[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86610-86614]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28890]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90792; File No. SR-BOX-2020-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7620 (Accommodation
Transactions)

December 23, 2020.
    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 December 10, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7620 (Accommodation
Transactions) to allow Floor Brokers to enter opening cabinet orders on
behalf of customers and Floor Market Makers, and codify that cabinet
trades will follow open outcry rules pursuant to Exchange Rule 7600.
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://boxoptions.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    First, the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7620
(Accommodation Transactions) to allow Floor Brokers to enter opening
cabinet orders on behalf of customers \3\ and Floor Market Makers. This
is a competitive filing that is based on cabinet trading functionality
at Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Customers of the Floor Broker can include Public Customers,
Broker Dealers and Market Makers.
    \4\ See Cboe Rule 5.85(h) (previously, Cboe Rule 6.54
Accommodation Liquidations (Cabinet Trades); see also Securities
Exchange Release No. 34-73974 (December 31, 2014) (Order Approving
SR-CBOE-2014-93)(explaining under the [cabinet trade] procedures,
bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price
of $1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by
a Floor Broker . . . but must yield priority to all resting orders
in the [ ] cabinet book (which resting cabinet book orders may be
closing only); Securities Exchange Release No. 34-86994 (September
23, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-058) (noting inadvertent removal of rule
language and current proposal to clarify and explicitly state market
participants may continue to place opening cabinet orders, so long
as they yield to all closing cabinet orders represented by the
trading crowd).

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

    As background, with respect to the proposed change, the Exchange
adopted cabinet trading on the Exchange's Trading Floor.\5\ Under the
current BOX Rule 7620 (Accommodation Transactions), only closing
cabinet transactions at a price of $1 per option contract for the
account of a customer or Floor Market Maker are allowed. In addition,
the rule specifies that opening orders are not cabinet orders, but
opening orders in certain cases may be matched with a cabinet order.\6\
The Exchange now wishes to allow opening cabinet orders to further
accommodate additional cabinet transactions on the Exchange Trading
Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 34-85803 (May 8, 2019)
(Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness SR-BOX-2019-16).
    \6\ See BOX Rule 7620(c), (d), and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to amend the definition of cabinet
orders to include bids and offers (whether opening or closing) at a
price of $1 per option contract for the account of a customer or Floor
Market Maker.
    The Exchange expects the majority of opening cabinet orders to be
submitted by Market Makers (e.g., Floor Market Makers or Away Market
Makers), but intends to offer the potential benefits of these
transactions to all participants.\7\ As liquidity providers, Market
Makers play a vital role in the financial markets and help to
facilitate market efficiency and price discovery. Market Makers engage
in a course of dealings for their own account to assist with the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market. Market Makers must
consistently manage portfolio risk and seek opportunities to hedge
their exposures in order to maintain a risk-neutral position. Failure
to rebalance portfolios and continuously hedge exposes Market Makers to
undesirable risk. Therefore, permitting Market Makers to submit opening
cabinet orders, while yielding priority to all closing cabinet orders,
will enable Market Makers (or other market participants) to hedge away
unwanted exposure and get back to a risk-neutral position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Although the Exchange anticipates that Market Makers would
be the primary market participant involved in submitting opening
cabinet trades, the Exchange proposes to offer the order type to all
participants for competitive reasons. The Exchange notes that its
competitors offer all participants the ability to submit opening
cabinet orders, and therefore, the Exchange wishes to offer the same
opportunities. See Securities Exchange Release No. 34-86994
(September 17, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
SR-CBOE-2019-058) (stating that ``market participants may continue .
. . to place opening cabinet orders, which must continue to yield to
all closing cabinet orders represented by the trading crowd.''); See
also NYSEArca Rule 6.80-O(b)(3) (stating ``[Cabinet] [o]rders may be
placed for customer, firm and Market Maker accounts . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of the proposed rule change, consider the following:
    Assume Market Maker (MM1) has the following positions:

(Position 1): Long 300 put contracts on XYZ with a May 2020 expiration
date, and a $105 strike price
(Position 2): Short 300 put contracts on XYZ with a May 2020 expiration
date, and a $100 strike price
    XYZ stock is currently at $50 per share.

    If MM1 then exercises Position 1 (Long 105 puts). MM1's positions
are now:

(Position 2): Short 300 put contracts on XYZ with a May 2020 expiration
date, and a $100 strike price
(Position 3): Short 30,000 \8\ Shares of XYZ stock (because MM1
exercised Position 1 and now has the right to sell 30,000 Shares of the
underlying stock)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Example assumes each contract covers 100 shares of the
underlying stock, therefore, 300 contracts multiplied by 100 shares
of the underlying stock is 30,000 shares.

