[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3552-3555]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00909]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-1001]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones, Charleston Sharkfest Swim; Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving
safety zone on the waters of Charleston Harbor, in Charleston, South
Carolina during the Charleston Sharkfest Swim on Sunday, April 27, 2014
from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The Charleston Sharkfest Swim is a 1500
meter swimming race. The safety zone is necessary for the safety of the
swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
during the swim. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 21, 2014. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843)
740-3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    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. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-1001 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may

change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-1001 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's
authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited
access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure the safety of the
swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
during the Charleston Sharkfest Swim.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On Sunday, April 27, 2014, the Charleston Sharkfest Swim is
scheduled to take place in Charleston Harbor, in Charleston, South
Carolina. The Charleston Sharkfest Swim will consist of a 1500 meter
swim that starts Charleston Maritime Center, crosses the main shipping
channel of Charleston Harbor, and finishes at Patriots Point in Mt.
Pleasant.
    The proposed rule would establish temporary moving safety zones of
50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race
participant, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race
participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of the
race participants and safety vessels. The temporary safety zones would
be enforced from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m. on April 27, 2014.
    Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering or transiting
through the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels would be
able to request authorization to enter or transit through the safety
zones by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at
(843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel
16.

D. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The safety zones would only be enforced for
a total of two hours; (2) the safety zones would move with the
participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the
waterway, the safety zones would no longer be enforced in that portion
of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels would not be able to
enter or transit through the safety zones without authorization from
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they
would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement
period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit
through the safety zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard
would provide advance notification of the safety zones to the local
maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the
Charleston Harbor, in Charleston, South Carolina encompassed within the
safety zones from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m. on April 27, 2014. For the
reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above,
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing temporary moving safety zones as described
in figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-1001 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-1001  Safety Zones; Charleston Sharkfest Swim,
Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated area is a moving
safety zone: All waters 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel
preceding the first race participants, 50 yards behind the safety
vessel trailing the last race participants, and at all times extend 100
yards on either side of the race participants and safety vessels. The
Charleston Sharkfest Swim will consist of a 1500 meter swim that starts
Charleston Maritime Center, crosses the main shipping channel of
Charleston Harbor, and finishes at Patriots Point in Mt. Pleasant.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering or
transiting through the regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter or transit through the
regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter or transit through the regulated areas is granted by the Captain
of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m.
on April 27, 2014.

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
R.R. Rodriguez,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2014-00909 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54895-54897]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0929; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-031-AD;
Amendment 39-17968; AD 2013-22-14 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an airworthiness directive (AD) 2013-22-14 for
any DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T glider equipped with a Solo
Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as engine shaft failure and consequent propeller detachment.
We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 20, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 20,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0929; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo
Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 60 01 52, D 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany;
telephone: +49 07031-301-0; fax: +49 07031-301-136; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com/ com/.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-
1000T airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June
27, 2014 (79 FR 36440), and proposed to revise AD 2013-22-14, Amendment
39-17646 (78 FR 65869, November 4, 2013) (``AD 2013-22-14'').
    Since we issued AD 2013-22-14, the manufacturer of the Solo
Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine has developed an engine modification
to restore engine operation.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2013-0217R1, dated May 5, 2014 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    An occurrence of Solo 2350 C engine shaft failure and consequent
propeller detachment was reported. The preliminary investigation
revealed that the failed shaft was earlier modified in accordance
with an approved method.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional cases
of release of the propeller from the engine, possibly resulting in
damage to the sailplane, or injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued
Emergency AD 2013-0217-E to prohibit operation of the engine.
    Since that AD was issued, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH developed a
modification consisting of installing an improved eccenter axle--
pulley assembly, allowing to resume operation of the engine.
    For the reason described above, this AD is revised to
incorporate the optional modification, cancelling the operational
restriction.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0929-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 36440, June 27,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 36440, June 27, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 36440, June 27, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 2 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about .5 work-hour per product to
comply with the retained requirement of placing a copy of AD 2013-22-14
into the Limitations section of the aircraft flight manual,

which prohibits engine operation. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this retained
requirement on U.S. operators to be $85, or $42.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that the optional engine modification will
take about 1.5 work-hours and require parts costing $100, for a cost of
$227.50. If both products of U.S. registry incorporated the engine
modification, the cost of the modification on U.S. operators will be
$455.
    If the engine modification is done, it will also take about .5
work-hour per product to remove the engine operation restriction (copy
of AD 2013-22-14) from the Limitations section of the aircraft flight
manual. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour, for a cost of
$42.50 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0929; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-17646 (78 FR
65869, November 4, 2013), and adding the following new AD:

