[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18494-18496]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0038]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is disestablishing thirteen anchorage grounds
and one special anchorage area that are now obsolete in Newark Bay, the
East River, Western Long Island Sound, Raritan Bay, and Lower New York
Bay, and reducing the size of three anchorage grounds in Raritan, Sandy
Hook, and Lower New York Bays.

DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0038 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management Branch at Coast
Guard First District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New
York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-
354-4195, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCP United States Coast Pilot
U.S.C. United States Code
WAMS Waterways Analysis and Management System

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    In 2012, the Coast Guard conducted a WAMS survey of these anchorage
regulations within Newark Bay. In 2013, the Coast Guard conducted a
WAMS survey of these anchorage regulations within New Rochelle Harbor,
Manhasset, and Little Neck Bays. In 2014, the Coast Guard conducted a
WAMS survey of these anchorage regulations within Raritan Bay. In
response, on November 25, 2015, the Coast Guard published an NPRM
titled Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York (80 FR 73692). There we
stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to these anchorage regulations. During the
comment period that ended January 25, 2016, we received one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The First Coast Guard District Commander has determined that
potential hazards associated with vessels anchoring in the shallow
water of these charted anchorage grounds will be a safety concern for
vessels constrained by their draft. The purpose of this rule is to
reduce the risk of vessels grounding in shallow water and accurately
reflect the anchorages currently in use.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    This rule disestablishes thirteen anchorage grounds and one special
anchorage area that are now obsolete in Newark Bay, the East River,
Western Long Island Sound, Raritan Bay, and Lower New York Bay, and
reduces the size of three anchorage grounds in Raritan, Sandy Hook, and
Lower New York Bays.
    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published
November 25, 2015. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    The Office of Coast Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) strongly recommended that the coordinates for the
disestablished anchorage grounds be published within the final rule.
These coordinates follow:
    Coordinates for Disestablished Special Anchorage Area:
    33 CFR 110.60(d)(2) New York Harbor:
     Newark Bay, Southwest: All waters bound by the following
points: 40[deg]38'52.1'' N., 074[deg]09'41.1'' W.; thence