    With this change MM1's current risk is XYZ's stock price rising
past $100 per share, a risk exposure that is theoretically unlimited.
In the industry having these types of positions is called being
``synthetically short''.\9\ In order for MM1 to hedge the risk of the
stock price going past $100 per share, MM1 would seek to offset the
risk of his current Positions (2 and 3) by submitting an opening
cabinet bid for 300 XYZ call contracts with a May 2020 expiration, at a
$100 strike price (Position 4).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Synthetic options are trading positions holding a number of
securities that when taken together, emulate another position. See
Synthetic Options, www.corporatefinanceinstitute.com, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/synthetic-options/.
    \10\ The Exchange notes, although submitted as an ``opening''
trade, this order is in effect ``closing'' synthetically for the
Market Maker and transferring risk from that Market Maker's books to
another Market Maker more comfortable with that risk exposure. The
Exchange also notes that this opening bid would be for a series that
is not actively traded and therefore would be in line with the
primary purposes of cabinet trading because the Market Maker could
now trade in a series that is not actively traded in order to
synthetically close their position and hedge unwanted portfolio
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MM1 would have the following positions:

(Position 2): Short 300 put contracts on XYZ with a May 2020 expiration
date, and a $100 strike price
(Position 3): Short 30,000 \11\ Shares of XYZ stock
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Position 4): Long 300 call contracts of XYZ with a May 2020 expiration
at a $100 strike price

    After purchasing Position 4, MM1 will have effectively paired off
Positions 2 and 3, and hedged against any previous risk of the XYZ
stock price going over $100 per share.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to make numerous changes to Rule 7620
to reduce confusion and clarify certain terms and conditions.
    First, the Exchange proposes to add language to codify that Cabinet
Orders may only be executed on the Exchange's Trading Floor in open
outcry pursuant to Rule 7600 series. This language is intended to
clarify that cabinet orders may execute in open outcry like all other
orders execute in open outcry, in accordance with the order allocation,
priority, and execution rules applicable to Qualified Open Outcry
(``QOO'') Orders. The Exchange notes, the proposed changes do not
substantively alter the manner in which cabinet orders may trade
currently. The Exchange believes clarifying that cabinet orders follow
the same trading floor rules as all other open outcry orders will
simplify the rules of cabinet orders for Participants, making the rules
for cabinet transactions easier to follow and understand. The Exchange
notes this part of the proposal is similar to Cboe's cabinet order
rule.\12\ In addition, as described in further detail below,
Participants will no longer be required to conduct cabinet trades
through a manual process which includes filling out and submitting
forms to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe Rule 5.85(h). Cabinet orders on Cboe follow the
order allocation and priority rules that are applicable to the
execution of all orders in open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes the proposal, as discussed
herein, would make clear that the split-price priority provisions
within Rule 7600 series will apply to cabinet trades in open
outcry.\13\ The Exchange believes that expressly including that split-
price priority provisions will apply to open outcry cabinet trading
would clarify to Participants that this functionality is available on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes not offering split-price
functionality for cabinet orders unnecessarily limits the ability of
market participants to manually trade cabinet orders on the floor. In
addition, restricting split-pricing for cabinet trades would
unreasonably restrict