2013-22-14 R1 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-17968; Docket No.
FAA-2013-0929; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-031-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 20,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2013-22-14, Amendment 39-17646 (78 FR 65869,
November 4, 2013) (``AD 2013-22-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders,
all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as engine shaft
failure and consequent propeller detachment. We are issuing this AD
to prevent engine shaft failure and propeller detachment, which
could result in damage to the glider and injury to persons on the
ground.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD.
    (1) As of November 25, 2013 (the effective date retained from AD
2013-22-14), do not operate the engine unless the engine is modified
following instructions that are approved by the FAA specifically for
AD 2013-22-14. Contact the FAA office identified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD to get more information about obtaining such
instructions.
    (2) As of November 25, 2013 (the effective date retained from AD
2013-22-14), place a copy of AD 2013-22-14 or this AD into the
Limitations section of the aircraft flight manual (AFM).
    (3) To remove the prohibited engine operation requirement in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the engine as specified in the
Actions paragraph of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung
Service Bulletin Nr. 4603-14, dated April 28, 2014, unless already
modified with FAA-approved instructions as specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(3) of this AD: This service information
contains German to English translation. The European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) used the English translation in referencing the
document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo
Kleinmotoren GmbH service information as the title appears on the
document.

    (4) Prior to further flight after modifying the engine as
specified in paragraph (f)(1) or paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, remove
the engine operation restriction (copy of AD 2013-22-14) from the
Limitations section of the AFM.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106;

telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any glider
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2013-0217R1, dated May 5, 2014, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2013-0929-0003.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung Service
Bulletin Nr. 4603-14, dated April 28, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH service information identified in
this AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 60 01 52, D 71050
Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 07031-301-0; fax: +49 07031-
301-136; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://aircraft.solo-online.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 5, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21761 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24043-24045]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9431; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-104-AD;
Amendment 39-18897; AD 2017-10-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
determination that cracks could develop on holes at certain fuselage
frame locations. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking
on holes at certain fuselage frame locations, and repairs if necessary.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 29, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 29,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9431.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A321
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
December 2, 2016 (81 FR 86975). The NPRM was prompted by a
determination from fatigue testing on the Model A321 airframe that
cracks could develop on holes at certain fuselage frame locations. The
NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking on holes
at certain fuselage frame locations, and repairs if necessary. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain hole
locations in the fuselage frame, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0106, dated June 6, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model
A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a new full scale fatigue test campaign on the A321
airframe, in the context of the A321 extended service goal, it was
identified that cracks could develop on holes at frame (FR) 35.2A
between stringers (STR) 22 and STR 23 on right hand (RH) and left
hand (LH) sides, also on aeroplanes operated in the context of
design service goal.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the fuselage.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed an inspection
programme, published in Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1315 and SB
A320-53-1316, each containing instructions for a different location.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive special detailed (rototest) inspections (SDI) of the
affected holes [for cracking] and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of a repair.
    This [EASA] AD is considered an interim action, pending
development of a permanent solution.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9431.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response.