to 40[deg]38'51.6'' N., 074[deg]10'18.2'' W.; thence to
40[deg]38'51.0'' N., 074[deg]10'36.5'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'16.8''
N., 074[deg]09'56.3'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'16.2'' N.,
074[deg]09'36.9'' W.; thence to the point of origiN., excluding
therefrom the ``Pipe Line Area''.
    Coordinates for Disestablished Anchorage Grounds:
    33 CFR 110.155 Port of New York:
     (a)(2) Anchorage Ground No. 1-A: All waters southwest of a
line from 40[deg]54'27.36'' N., 073[deg]46'04.16'' W to
40[deg]54'01.65'' N., 073[deg]45'23.02'' W. All waters northwest of a
line from 40[deg]54'01.65'' N., 073[deg]45'23.02'' W, thence to
40[deg]53'30.65'' N., 073[deg]46'05.30'' W. All waters north of a line
from 40[deg]53'30.65'' N., 073[deg]46'05.30'' W thence to
40[deg]53'21.35'' N., 073[deg]46'38.52'' W.
     (a)(3) Anchorage Ground No. 1-B: All waters west and north
of the following lines: from 40[deg]54'58.06'' N., 073[deg]44'51.82''
W; thence to 40[deg]54'10.69'' N., 073[deg]45'10.48'' W.; thence to
40[deg]54'26.89'' N., 073[deg]46'04.84'' W.
     (a)(4) Anchorage Ground No. 2: All waters west of a line
from 40[deg]48'56.58'' N., 073[deg]47'52.98'' W.; thence to
40[deg]48'27.38'' N., 073[deg]47'29.20'' W.
     (a)(5) Anchorage Ground No. 3: All waters northeast of a
line from 40[deg]50'54.57'' N., 073[deg]44'16.64'' W.; thence to
40[deg]51'28.94'' N., 073[deg]44'49.11'' W. All waters southeast of a
line from 40[deg]51'28.94'' N., 073[deg]44'49.11'' W.; thence to
40[deg]52'07.26'' N., 073[deg]44'15.41'' W. All waters southwest of a
line from 40[deg]52'07.26'' N., 073[deg]44'15.41'' W.; thence to
40[deg]51'57.80'' N., 073[deg]43'47.86'' W.
     (a)(6) Anchorage Ground No. 4: All waters northeast of a
line from 40[deg]49'00.62'' N., 073[deg]45'41.92'' W.; thence to
40[deg]49'28.17'' N., 073[deg]46'29.31'' W. All waters southeast of a
line from 40[deg]49'28.17'' N., 073[deg]46'29.31'' W.; thence to
40[deg]51'28.94'' N., 073[deg]44'49.11'' W. All waters southwest of a
line from 40[deg]51'28.94'' N., 073[deg]44'49.11'' W.; thence to
40[deg]50'54.57'' N., 073[deg]44'16.64'' W.
     (a)(7) Anchorage Ground No. 5: All waters east of a line
from 40[deg]47'40.53'' N., 073[deg]46'28.93'' W.; thence to
40[deg]49'18.69'' N., 073[deg]46'12.69'' W. All waters south of a line
from 40[deg]49'18.69'' N., 073[deg]46'12.69'' W.; thence to
40[deg]49'00.62'' N., 073[deg]45'41.92'' W.
     (b)(2) Anchorage Ground No. 7: All waters south of a line
from 40[deg]48'03.24'' N., 073[deg]49'11.46'' W.; thence to
40[deg]47'41.80'' N., 073[deg]46'58.77'' W.
     (h)(1) Anchorage Ground No. 34: All waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]38'51.5'' N, 074[deg]10'35.6'' W.; thence to
40[deg]39'20.2'' N, 074[deg]09'50.8'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'41.4'' N,
074[deg]09'30.2'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'29.6'' N, 074[deg]08'58.0''
W.; thence to 40[deg]39'21.7'' N, 074[deg]08'50.8'' W.; thence to
40[deg]39'08.0'' N, 074[deg]08'58.9'' W.; thence to 40[deg]38'49.9'' N,
074[deg]09'20.0'' W.; thence to 40[deg]38'53.5'' N, 074[deg]09'37.1''
W.; thence to 40[deg]38'52.0'' N, 074[deg]09'41.6'' W.; thence to the
point of origin (NAD 83).
     (h)(3) Anchorage Ground No. 36: All waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]41'13.1'' N, 074[deg]08'06.1'' W.; thence to
40[deg]41'12.7'' N, 074[deg]08'09.9'' W.; thence to 40[deg]40'51.0'' N,
074[deg]08'29.7'' W.; thence to 40[deg]40'44.7'' N, 074[deg]08'29.8''
W.; thence to 40[deg]40'34.0'' N, 074[deg]08'12.0'' W.; thence to
40[deg]40'36.6'' N, 074[deg]08'04.8'' W.; thence to 40[deg]40'54.5'' N,
074[deg]07'56.5'' W.; thence to 40[deg]41'03.3'' N, 074[deg]07'56.5''
W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
     (h)(4) Anchorage Ground No. 37: All waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]41'40.66'' N, 074[deg]06'38.63'' W.; thence to
40[deg]41'51.85'' N, 074[deg]07'01.88'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'16.54''
N, 074[deg]08'33.79'' W.; thence to 40[deg]39'16.68'' N,
074[deg]08'25.82'' W, thence along the shoreline to point of origin
(NAD 83).
     (h)(5) Anchorage Ground No. 38: All waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]43'05.57'' N, 074[deg]06'08.36'' W.; thence to
40[deg]42'40.39'' N, 074[deg]06'48.46'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'35.47''
N, 074[deg]06'53.93'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'24.34'' N,
074[deg]06'59.31'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'20.79'' N,
074[deg]06'59.76'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'11.44'' N,
074[deg]06'55.73'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'03.86'' N,
074[deg]07'00.66'' W.; thence to 40[deg]41'52.53'' N,
074[deg]07'01.56'' W.; thence to 40[deg]41'41.33'' N,
074[deg]06'38.05'' W, thence along the shoreline to point of origin
(NAD 83).
     (h)(6) Anchorage Ground No. 39: All waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]43'20.60'' N, 074[deg]07'11.06'' W.; thence to
40[deg]42'51.41'' N, 074[deg]07'16.10'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'27.93''
N, 074[deg]07'08.10'' W.; thence to 40[deg]42'43.70'' N,
074[deg]06'56.08'' W.; thence to 40[deg]43'08.81'' N,
074[deg]06'24.24'' W.; thence along the shoreline to point of origin
(NAD 83).
     (j)(4) Anchorage Ground No. 46: 40[deg]29'52.19'' N,
074[deg]15'01.76'' W.; thence to 40[deg]29'48.88'' N,
074[deg]15'10.76'' W. 40[deg]30'34.63'' N, 074[deg]11'25.01'' W.;
thence to 40[deg]30'02.74'' N, 074[deg]09'03.10'' W.; thence to
40[deg]31'44.04'' N, 074[deg]09'19.73'' W.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the administrative
nature of the rulemaking as it would not alter current navigational
practices on the affected waterways.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or
anchor within these waterways may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the disestablishment of thirteen obsolete anchorage
grounds and one obsolete SAA, and reduces the size of two anchorage
grounds and combines them into one smaller anchorage ground. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  110.60  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  110.60--
0
a. Remove paragraph (d)(2) and redesignate paragraphs (d)(3) through
(10) as paragraphs (d)(2) through (9), respectively.
0
b. Amend the note to newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2) by removing
``paragraph (d)(3)'' and adding ``paragraph (d)(2)'' in its place.