business by not making available certain prices which are available on
other competing exchanges. Split-price priority for open outcry cabinet
trades provides an extra incentive for market participants to both
price improve and facilitate the efficient trading of options contracts
that are worthless or not actively traded. The Exchange notes that at
least one other competing options exchange (NYSE American LLC ``NYSE
American'' f/k/a NYSE MKT LLC) amended their rule text to explicitly
allow for split-price priority provisions to apply to cabinet
trading.\14\ In the same manner, the Exchange now seeks to extend
split-price priority to open outcry cabinet trades in order to have
substantially similar rules to those of other exchanges with trading
floors. The Exchange believes this will not only enable greater
competition among competing exchanges that already offer this
functionality, but also will align the Exchanges rules with competitors
and thereby promotes efficiency and will help reduce any potential for
investor confusion. The Exchange notes current Rule 7620 provides that
cabinet trading shall be conducted in accordance with other Exchange
rules except as otherwise provided within Rule 7620, which states, in
part, that Exchange Rule 7050 (Minimum Trading Increments) shall not
apply to orders placed in the cabinet. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes there is no conflict between the Exchange's current rules and
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BOX Rule 7600(i) (Priority on Split-Price Transactions
Occurring in Open Outcry).
    \14\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 34-68128
(November 1, 2012), 77 FR 66888 (November 7, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-
55) (noticed by the Commission for immediate effectiveness). NYSEMKT
noted that ``neither CBOE nor PHLX have a similar restriction [for
split-price priority] on cabinet trades, and allow for split-price
priority for cabinet trades on the trading floor.'' NYSEMKT cited to
the prevailing Cboe and Phlx rules at the time, (specifically CBOE
Rules 6.54 and 6.47 and PHLX Rule 1059) and emphasized that
``[s]plit-price priority [was] available for open out-cry trading on
both CBOE and PHLX, with no restriction for cabinet trades.'' Cboe
Rule 6.54 was modified to the current rule text and moved to Cboe
Rule 5.12. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 86994
(September 17, 2019), 84 FR 49774 (September 23, 2019) (SR-CBOE-
2019-058). In Cboe's SR-CBOE-2019-058 rule filing, Cboe noted the
rule change would not ``substantively alter the manner in which
cabinet orders may trade,'' and stated that cabinet orders would
execute ``in accordance with the order allocation, priority and
execution rules . . . which is substantially similar to how cabinet
trades currently function.'' Cboe's Cabinet Orders rule was
subsequently relocated from Rule 5.12 to Rule 5.85(h), where it is
currently located. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 87224
(October 4, 2019), 84 FR 54652 (October 10, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-
081). The Exchange believes split-price priority continues to be
available for cabinet trading on Cboe's trading floor. See also Phlx
Options 8 Section 33. Accommodation Transactions and Options 8
Section 25(a)(2) (split-price priority). Per Phlx rulebook, split-
price priority ``applies to the allocation of orders on the Trading
Floor'' and cabinet trading (accommodation transactions) are
conducted only by Floor Brokers on Phlx's trading floor. While the
above exchanges do not explicitly state in their rule text that
split-price functionality is available for cabinet orders, as
detailed above, NYSE American/NYSEMKT amended its cabinet trading
rule text to specifically allow for split-price priority for open
outcry cabinet trades because other exchanges provide for this
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to specify that option classes
participating in the Penny Interval Program, pursuant to Rule 7260, are
not allowed as cabinet orders. Penny Interval classes may already trade
in minimum increments of $0.01, therefore, the proposed change adds
clarity to the rule text, and ensures that the cabinet order rule
accounts for other Exchange Rules that provide for trading in penny
classes. The Exchange notes the exclusion of penny classes is
consistent with cabinet order rules on at least one other exchange.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to add language that Floor Brokers
representing bids and offers for cabinet trades must first yield
priority to all existing closing cabinet orders represented on the
Trading Floor. The Exchange believes including this language makes
clear that cabinet orders (whether opening or closing) must yield
priority to any existing closing cabinet orders. For example, if a pre-
existing closing cabinet order is being represented in the trading
crowd, and another closing cabinet order is submitted, the pre-existing
closing cabinet order will take priority over the new closing cabinet
order. The Exchange notes this priority process is followed on at least
one other options exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cboe Rule 5.85(h) (stating that ``[c]abinet orders may
only execute after yielding priority to all closing cabinet orders
represented by the trading crowd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to remove language in
current subsection (b) which requires Floor Brokers to use designated
transaction forms to record cabinet transactions and remove the
language that states Rule 7580(e)(1) does not apply to cabinet orders.
The Exchange proposes to have cabinet orders systematized by Floor
Brokers when they record the cabinet orders in their order entry
mechanisms prior to representation on the Exchange's Trading Floor for
execution in open outcry. Specifically, cabinet orders, like all other
QOO Orders, will be subject to the order recordation rule under BOX
rule 7580(e)(1).\17\ The Exchange believes this will aid Floor Brokers
in executing cabinet transactions more efficiently and help create an
electronic audit trail for cabinet orders represented and executed by
Floor Brokers on the Exchange's Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ BOX Rule 7580(e)(1) requires Floor Brokers to
contemporaneously upon receipt of a single or double-sided orders,
and prior to the announcement of such order in the trading crowd,
record specific information of the order onto the Floor Broker's
order entry mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to remove the specific scenarios laid
out in current subsections (c) through (e). The Exchange believes not
removing these examples, which describe the limited circumstances in
which opening orders may be matched with a cabinet order \18\ would
create investor confusion as to the types of cabinet orders allowed on
the BOX Trading Floor. As previously discussed, the Exchange's current
proposal would allow all cabinet trades (opening or closing) to occur
via open outcry pursuant to Exchange Rule 7600 series, therefore
current subsections (c) through (e) would be unnecessary and
potentially confusing. The Exchange is also proposing to remove the
definition of ``opening order'' in the current rule because the
Exchange no longer intends to limit the meaning of the term to contra-
side opening orders as a response to customers. The Exchange's proposal
allows for initiating and contra-side opening orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement for
Participants to submit a cabinet transaction form under Rule 7620(f).
As previously noted, the Exchange is proposing to remove cabinet
transaction forms in order to have cabinet orders be recorded and
executed like all other QOO Orders on the Exchange's Trading Floor.
Therefore, Floor Brokers manually submitting cabinet transaction forms
to the Exchange will no longer be necessary. The Exchange believes that
harmonizing cabinet orders and QOO Orders will avoid any potential
investor confusion by providing consistency in order and trade
recordation on the Trading Floor.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
and by supplying market participants with an additional risk management
tool will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system, and in general, protects
investors and the