Request To Use Later Approved Service Information Revisions

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to permit
use of later approved revisions of service information as we have done
in previous alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). DAL stated that
Airbus service bulletins are EASA approved, and through the bi-lateral
agreement with the European Union, these subsequent service bulletin
revisions should be allowed to be used by U.S. operators without
seeking an AMOC. DAL also explained that having the ability to utilize
future service bulletin revisions without seeking an AMOC is more
efficient and preserves the required level of safety.
    We do not agree with DAL's request. While we acknowledge that we
allow the use of later approved revisions of service information in
AMOCs, we may not allow use of ``later FAA-approved revisions'' in an
AD when referring to the service document. Doing so violates Office of
the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials
``incorporated by reference,'' as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f).
    In general terms, we are required by the OFR regulations to either
publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD
language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as
``referenced'' material, in which case we may only refer to such
material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document
only if the OFR approved it for ``incorporation by reference.'' See 1
CFR part 51.
    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced
document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise
the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use later revisions as an AMOC under the provisions of
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13,
2016; and Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13, 2016. This
service information describes procedures for doing a special detailed
inspection for cracking at the tooling holes on frame 35.2A between
stringer 22 and stringer 23, and repairs. These documents are distinct
since they apply to different sides of the airplane. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 175 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
        Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............  12 work-hours x $85 per                 $0  $1,020 per inspection  $178,500 per
                         hour = $1,020 per                           cycle.                 inspection cycle
                         inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-10-23 Airbus: Amendment 39-18897; Docket No. FAA-2016-9431;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-104-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 29, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination from fatigue testing on
the Model A321 airframe that cracks could develop on holes at
certain fuselage frame locations. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracking at certain hole locations in the fuselage
frame, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Do a special detailed (rototest) inspection for
cracking of the affected holes at frame 35.2A on the left-hand side
and right-hand side between stringer 22 and stringer 23, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13, 2016 (right-hand side); and
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13, 2016 (left-
hand side). Repeat the inspection of the affected holes thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 21,500 flight cycles or 43,100 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (1) Before exceeding 25,400 total flight cycles or 50,900 total
flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) Within 3,300 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Although the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and
specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance), this AD
requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repair of an
airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute
terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, unless specified otherwise in the instructions
provided by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0106, dated June 6, 2016, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9431.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1315, dated January 13,
2016.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1316, dated January 13,
2016.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10264 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65549-65551]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0451]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal. This action is necessary to protect spectators, participants,
and vessels from the hazards associated with the Tough Cup event on
these navigable waters in Chicago, IL, on September 24, 2016. This
regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0451 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 27, 2015, the Coast Guard received an Application for
Marine Event for the Tough Cup event that will be held from 6:30 a.m.
to 1 p.m. on September 24, 2016, on the South Branch of the Chicago
River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the Illinois
Northern Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway Bridge. In response, on
July 1, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL'' (81 FR 43178). There we
stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that
ended July 31, 2016, we received two comments.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. To provide an
opportunity for comment, as opposed to not issuing an NPRM, we issued
the NPRM knowing it would be impracticable not to make a final rule
effective less than 30 days after it is published. Delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be impracticable because it would inhibit the ability to protect the
public and vessels from the hazards associated with a race involving
personal watercraft to take place on September 24, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that
the potential hazards associated with vessels transiting through a
narrow and congested section of the river during the Tough Cup event
will pose concerns for all vessels navigating in the area. The purpose
of this rule is to ensure the safety of spectators, vessels
participating in the event and all vessels operating in the vicinity of
the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published July
1, 2016. One comment stated concerns with the notification to the
public being sufficient for the proposed rule. The Coast Guard has
provided notice required by the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.
553) and will also provide notification by issuing a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16. To further address the
concern of sufficient notification, the Coast Guard will include a
notification in the Local Notice to Mariners publication. The second
comment received was supportive of the event and related waterway
restriction. There is one change in the regulatory text of this rule
from the proposed rule in the NPRM to include the additional
notification in the Local Notice to Mariners publication. This rule
establishes a safety zone from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24,
2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the South
Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
between the Illinois Northern Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway
Bridge in Chicago, IL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure
the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and
after the scheduled Tough Cup event. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and Budget.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a short duration on the one day this
rule will be in effect to ensure safety of spectators and participants
at this scheduled event. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
safety zone, a notification in the Local Notice to Mariners
publication, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want
to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive
Order13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting six and a half hours that will
prohibit entry within a section of the South Branch of the Chicago
River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34g of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0451 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0451  Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River
and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the Illinois Northern
Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway Bridge.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective
from 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2016 and will be enforced
from 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on
his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: September 19, 2016.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2016-22919 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35825-35827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0624]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim Event, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac within 250-yards of the
Mackinac Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect 400 swimmers
participating in a swim across the Mackinac Straits from risks
associated with the boating public. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 11,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0624 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Sean Murphy, Waterways Management, Sector Sault Sainte
Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the final details of the specific
marine event and safety zone distance were not finalized within a
sufficient time to allow for notice and a subsequent comment period
before the commencement of the planned marine event. Delaying this rule
to allow for a notice and comment period would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect the 400 swimmers participating in this swim
event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is
needed to protect the 400 swimmers participating in this event on
August 11, 2019.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with 400
swimmers swimming across the Straits of Mackinac in a swim event will
be a safety concern for anyone within 250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge.
This rule is needed to protect event participants and support vessels
during the event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on
August 11, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within
250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended
to protect event swimmers and support vessels during the marine event.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic may request
permission to transit the zone from the designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, who may escort the vessel across the Safety
Zone when there is no risk to the event participants. The field of
swimmers will not spread across the entirety of the waterway; thus,
there will be opportunity for a designated representative of the
Captain of the Port to escort vessels requesting to transit the zone.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a 250 yard safety zone around the
Mackinac Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0624 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0624  Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim Event, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters, from top to bottom, within 250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge in
the Straits of Mackinac.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 11, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, hail the COTP's representative on
an appropriate VHF channel. Those in the safety zone must comply with
all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.

