    3. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end
investment company to make repurchase offers for its common stock at
net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy
of the investment company. ``Periodic interval'' is defined in rule
23c-3(a)(1) as an interval of three, six, or twelve months. Rule 23c-
3(b)(4) requires that notification of each repurchase offer be sent to
shareholders no less than 21 calendar days and no more than 42 calendar
days before the repurchase request deadline.
    4. Applicants request an order pursuant to sections 6(c) and 23(c)
of the Act exempting them from rule 23c-3(a)(1) to the extent necessary
to permit the Funds to make monthly repurchase offers. Applicants also
request an exemption from the notice provisions of rule 23c-3(b)(4) to
the extent necessary to permit each Fund to send notification of an
upcoming repurchase offer to shareholders at least seven days but no
more than fourteen calendar days in advance of the repurchase request
deadline.
    5. Applicants contend that monthly repurchase offers are in the
public interest and in the common shareholders' interests and
consistent with the policies underlying rule 23c-3. Applicants assert
that monthly repurchase offers will provide investors with more
liquidity than quarterly repurchase offers. Applicants assert that
shareholders will be better able to manage their investments and plan
transactions, because if they decide to forego a repurchase offer, they
will only need to wait one month for the next offer. Applicants also
contend that the portfolio of each Fund will be managed to provide
ample liquidity for monthly repurchase offers.
    6. Applicants propose to send notification to shareholders at least
seven days, but no more than fourteen calendar days, in advance of a
repurchase request deadline. Applicants assert that, because each Fund
intends to make payment on the fifth business day or seventh calendar
day (whichever period is shorter) following the repurchase pricing
date, the entire procedure will be completed before the next
notification is sent out to shareholders, thus avoiding any overlap.
Applicants believe that these procedures will eliminate any possibility
of investor confusion. Applicants also state that monthly repurchase
offers will be a fundamental feature of the Funds, and their
prospectuses will provide a clear explanation of the repurchase
program.
    7. Applicants submit that for the reasons given above the requested
relief is appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Fund (and any Future Fund relying on this relief) will make
a repurchase offer pursuant to rule 23c-3(b) for a repurchase offer
amount of not less than 5% in any one-month period. In addition, the
repurchase offer amount for the then-current monthly period, plus the
repurchase offer amounts for the two monthly periods immediately
preceding the then-current monthly period, will not exceed 25% of the
Fund's (or Future Fund's, as applicable) outstanding common shares. The
Fund (and any Future Fund relying on this relief) may repurchase
additional tendered common shares pursuant to rule 23c-3(b)(5) only to
the extent the percentage of additional common shares so repurchased
does not exceed 2% in any three-month period.
    2. Payment for repurchased common shares will occur at least five
business days before notification of the next

repurchase offer is sent to common shareholders of the Fund (or any
Future Fund relying on this relief).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21605 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P