public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
market participants because opening cabinet trades are available to all
market participants and must respect the priority of closing cabinet
orders. The Exchange believes opening cabinet trades would essentially
function as an alternative means by which Participants could avoid
unwanted position exposure. In addition, the Exchange notes that
opening cabinet trades are not profitable for Participants, but can be
used to change a Participant's risk profile. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change is in line with the primary purpose of cabinet
trading because closing cabinet orders allow market participants to
close worthless positions--that carry some form of diminutive risk--and
opening cabinet trades will similarly enable Participants to submit
orders in not actively traded series to effectively close out
(synthetically) the risk of current positions. As such, the Exchange
believes allowing market participants to execute both opening and
closing cabinet positions is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange believes offering opening cabinet
orders will allow Market Makers (and other market participants) to more
effectively manage portfolio risk. The Exchange believes enhancing the
abilities of market participants to reduce risk exposure will remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system by enabling market participants to better
manage risk and continue to further participate in the market.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule promotes just and equitable
principles of trade by accepting opening cabinet orders, only if they
yield priority to existing closing cabinet orders represented in the
trading crowd. This order of precedence will ensure that cabinet orders
remain available for all market participants wishing to effect closing
transactions, but if no such orders exist, the Exchange will then allow
for opening cabinet trades to execute. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirement
that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between Participants. Specifically, the proposed rule
change is not unfairly discriminatory because the priority process
respects the primacy of closing cabinet orders which the Exchange
anticipates would be executed by a broader range of market
participants.
    The Exchange believes amending the rule text to remove the trading
scenarios \21\ in the current rule text that will no longer apply and
stating that all cabinet orders will execute in open outcry pursuant to
Rule 7600 fosters cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities. The Exchange believes
clarifying that cabinet trades will follow the pre-existing rules of
QOO Orders adds greater transparency and consistency to the Exchange's
Trading Floor rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes,
overall, will make the cabinet trading rules easier to follow and
understand. The Exchange believes removing the requirement for
Participants to submit manual cabinet transaction forms, and instead
have Floor Brokers follow the electronic order recordation rule of the
Exchange will reduce the administrative burden on Floor Brokers and
therefore removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free
and open market. Also, because cabinet trades will be reported and
processed like all other open outcry trades, market participants will
not be impacted nor have to take on any additional reporting or
processing burden. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
because having an electronic audit trail of all cabinet orders will
provide a complete and accurate record of cabinet transactions and
better facilitate regulatory oversight. The Exchange notes at least one
other options exchange systematizes cabinet orders and allows cabinet
orders to execute pursuant to open outcry rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 6.
    \22\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes allowing for split-pricing priority
provisions (pursuant to Rule 7600) to apply to cabinet trades promotes
just and equitable principles of trade, and removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and national market
system because it will align the Exchange's Rules with the rules and
trading practices of other options exchanges that currently conduct
cabinet trading on their respective trading floors.\23\ The Exchange
believes providing market participants the ability to have split-price
priority when trading cabinet orders will help facilitate the trading
of options positions that are worthless or not actively traded. The
Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because allowing for split-price
priority for cabinet trading should lead to more aggressive quoting by
Floor Participants, which in turn may lead to better executions for all
market participants. Specifically, a Floor Participant might be willing
to trade at a better price for a portion of an order if they were
assured of trading with the balance of the order at the next best price
increment. As a result, Floor Brokers representing orders in the
trading crowd might receive better-priced executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes permitting opening cabinet
transactions that yield priority to existing closing cabinet orders
aligns the Exchange's rule with at least two other exchanges with
trading floors.\24\ Therefore, the Exchange believes this proposal
offers more consistency with floor trading across market centers which
helps avoid potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments
to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open national market
system and protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 4 and NYSEArca Rule 6.80-O(b)(5) (noting
bids or offers on orders to open or close for the accounts of Market
Makers, customers or firms may be made at $1 per option contract,
but such orders must yield to all orders in the cabinet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, the
Exchange notes that the rule is being proposed as a competitive
response to the rules of another exchange.\25\ The Exchange believes
that allowing for additional liquidations at $1 per option contract
would allow market participants to better manage risk and hedge
unwanted exposure. The Exchange believes this promotes competition
amongst exchanges because market participants will have an additional
venue in which they can execute opening cabinet order transactions. In
addition, the Exchange believes allowing opening cabinet executions
from Market Makers will provide Market Makers with an additional risk
management tool while trading on BOX, and encourage them to direct more
general order flow to the Exchange, which may ultimately benefit all
Participants. Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any

burden on intramarket competition because the proposal simply offers an
additional way for all market participants to synthetically liquidate
unwanted risk exposure, and respects the priority of closing cabinet
orders. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because the
proposed cabinet orders will be available to all market participants to
execute in open outcry in the same manner as they are able to execute
any other QOO Orders. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that allowing
for split-pricing priority to apply to cabinet trades is pro-
competitive as it will allow the Exchange to offer its Participants
pricing abilities which are currently available on competing exchanges
\26\ As such, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 4.
    \26\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2020-38 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-2020-38. 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-2020-38 and should be submitted on
or before January 21, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28890 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2067-2068]
[DOCID:fr14ja09-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0288; FRL-8762-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products (Renewal), ICR Number 2056.03, OMB Number 2060-0486