0
3. In Sec.  110.155--
0
a. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2), and remove paragraphs (a)(3)
through (7),
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Revise paragraph (f);
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraph (h);
0
e. Revise paragraph (j)(2), and
0
f. Remove paragraphs (j)(3) through (5).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  110.155  Port of New York.

* * * * *
    (f) Lower Bay, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and Atlantic Ocean. (1)
Anchorage No. 26. In Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays all waters bound by
the following points: 40[deg]30'06.74'' N., 074[deg]10'04.96'' W.;
thence to 40[deg]28'59.44'' N., 074[deg]05'00.00'' W.; thence to
40[deg]28'44.94'' N., 074[deg]05'00.00'' W.; thence to
40[deg]29'05.02'' N., 074[deg]07'30.56'' W.; thence to
40[deg]29'17.49'' N., 074[deg]10'16.50'' W.; thence to the point of
origin (NAD 83).
    (2) Anchorage No. 27. In the Atlantic Ocean all waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]28'49.27'' N., 074[deg]00'12.13'' W.; thence
to 40[deg]28'52.12'' N., 074[deg]00'00.56'' W.; thence to
40[deg]28'40.88'' N., 073[deg]58'51.95'' W.; thence to
40[deg]25'57.91'' N., 073[deg]54'55.56'' W.; thence to
40[deg]23'45.55'' N., 073[deg]54'54.89'' W.; thence to
40[deg]23'45.38'' N., 073[deg]58'32.10'' W.; thence along the shoreline
to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (3) Anchorage No. 28. In Lower Bay all waters bound by the
following points: 40[deg]30'02.30'' N., 074[deg]08'52.69'' W.; thence
to 40[deg]29'10.10'' N., 074[deg]04'59.65'' W.; thence to
40[deg]29'09.99'' N., 074[deg]02'57.75'' W.; thence to
40[deg]31'52.89'' N., 074[deg]02'39.89'' W.; thence to
40[deg]31'59.72'' N., 074[deg]03'25.13'' W.; thence to
40[deg]31'28.57'' N., 074[deg]03'40.70'' W.; thence to
40[deg]30'26.24'' N., 074[deg]05'11.46'' W.; thence to
40[deg]30'19.01'' N., 074[deg]06'21.37'' W.; thence to
40[deg]30'21.53'' N., 074[deg]08'46.19'' W.; thence to the point of
origin (NAD 83).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) Anchorage No. 45. West of the Raritan Bay Channel leading into
Arthur Kill; north of the Raritan River Channel leading into Raritan
River; and east of the Cutoff Channel between Raritan River and Arthur
Kill, except that part of the said area occupied by Anchorage No. 44.
    (i) Vessels must not anchor in the channel to Keyport Harbor west
of lines ranging from Keyport Channel Buoy 1 to Keyport Channel Buoy 9,
thence through Keyport Channel Buoys 11 and 13 to the northeast corner
of the easterly steamboat wharf; and east of a line extending from a
point 400 yards west of Keyport Channel Buoy 1 tangent to the west
shore at the mouth of Matawan Creek.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    Dated: March 22, 2016.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-07307 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr Zeller:

I am writing as an e-cigarette user to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions. While I have had some time to look into research pertaining to the proposed rules, the subject matter requires more attention that the current 105 day period does not allow for. The proposed rules are very important and relevant to me as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. I have spent many hours researching these issues but require more time to prepare possible comments to this rule. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my story, as well as science and evidence based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21140-21142]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66718; File No. SR-BX-2012-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Pricing for BX Members Using the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System