    Dated: July 22, 2019.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2019-15834 Filed 7-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16039-16040]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05839]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94416; File No. SR-BOX-2022-09]

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

March 15, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 1, 2022, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 the
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 to
amend Section II.D (Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap and Rebate) on the BOX
Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. 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 website 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 Section II.D (Strategy QOO Order Fee
Cap and Rebate) of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to decrease the daily fee cap for short stock interest, long
stock interest, merger, reversal, conversion, jelly roll, and box
spread strategies \5\ executed on the same trading day from $1,000 to
$500. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the daily fee cap for dividend
strategies \6\ will continue to be $1,000 per day per customer. As
such, the Exchange proposes to add clarifying language to the Fee
Schedule that states that for dividend strategies, the rebate of $500
per customer will apply once the $1,000 fee cap is met.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``short stock interest strategy'' is defined as a
transaction done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage
involving the purchase, sale, and exercise of in-the-money options
of the same class. A ``long stock interest strategy'' is defined as
a transaction done to achieve long stock involving the purchase,
sale, and exercise of in-the-money options of the same class. A
``merger strategy'' is defined as transactions done to achieve a
merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, each executed prior
to the date on which shareholders of record are required to elect
their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. A
``reversal strategy'' is established by combining a short security
position with a short put and a long call position that shares the
same strike and expiration. A ``conversion strategy'' is established
by combining a long position in the underlying security with a long
put and a short call position that shares the same strike and
expiration. A ``jelly roll strategy'' is created by entering into
two separate positions simultaneously. One position involves buying
a put and selling a call with the same strike price and expiration.
The second position involves selling a put and buying a call, with
the same strike price, but with a different expiration from the
first position. A ``box spread strategy'' is a strategy that
synthesizes long and short stock positions to create a profit.
Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike is combined
with a short call and long put at a different strike to create
synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions, respectively.
    \6\ A ``dividend strategy'' is defined as a transaction done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that the daily fee cap for dividend
strategies is similar to a fee cap at another options exchange in
the industry. See Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') Fee Schedule. On Phlx,
Lead Marker Makers, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-
Dealers receive a fee cap of $1,100 for dividend strategies executed
on the same trading day in the same options class when such members
are trading in their own proprietary account or on an agency basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the above change is to increase order flow in certain
strategy QOO Orders on the BOX Trading Floor, which will benefit all
market participants. The Exchange notes that these changes will apply
equally to all Participants, regardless of Participant type or size of
the Participant. The Exchange notes that similar fee caps exist at
other options exchanges for these order types.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') Options Fee
Schedule Section I.J. At NYSE American, there is a $1,000 cap on
transaction fees for options Strategy Executions involving reversals
and conversions, box spreads, short stock interest spreads, merger
spreads, and jelly rolls; however, the cap is reduced to $200 on
transactions fees for qualifying strategies traded on the same
trading day for those ATP Holders that trade at least 25,000 monthly
billable contract sides in qualifying Strategy Executions. See also
Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 4.
Phlx offers merger, short stock interest and box spread strategy
cap, which is applicable to Lead Market Makers, Market Makers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers, of $1,000 (daily) if more
than one class of options, and $700 (daily) if only in a single
class of options. Further, Phlx offers a daily strategy cap for
reversal and conversion and jelly roll strategies on the same
trading day of $200 (daily).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the daily fee cap for short
stock interest, long stock interest, merger, reversal, conversion,
jelly roll, and box spread strategies is reasonable as the Exchange
believes it will incentivize Participants to execute a greater number
of these strategy types on the BOX Trading Floor for the opportunity to
qualify for the lower daily strategy cap. Strategy fee caps limit fees
for Participants executing these strategy types.
    Further, the Exchange's proposal to decrease the daily fee cap for
short stock interest, long stock interest, merger, reversal,
conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategies is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all account types may qualify for the
strategy cap provided those strategies are executed on the same trading
day.
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes the proposed change will
incentivize order flow in certain QOO Strategy Orders, and the Exchange
believes that the decreased fee cap will

result in increased participation in these types of orders on the BOX
Trading Floor. As such, the Exchange believes that increased
participation on the Trading Floor will result in increased liquidity
on the BOX Floor which will benefit all market participants.

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 Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change burdens competition and will instead help
promote competition by continuing to provide incentives for market
participants to submit strategy orders to the BOX Trading Floor.
Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will
impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all Floor
Participants are subject to the proposed change, regardless of account
type.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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 Exchange Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\11\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2022-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2022-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2022-09, and should be submitted on
or before April 11, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05839 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P