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 13,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2008-0288, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Lazarus, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance, Mail Code:
2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 30, 2008, (73 FR 31088), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0288, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2056.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0486.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) requires initial notification,

performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators also are
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance and are required, in general, of all sources
subject to NESHAP.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these documents, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such notifications, reports, and
records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM as authorized in Sections 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that have been determined not to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 233
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and
review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Miscellaneous metal parts and
products surface coating facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,991.
    Frequency of Response: Initial, Semiannually, On Occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,328,603 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $212,456,370, which includes:
$211,456,370 in Labor costs, $1,000,000 in annual O&M costs, and no
annualized capital/startup costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in burden of
1,653,553 hours from the most recently approved ICR, due to an
adjustment. This increase is not due to any program changes. The
increase is due to two factors: (1) There is a more accurate count of
number of facilities affected; and (2) there is a change in the burden
and cost estimates because the standard has been in effect for more
than three years, and the requirements are different during initial
compliance (new facilities) as compared to on-going compliance
(existing facilities). The previous ICR reflected those burdens and
costs associated with the initial activities for subject facilities.
This includes purchasing monitoring equipment, conducting performance
tests, and establishing recordkeeping systems. This ICR reflects the
on-going burden and costs for existing facilities. Activities for
existing sources include continuous monitoring of pollutants and the
submission of semiannual reports.
    Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs have also
been revised to reflect add-on controls installed by the small portion
of industry that does not reformulate its coating materials in order to
comply with the rule.

    Dated: January 8, 2009.
John Moses,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-689 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70491-70492]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 (HM-264); Notice No. 2019-14]
RIN 2137-AF40

Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On October 24, 2019, PHMSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural
Gas by Rail (HM-264)'' proposing changes to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations to allow for the bulk transport of Methane, refrigerated
liquid, commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), in rail tank
cars. In response to a request for an extension of the comment period
from the Offices of the Attorneys General of New York and Maryland,
PHMSA is extending the comment period for the HM-264 NPRM for an
additional 21 days. Comments to the HM-264 NPRM will now be due January
13, 2020.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2020. To
the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 and may
be submitted in the following ways:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2018-0025) for this notice at the beginning of the
comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal
information you provide. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in
duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their
comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read associated documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its process. DOT posts these
comments, without change, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the
submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' PHMSA will treat such marked submissions
as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the
public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent
to Michael Ciccarone, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ciccarone, Standards and
Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, or Mark Maday, Federal

Railroad Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA, in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), published the HM-264 NPRM \1\ on October 24, 2019, in response
to a petition for rulemaking from the Association of American Railroads
and an internal review of existing regulations. The NPRM proposed to
authorize DOT-113C120W tank cars for use in the transportation of LNG
by rail, requesting public comment by December 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail NPRM
[84 FR 56964] at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/24/2019-22949/hazardous-materials-liquefied-natural-gas-by-rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2019, PHMSA granted a U.S. Department of
Transportation Special Permit \2\ (DOT-SP) to Energy Transport
Solutions, LLC (ETS) authorizing transportation of LNG in DOT-113C120
tank cars between Wyalusing, PA and Gibbstown, NJ, with no intermediate
stops, subject to certain operational controls. PHMSA issued DOT-SP
20534 after having completed extensive analysis in response to the
request for special permit received from ETS in August 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See DOT-SP 20534 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2019-0100-3006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The special permit, as issued, includes certain operational
controls that were not included in the HM-264 NPRM. PHMSA did not
propose operational controls in the HM-264 NPRM. However, in the NPRM,
PHMSA invited comment on whether PHMSA and FRA should rely on existing
regulations and industry standards, or if additional operational
controls may be warranted based on an assessment of risk. PHMSA
encouraged commenters to provide data on the safety or economic impacts
associated with any suggested operational controls, including analysis
of the safety justification or cost impact of implementing the
operational controls.
    PHMSA recognized that the subject matter overlapped between the
NPRM and special permit. Therefore, PHMSA published a notice \3\ in the
Federal Register on December 11, 2019, to inform the public that DOT-SP
20534 and documents supporting the special permit decision were being
added to the docket for the HM-264 NPRM for consideration by the
public. PHMSA invited comments on these operational controls to be
submitted to the rulemaking docket (Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025) by
December 23, 2019. We noted our intent to consider any additional
comments on the operational controls included in the special permit
that are filed in the rulemaking docket to aid in determining what, if
any, operational controls may be appropriate for inclusion in the HM-
264 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Hazardous Materials: Notice of Issuance of Special
Permit Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas [84 FR 67768] at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/11/2019-26614/hazardous-materials-notice-of-issuance-of-special-permit-regarding-liquefied-natural-gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comment Period Extension