April 3, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 29, 2012, The NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by BX. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    BX proposes to modify pricing for BX members using the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities System. BX will implement the proposed change on April 2,
2012. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX 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
    BX is proposing to modify its rebate schedule with respect to
orders that access liquidity at BX.\3\ Currently, BX pays a rebate of
$0.0014 per share executed with respect to orders entered through a
market participant identifier (``MPID'') through which a member routes
an average daily volume of 25,000 or more shares during the month.\4\
For members that qualify for this rebate provision, the rebate applies
to all shares entered through the MPID and executed on BX during the
month, regardless of whether they are designated for routing. BX is
proposing to eliminate this method of qualifying for a $0.0014 per
share rebate, and replace it with an across-the-board rebate of $0.0014
per share executed for all orders that are designated for routing but
that access liquidity on BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The change applies to securities priced at $1 or more per
share. Fees and rebates for lower-priced securities are unchanged.
    \4\ The $0.0014 per share executed rebate is also available for
orders entered through an MPID through which the member (i) accesses
an average daily volume of 3.5 million or more shares of liquidity,
or (ii) provides an average daily volume of 25,000 or more shares of
liquidity during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the provision being eliminated and the new provision are
designed to provide incentives for BX members to make greater use of
the Exchange's recently introduced routing service. The change reflects
a concern that some members may be ``gaming'' the current provision by
using BX's router only to the extent necessary to qualify for the
higher rebate, which then applies to all of their orders entered
through the applicable MPID. By contrast, the change would apply the
$0.0014 rebate to all orders that are designated for routing,
regardless of volume, but would not apply to orders that are not
designated for routing. Other methods of

qualifying for a $0.0014 per share rebate, based on the extent of
liquidity accessing or liquidity providing on BX, will remain in effect
for all orders executed on BX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A member that qualified for a $0.0014 per share rebate based
on the extent of its liquidity providing or liquidity accessing and
that used routable orders would not receive a double rebate on its
routable orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which BX operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure,
and access to BX is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed elimination of the $0.0014 per share executed rebate
tier for MPIDs through which a member routes a daily average of 25,000
shares is reasonable because it is being replaced by a $0.0014 per
share rebate for all routable orders that execute on BX, and because
other means of receiving a $0.0014 per share rebate for order
executions remain in effect. BX also believes that the proposal is
reasonable because the current tier related to the BX routing service
was being utilized with respect to non-routable orders to a greater
extent than the Exchange had intended. BX believes that refocusing the
incentive on routable orders will do more to encourage members to make
use of BX's routing services. The proposal is also consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees because members will either receive a
credit for routable orders that access liquidity on BX or pay fees in
connection with routable orders that execute at venues other than BX.
BX also notes that the increased use of the BX router may encourage
members to post liquidity on BX to the extent that routable orders
check the BX book. Finally, the Exchange believes that the change is
not unreasonably discriminatory because affected members are being
provided with alternative means to earn the same rebate with respect to
both routable and non-routable orders.
    The proposed introduction of a $0.0014 per share executed rebate
with respect to all routable orders is reasonable because it will
result in a rebate being paid with respect to all routable orders that
execute on BX, regardless of the volume of the member. Accordingly, the
change will maintain or increase the rebate with respect to all such
orders. The proposed introduction is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees because the Exchange believes that it is equitable
to provide a financial incentive to members to make greater use of a
service as a means of increasing its usage. In this regard, however, BX
further notes that the rebate does not exceed the fees paid by
liquidity providers on BX. Finally, BX believes that the rebate is not
unreasonably discriminatory because it is not the exclusive means by
which members may receive an enhanced rebate.
    Finally, BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, BX must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because numerous alternatives exist to the execution and
routing services offered by BX, if BX increases its fees to an
excessive extent, it will lose customers to its competitors.
Accordingly, BX believes that competitive market forces help to ensure
that the fees it charges for execution and routing are reasonable,
equitably allocated, and non-discriminatory.

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may
readily opt to disfavor BX's execution and routing services if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. Moreover, the rebate
provided with respect to execution of routable orders is lower than the
fee charged to liquidity providers, such that BX is not providing a
rebate that is higher than the corresponding charge. For these reasons
and the reasons discussed in connection with the statutory basis for
the proposed rule change, BX does not believe that the proposed changes
will unfairly affect the ability of members or competitors to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BX-2012-021 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-021. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BX-2012-021 and should be submitted on or before April
30, 2012.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8426 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9063-9065]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77154 ; File No. SR-BOX-2016-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Reduce the Order Handling Period for Directed Orders From Three Seconds
to One Second