    PHMSA initially provided a 60-day comment period for the HM-264
NPRM, which expires on December 23, 2019. In response to a request to
extend the comment period an additional 30 days from the Offices of the
Attorneys General of New York and Maryland, PHMSA is extending the
comment period an additional 21 days. The comment period will now close
on January 13, 2020. This extension provides the public with 32 days
\4\ to review relevant aspects of the special permit, and should
provide adequate opportunity for the public to submit additional
comments, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Thirty days from December 11, 2019, would be January 11,
2020, which is a Saturday, therefore PHMSA decided to extend the
comment period to the following Monday, January 13, 2020.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2019, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-27656 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27310-27313]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0368; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-058-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports

of smoke or flames in the passenger cabin of various transport category
airplanes related to the wiring for the passenger cabin in-flight
entertainment (IFE) system, cabin lighting, and passenger seats. This
proposed AD would require installing wiring and changing certain
electrical load management system (ELMS) panels and other concurrent
requirements to ensure the flightcrew is able to turn off electrical
power to the IFE systems and other non-essential electrical systems
through a switch in the flight compartment in the event of smoke or
flames. In the event of smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or
passenger cabin, the flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical
power to the IFE system and other non-essential electrical systems
could result in the inability to control smoke or flames in the
airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or
emergency situation, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Mei, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6467; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0368;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-058-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    In response to reports of smoke or flames in the passenger cabin of
various models of transport category airplanes (The Boeing Company
Model MD-11 and DC-9 airplanes and Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011 series airplanes), we conducted
a comprehensive IFE systems review. Earlier investigation of the
reports had revealed that the source of the smoke and flames was from
cabin IFE system components, passenger seats, and cabin lighting.
    We determined that, in order to minimize the risk of smoke or
flames in the passenger cabin, a switch is needed in the flight
compartment to enable the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to
the IFE system and other non-essential electrical systems. In the event
of smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin, the
flightcrew's inability to turn off power to the IFE system and other
non-essential electrical systems, if not corrected, could result in the
inability to control smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or
passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

     For the Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series
airplanes: AD 2007-16-12, Amendment 39-15151 (72 FR 44740, August 9,
2007), requires changes to existing wiring; installation of new circuit
breakers, relays, relay connectors, and wiring; and replacement of
certain circuit breakers with higher-rated circuit breakers. For
certain airplanes, that AD also requires modification of wiring of the
control module assembly for the electrical systems.
     For the Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER
series airplanes: AD 2008-23-15, Amendment 39-15736 (73 FR 70267,
November 20, 2008), requires installing new relay(s), circuit breakers
(as applicable), and wiring to allow the flightcrew to turn off
electrical power to the IFE systems and certain circuit breakers
through a utility bus switch; and doing other specified actions.
     For the Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -
700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes: AD 2009-12-06, Amendment
39-15929 (74 FR 27698, June 11, 2009), requires installing a new
circuit breaker, relays, and wiring to allow the flightcrew to turn off
electrical power to the IFE systems and other non-essential electrical
systems through a switch in the flight compartment; and doing other
specified actions.
     For the Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400D series
airplanes: AD 2009-15-12, Amendment 39-15975 (74 FR 35789, July 21,
2009), requires installing new relays to allow the flightcrew to turn
off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential
passenger cabin systems through the left and right utility bus
switches; and doing other specified actions.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated
August 26, 2010. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0368.

Concurrent Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26,
2010, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Service
Bulletins 777-23-0142, dated November 25, 2003; 777-23-0175, Revision
2,

dated October 12, 2006; 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated September 13,
2012; and 777-24-0087, Revision 2, dated August 16, 2007. For
information on the procedures, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0368.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Section 1.B, ``Concurrent Requirements,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010, identifies
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, dated June 27, 2002; and Revision
1, dated October 5, 2006; as concurrent service bulletins. However,
this proposed AD would require Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074,
Revision 4, dated September 13, 2012, as a concurrent service bulletin.
    This proposed AD gives credit for Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-
0074, dated June 27, 2002; Revision 1, dated October 5, 2006; Revision
2, dated May 20, 2010; and Revision 3, dated February 20, 2012;
provided that certain concurrent requirements and additional work
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated
September 13, 2012, are done.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 59 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of wiring and changing     36 work-hours x $85 per           $2,503          $5,563        $328,217
 ELMS panel wiring.                      hour = $3,060.
Concurrent ELMS software installation   3 work-hours x 85 per                  0             255          15,045
 (Boeing Service Bulletin                hour = 255.
 777[dash]24[dash]0087, Revision 2,
 dated August 16, 2007).
Concurrent OPS change (Boeing Service   4 work-hours x 85 per                  0             340          20,060
 Bulletin 777-23-0175, Revision 2,       hour = 340.
 dated October 12, 2006).
Concurrent power isolation switch       5 work-hours x 85 per                751           1,176          69,384
 installation (Boeing Service Bulletin   hour = 425.
 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated
 September 13, 2012).
Concurrent CSS hardware and software    10 work-hours x 85 per           119,959         120,809               0
 change (No affected U.S. operators;     hour = 850.
 Boeing Service Bulletin
 777[dash]23[dash]0142, dated November
 25, 2003).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0368; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-058-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 24, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 3, dated August 26,
2010.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of smoke or flames in the
passenger cabin of various transport category airplanes related to
the wiring for the passenger cabin in-flight entertainment (IFE)
system, cabin lighting, and passenger seats. We are issuing this AD
to ensure the flightcrew is able to turn off electrical power to the
IFE systems and other non-essential electrical systems through a
switch in the flight compartment in the event of smoke or flames. In
the event of smoke or flames in the airplane flight deck or
passenger cabin, the flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical
power to the IFE system and other non-essential electrical systems
could result in the inability to control smoke or flames in the
airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or
emergency situation, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install
certain wiring and change certain electrical load management system
(ELMS) panels; as identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075,
Revision 3, dated August 26, 2010.

(h) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-23-
0142, dated November 25, 2003: Prior to or concurrently with
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, change
the hardware and software for the cabin services system, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-23-0142, dated November 25, 2003.
    (2) For all airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, change
the operations software (OPS) of the cabin management system, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-23-0175, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2006.
    (3) For Group 1, Configurations 1, 3, and 4 airplanes, specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated September
13, 2012: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, install certain new
electrical power control panels; as identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated September 13, 2012.
    (4) For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated September 13, 2012:
Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD, inspect the electrical power control panel
for a certain part number and change the part number, as applicable;
as identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, Revision 4,
dated September 13, 2012.
    (5) For all airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, change
the ELMS OPS and configuration database software (OPC) at the data
loader, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-24-0087, Revision 2, dated August 16, 2007.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075,
dated August 21, 2003; or Revision 1, dated December 11, 2003; which
are not incorporated by reference in this AD; provided that the
Smiths Service Bulletin 5000ELM-24-379 identified on pages 8 and 19
of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075, Revision 1, dated December
11, 2003, is not used.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0075,
Revision 2, dated October 5, 2006.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h)(5) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-
0087, dated July 24, 2003; or Revision 1, dated December 18, 2003.
    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-24-0074, dated June 27, 2002; Revision 1, dated October
5, 2006; Revision 2, dated May 20, 2010; or Revision 3, dated
February 20, 2012; provided all applicable concurrent requirements
identified in Section 1.B of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074,
Revision 4, dated September 13, 2012, have been done prior to or
concurrently with that revision; and provided that any additional
work identified by the phrase ``More work is necessary'' in section
1.D of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0074, Revision 4, dated
September 13, 2012, is accomplished before the effective date of
this AD.
    (5) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-23-
0175, dated July 11, 2002; or Revision 1, dated July 17, 2003;
provided that overhead electronics unit hardware, part number
285W0029-5, is not installed.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ray Mei,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 26, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-11063 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30852-30853]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1607-000; ER17-1608-000.
    Applicants: Sunray Energy 2, LLC, Sunray Energy 3 LLC.
    Description: Supplement to May 15, 2017 Sunray Energy 2, LLC, et
al. tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1666-001.
    Applicants: Red Pine Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Red Pine Wind Project Amendment to
Pending Market-Based Rate Application Filing to be effective 7/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1907-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-26_SA 3019 OTP-MPC
FCA (T16-03) to be effective 6/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1908-000.
    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 1 Status Northeast
Region to be effective 6/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1909-000.
    Applicants: Bayshore Solar C, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bayshore Solar C, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 8/26/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1910-000.
    Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category 1 Seller Status
Northeast Region to be effective 6/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1911-000.
    Applicants: Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Market Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 6/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170627-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1912-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1266R7 Kansas Municipal
Energy Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170627-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1913-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: ENF Notice of Cancellation of
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170627-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1914-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Service
Agreement Nos. 381 and 389 to be effective 5/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170627-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1915-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Design and Engineering
Agreement with Essential Power Newington, LLC to be effective 8/26/
2017.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170627-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: RR17-6-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Revisions to the Rules of
Procedure.
    Filed Date: 6/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170626-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/17.