February 17, 2016.
    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 February 5, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 reduce the order handling period for
Directed Orders from three seconds to one second. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8040(d)(4) (Obligations of
Market Makers) of the BOX Trading Rules, and the corresponding IM-8040-
1 to reduce the order handling period for Directed Orders from three
seconds to one second.\3\ Based on trading and order management systems
technology today, a three second period for a Market Maker to determine
how to proceed with a Directed Order on BOX is simply unnecessary and
BOX believes one second to act upon a Directed Order is more
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Directed Order is any Customer Order to buy or sell which
has been directed to a particular Market Maker by an Order Flow
Provider (``OFP''). See BOX Rule 100(a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, upon receipt of a Directed Order, an Executing
Participant (``EP'') has three seconds to either submit the Directed
Order to the Price Improvement Period (``PIP'') \4\ or send the
Directed Order to the BOX Book. If, three seconds after receipt of a
Directed Order, an EP has not taken any action on the Directed Order,
then BOX automatically releases the Directed Order to the BOX Book. The
Exchange proposes to reduce the amount of time that an EP has to act on
a Directed Order to one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BOX Rule 7150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IM-8040-1 currently provides that Market Makers are expected to act
upon Directed Orders as immediately as practicable, which must not
exceed three seconds. The Exchange proposes that this be reduced to one
second.
    When approving previous reductions in order handling and exposure
periods on BOX, the Commission concluded that, in the electronic
environment of BOX, ``reducing each of these exposure periods from
three seconds to one second could facilitate the prompt execution of
orders, while continuing to provide market participants with an
opportunity to compete for exposed bids and offers.'' \5\ While BOX
recognizes that exposure and handling periods are different, BOX
believes that reducing the handling period from three seconds to one
second falls under the same rationale that the Commission approved for
the reduction of the exposure period.\6\ Specifically, both situations
involve decision making by a Participant's systems, whether it be to
respond to the exposed order or how to handle a Directed Order.
Therefore, the Exchange believes that the same rational [sic] should be
used in determining the validity of the proposed change. Additionally,
like the reduction of the exposure period, the reduction of the
handling period from three seconds to one second could result in more
timely executions of orders on BOX due to the shorter decision making
time for the EPs. BOX also recognizes that one second is not long
enough to allow human interaction when an EP receives a Directed Order.
However, all EPs on BOX operate sufficiently automated electronic
systems so that they can react and respond to receipt of a Directed
Order in a meaningful way within fractions of a second and no longer
need the three second period.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59638 (March 27,
2009), 74 FR 15020 (April 2, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-015) (Order Granting
Approval of Reduction of Certain Order Handling and Exposure Periods
on BOX From Three Seconds to One Second). See also 68965 (February
21, 2013), 78 FR 13387 (February 27, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-08) (Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Reduce the Directed Order
Exposure Period on BOX From Three Seconds to One Second).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ The Exchange spoke with BOX Participants who unanimously
confirmed that their respective systems can react and respond to
receipt of a Directed Order within fractions of a second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX believes that further reducing its Directed Order handling
period from three seconds to one second will benefit customer orders
submitted by OFPs. BOX believes it is in all participants' best
interests to minimize the time of any order processing period. Further,
BOX believes that reducing the Directed Order handling period to one
second will continue to provide EPs sufficient time to appropriately
respond to receipt of Directed Orders. As discussed above, reducing the
handling period from three seconds to one second will result in a
shorter decision making time for the EPs, which in turn could cause the
Directed Orders to be handled more quickly. Thus, reducing the handling
period from three seconds to one second could provide investors and
other market participants with more timely executions of their orders
on BOX. EPs on BOX are able to respond to orders in fractions of a
second and BOX believes it is appropriate and beneficial for EPs to act
upon receipt of Directed Orders within one second rather than three
seconds.
    Within 90 days of the proposed rule change being operative, and at
least one week prior to implementation, BOX will issue a regulatory
circular to inform BOX Participants of the implementation date for the
reduction of the Directed Order handling period from three seconds to
one second. BOX has discussed the implementation of the change with the
relevant Participants and believes this will give EPs adequate time to
make any necessary system modifications to coincide with the
implementation date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, reducing the
handling period from three seconds to one second will result in a
shorter decision making time for the EPs, which in turn could cause the
Directed Orders to be handled more quickly. Accordingly, the proposed
rule change may provide investors with more prompt and timely execution
of Directed Orders on BOX. Therefore, the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because the time period for acting upon Directed Orders
would be the same for all EPs. As such, the Exchange believes that a
reduction in the Directed Order handling time on BOX would not be
unfairly discriminatory and would benefit investors.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because the handling time for Directed

Orders would be the same for all Participants. All Participants on BOX
have today, and will continue to have, an equal opportunity to respond
to Directed Orders exposed on BOX. As such, the Exchange believes that
a reduction in the Directed Order handling period on BOX would not be
unfairly discriminatory and would benefit investors. For these reasons,
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.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\14\ If the
Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2016-08 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-2016-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-08 and should be
submitted on or before March 15, 2016.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03662 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71008-71009]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0276]