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

    Dated: June 27, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13968 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31175-31178]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0202]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; East Passage Narragansett Bay, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones but
will only enforce one, based on the local weather conditions the day of
the event for navigable waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay,
RI during The Ocean Race marine event on May 20, 2023. The safety zone
is needed to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with high-
speed, high-performance sailing vessels competing in inshore races on
the waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England, or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from noon through 5 p.m. on May 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0202 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Christopher Matthews, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 401-435-
2348, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England
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 March 3, 2023, the Ocean Race committee notified the Coast Guard
that they would be conducting a sailboat race from noon through 5 p.m.
on May 20, 2023. The sailboat race will take place in the vicinity of
the East Passage in Narragansett Bay, RI, near the Newport Pell Bridge.
    The Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the sailboat race
would be a safety concern for anyone attempting to transit within East
Passage in Narragansett Bay, RI. 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.
    The details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard in
sufficient time to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this
rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards
associated with the sailing event. The expeditious implementation of
this rule is in the public interest because it will help ensure the
safety of event participants, spectators, waterway users, and
surrounding vessels.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with this world-wide sailing event.

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 COTP has determined that The
Ocean Race presents a potential safety concern to vessels, people, and
the navigable waters of the East Passage of Narragansett Bay in the
vicinity of Newport, R.I. This event is part of a world-wide race, and
it is expected to generate national and international media coverage,
in addition to spectators on a number of recreational and excursion
vessels. As a result, this rule is needed to ensure the safety of
vessels and the navigable waters in the East Passage before, during,
and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones, in
conjunction with The Ocean Race, to ensure the protection of the
maritime public and event participants from the hazards

associated with large-scale marine events. Although we are establishing
two temporary safety zones, Safety Zone ``A'' and Safety Zone ``B'',
only one safety zone will be enforced based on the local weather
conditions the day of the race. We will make notice of exactly what
safety zone will be enforced via broadcast notice to mariners. The
safety zone, either Safety Zone ``A'' or Safety Zone ``B'', will be
enforced on May 20, 2023, from 12:00 until 5:00 p.m. Safety Zone ``A''
encompasses all navigable waters located within the following latitude
and longitude points, 41.497N, 071.359W; 41.490N, 071.361W; 41.483N,
071.330W; 41.490N, 071.329W. Safety Zone ``B'' encompasses all
navigable waters located within the following latitude and longitude
points, 41.473N, 071.356W; 41.467N, 071.350W; 41.482N, 071.335W;
41.488N, 071.341W.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY23.002

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based
on these statutes and Executive Orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. We expect the
adverse economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this
regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential
impact will be minimized for the following reasons: the safety zone
will be in effect for a maximum of five hours for one day; vessels will
only be restricted from the zone in the East Passage of Narragansett
Bay during those limited periods when the races are actually ongoing;
during periods when there is no actual racing (e.g., racing vessels
transiting from the pier to the racing site, downtime between races,
etc.) vessels may be allowed to transit

through the safety zone with the permission of the COTP or the COTP's
representative.
    Notification of The Ocean Race and the associated safety zone will
be made to mariners through the Local Notice to Mariners. The morning
of the race the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding which zone will be enforced.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone lasting only 5 hours over a one-day period that
will prohibit entry into a portion of the East Passage of Narragansett
Bay. There are two potential areas, Safety Zone ``A'' and Safety Zone
``B''. Safety Zone ``A'' encompasses all navigable waters located
within the following latitude and longitude points, 41.486 N, 071.343
W; 41.482 N, 071.335 W; 41.469 N, 071.350 W; 41.475 N, 071.358 W.
Safety Zone ``B'' encompasses all navigable waters located within the
following latitude and longitude points, 41.498 N, 071.361 W; 41.492 N,
071.362 W; 41.483 N, 071.334 W; 41.491 N, 071.330 W. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0202 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0202  Safety Zone; The Ocean Race, East Passage,
Narragansett Bay, RI.

    (a) Location. The following areas are a safety zone, Safety Zone
``A'' and Safety Zone ``B''. Safety Zone ``A'' encompasses all
navigable waters located within the following latitude and longitude
points, 41.486 N, 071.343 W; 41.482 N, 071.335 W; 41.469 N, 071.350 W;
41.475 N, 071.358 W. Safety Zone ``B'' encompasses all navigable waters
located within the following latitude and longitude points, 41.498 N,
071.361 W; 41.492 N, 071.362 W; 41.483 N, 071.334 W; 41.491 N, 071.330
W. Only one safety zone will be enforced based on the local weather
conditions the day of the race. We will make notice of exactly what
safety zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to

Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on May 20,
2023, from noon until 5 p.m.

    Dated: May 11, 2023.
C.J. Prindle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2023-10430 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P