Guidance for Industry: Enforcement Policy Concerning Rotational
Warning Plans for Smokeless Tobacco Products; Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of a guidance entitled ``Enforcement Policy Concerning
Rotational Warning Plans for Smokeless Tobacco Products,'' that was
announced in the Federal Register on June 8, 2010.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective November 28, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ele Ibarra-Pratt, Center for Tobacco
Products, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Food and Drug
Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850-3229, 1-877-
287-1373<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 22, 2009, the President signed the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31)
(Tobacco Control Act) into law. Section 204 of the Tobacco Control Act
amended section 3 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health
Education Act of 1986 (Smokeless Tobacco Act), 15 U.S.C. 4402, to
prescribe revised requirements for health warning statements that must
appear on smokeless tobacco product packages and advertisements, and to
require the submission of warning plans for smokeless tobacco product
packages and advertisements to FDA for review and approval, rather than
to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Section 3(b)(3) of the Smokeless
Tobacco Act requires the equal distribution and display of warning
statements on packaging, and the quarterly rotation of warning
statements in advertising, for each brand of smokeless tobacco product
``in accordance with a plan submitted by the tobacco product
manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer'' to, and approved by,
FDA. These requirements took effect on June 22, 2010.
    In a notice published in the Federal Register of June 8, 2010 (75
FR 32481), FDA announced the availability of a guidance entitled
``Enforcement Policy Concerning Rotational Warning Plans for Smokeless
Tobacco Products.'' This guidance provided information to industry and
the public, including that ``[a]t this time, as an exercise of
enforcement discretion, FDA does not intend to commence or recommend
enforcement of the requirement that a smokeless tobacco manufacturer,
distributor, importer, or retailer must have an FDA-approved rotational
warning plan, so long as a rotational warning plan has been submitted
to FDA by July 22, 2010.'' FDA believed that allowing additional time
for the review of warning plans would permit an orderly transition of
regulatory authority from the FTC to FDA to review and approve warning
plans.

    FDA is withdrawing this guidance because it is no longer warranted.
FDA has completed its review of all of the warning plans for smokeless
tobacco products that were submitted to FDA by July 22, 2010, and the
transition from FTC to FDA of the responsibility for reviewing warning
plans for smokeless tobacco products has been accomplished. Further,
this guidance included an incomplete definition of smokeless tobacco.
Section 101(c) of the Tobacco Control Act amended the Smokeless Tobacco
Act to give smokeless tobacco the meaning that term is given by section
900(18) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under this
definition, ``smokeless tobacco'' means any tobacco product that
consists of cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco and that is intended
to be placed in the oral or nasal cavity. (Emphasis added) Thus,
withdrawal of this guidance on enforcement policy will also help to
prevent any confusion that may have been created by the misstatement of
this definition.
    For information regarding the submission of warning plans for
smokeless tobacco products, you may contact the Office of Compliance at
FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
    We note that FDA has made available for public comment a draft
guidance that, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current
thinking on the ``Submission of Warning Plans for Cigarettes and
Smokeless Tobacco Products.'' You can obtain an electronic version of
this draft guidance document at either http://www.regulations.gov/ or
http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. You can comment on
this or any other guidance at any time.

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28809 Filed 11-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3437-3440]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00804]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87960; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

January 14, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 2, 2020, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BYX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend its fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/byx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to amend the rate
for liquidity adding orders that yield fee code ``MM''.\3\
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove Non-Displayed Liquidity
Incentives and replace them with Step-Up Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MM'' is appended to non-displayed orders that add
liquidity using Mid-Point Peg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 13 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(December 26, 2019), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange in particular operates a ``Taker-Maker'' model whereby
it pays credits to Members that remove liquidity and assesses fees to
those that add liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the
standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that remove and
provide liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for securities at or
above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.0005 per
share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0019
per share for orders that add liquidity. The Exchange believes that the
ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or
discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade
on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues
to be more favorable.
Proposed Change To Replace Non-Displayed Liquidity Incentives With
Step-Up Tiers
    In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange offers
tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides incremental incentives for
Members to strive for higher or different tier levels by offering
increasingly higher discounts or enhanced benefits for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria or different criteria. For
example, pursuant to footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange
currently offers a Mid-Point Peg Tier that provides Members with a
reduced fee of $0.0005 for liquidity adding orders that yield fee code
``MM'', which generally has a fee of $0.0010. To qualify for the Mid-
Point Peg Tier, a Member must have an ADAV \5\ of greater than or equal
to 0.30% of the TCV.\6\ Also pursuant to footnote 2 of the Fee
Schedule, the Exchange offers a Non-Displayed Volume Tier that provides
Members with a reduced fee of $0.0004 for liquidity adding orders that
yield fee code ``HA'',\7\ which generally has a fee of $0.00240, or
``MM'', which as noted above generally has a fee of $0.0010. To qualify
for the Non-Displayed Volume Tier, a Member must have an ADAV of
greater than or equal to 0.075% of the TCV as Non-Displayed Orders that
yield fee codes ``HA'', ``HI'',\8\ or ``MM''. The aforementioned Non-
Displayed Liquidity Incentives are designed to encourage Members that
provide non-displayed liquidity adding orders on the Exchange to
increase their order flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more
liquid market to the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ADAV means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added per day. ADAV is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \6\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume
reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \7\ ``HA'' is appended to non-displayed orders that add
liquidity.
    \8\ ``HI'' is appended to non-displayed orders that receive
price improvement and add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to remove the existing tiers related to
Non-Displayed Liquidity Incentives on the Exchange, and to instead
offer ``Step-Up Tiers''. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove
the Mid-Point Peg

Tier and Non-Displayed Volume Tier described above. In place of the
existing Non-Displayed Liquidity Incentives, the Exchange proposes to
offer Step-Up Tiers that will provide Members an opportunity to receive
a discounted rate from the standard fee assessment for displayed
liquidity adding orders that yield fee codes ``B'',\9\ ``V'',\10\ or
``Y''.\11\ The Exchange proposes criteria under Tier 1 of the Step-Up
Tiers that would offer a reduced fee of $0.0016 for liquidity adding
orders that yield fee code ``B'', ``V'', or ``Y'', which generally have
a fee of $0.0019. To qualify for proposed Tier 1, the Member must have
a ``Step-Up Add TCV'' from December 2019 of greater than or equal to
0.05%. The Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``Step-Up Add TCV''
to the Fee Schedule which would mean ADAV as a percentage of TCV in the
relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a percentage of
TCV. The Exchange notes that this definition is consistent with the
definitions in the Fees Schedules of the Exchange's affiliated
exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``B'' is appended to displayed orders that add liquidity to
BYX (Tape B).
    \10\ ``V'' is appended to displayed orders that add liquidity to
BYX (Tape A).
    \11\ ``Y'' is appended to displayed order that add liquidity to
BYX (Tape C).
    \12\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Definitions; Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Tier 1 under the Step-Up Tiers is designed to provide
Members that submit displayed liquidity on the Exchange a further
incentive to contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, in turn,
providing additional execution opportunities at transparent prices as a
result of such increased, displayed liquidity. Further, while the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the Non-Displayed Liquidity Incentives,
as discussed in further detail below, the Exchange also proposes to
reduce the current fee assessed to non-displayed liquidity adding
orders yielding fee code ``MM''. Therefore, the Exchange will offer
similarly reduced fees to orders yielding fee code ``MM'' under the
proposed amendment as currently offered to such orders under the Non-
Displayed Liquidity Incentives. The Exchange believes that this
benefits all Members by enhancing overall market quality and
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. The
Exchange notes the proposed tier is available to all Members and is
competitively achievable for all Members that submit displayed order
flow, in that, all firms that submit the requisite displayed order flow
could compete to meet the tier.
Proposed Change to Fee Code ``MM''
    As stated above, the Exchange currently charges fees for liquidity
adding orders that yield fee code ``MM'' of $0.0010 in securities
priced at or above $1.00. Orders yielding fee code ``MM'' in securities
priced below $1.00 are not assessed a fee. The Exchange now proposes to
reduce the current fee of $0.0010 per share to $0.0005 per share for
orders yielding fee code ``MM'' in securities priced at or above $1.00.
Orders yield fee code ``MM'' in securities priced below $1.00 would
continue to be free. As the proposed fee for orders yielding fee code
``MM'' is lower than the current fee for such orders, the Exchange
believes the proposed amendment will encourage Members to increase
their liquidity on the Exchange. Further, as ``MM'' orders would no
longer be able to receive reduced fees under the Non-Displayed
Liquidity Incentives, the proposed fee change to the ``MM'' fee code
would offer another means for such orders to receive a similar fee
reduction that would require no minimum ADAV. Therefore, ``MM'' orders
would be eligible to receive a reduced fee of $0.0005 on a less
stringent basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a
highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The
proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed
to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to
the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly-competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change reflects a
competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to
replace the Non-Displayed Liquidity Incentives with Step-Up Tiers is
reasonable because it provides an additional opportunity for Members to
receive a discounted fee by means of liquidity-adding displayed orders.
The Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts
have been widely adopted by other exchanges,\15\ and are reasonable,
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all members
on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value of an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. Additionally, as noted
above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several taker-
maker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered
pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of
rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume
and/or growth thresholds. These competing pricing schedules, moreover,
are presently comparable to those that the Exchange provides, including
the pricing of comparable tiers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Cboe BZX Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 2, Step-Up Tiers, Tier 1, which offers an enhanced rebate
for certain volume-adding orders; see also NYSE Arca Equities, Fees
and Charges, Step Up Tiers.
    \16\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities, Fees and Charges, Step Up
Tiers which offers rebates between $0.0022-$0.0034 per share if the
corresponding required criteria per tier is met. NYSE Arca Equities'
Step Up Tiers similarly require Members to increase their relative
liquidity each month over a predetermined baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed Step-Up Tier is a
reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their overall
displayed order flow to the Exchange based on increasing their daily
total added volume (ADAV) above a percentage of the total volume (TCV).
Particularly, the Exchange believes that adopting a Step-Up Tier based
on a Member's displayed adding orders will encourage displayed
liquidity providing Members to provide for a deeper, more liquid
market, and, as a result, increased execution opportunities at improved
price levels and, thus, overall order flow. The Exchange believes that
these increases

will benefit all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-
balanced market ecosystem. Increased overall order flow benefits all
investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, providing greater
execution incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility
for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. The proposed discount (i.e., fee reduction) per share
amount also does not represent a significant departure from the rebates
currently offered, or required criteria, under the Exchange's existing
tiers. For example, the fee assessed under the existing Mid-Point Peg
Tier, for which, as stated, a Member must have a daily volume add
(ADAV) of 0.30% or greater than the TCV, is $0.0005 per share. In other
words, under this tier, Members receive a $0.0005 ``discount'' from the
standard $0.0010 assessed fee for orders yielding fee code ``MM''.
Orders yielding fee code ``B'', ``V'', and ``Y'' generally have a fee
of $0.00190, and therefore the proposed discount offered under Tier 1
(i.e., $0.0016) is comparable to the discount currently offered under
the Mid-Point Peg Tier.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
Members are eligible for the proposed Step-Up Tiers, and would have the
opportunity to meet the Tier 1 criteria and receive the proposed fee
reduction if such criteria is met. The proposed tier is designed as an
incentive to any and all Members interested in meeting the tier
criteria to submit additional displayed order flow to achieve the
proposed discount. Without having a view of activity on other markets
and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether
this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members
qualifying for this tier. While the Exchange has no way of predicting
with certainty how the proposed tier will impact Member activity, the
Exchange anticipates that at up to ten Members will be able to compete
for and reach the proposed tier. The Exchange anticipates that these
will include multiple Member types, including liquidity providers and
broker-dealers, each providing distinct types of order flow to the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. For example,
broker-dealer customer order flow provides more trading opportunities,
which attracts Market Makers. Increased Market Maker activity
facilitates tighter spreads, which potentially increases order flow
from other market participants. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed tier will not adversely impact any Member's pricing or their
ability to qualify for other rebate tiers. Rather, should a Member not
meet the proposed criteria, the Member will merely not receive a
reduced fee. Furthermore, the proposed fee would uniformly apply to all
Members that meet the required criteria under proposed Step-Up Tiers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional displayed order
flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution
incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price
discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible
for the proposed tier, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's
criteria and will all receive the proposed fee rate if such criteria is
met. Additionally the proposed change is designed to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the modified
tier criteria would incentivize market participants to direct displayed
liquidity and, as a result, executable order flow and improved price
transparency, to the Exchange. Greater overall order flow and pricing
transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by
providing more trading opportunities, enhancing market quality, and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem, which benefits all
market participants.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges and
off-exchange venues and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 16% of the market share.\18\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \19\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .''.\20\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 5 [sic].
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \20\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-001 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 No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-001, and should be submitted
on or before February 11, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00804 Filed 1-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


March 14, 2022

Ms. Melanie Loyzim, Commissioner Maine Department of Environmental Protection 17 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333

Re: 	Notification of Intent to Delete Former McKin Company Superfund Site in Gray, Maine from the National Priorities List 	Former McKin Company Superfund Site 	25 Mayall Road, Gray ME 04039 	EPA ID: MED980524078

Dear Ms. Loyzim:

This is to notify you that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region 1 is proposing to delete the Former McKin Company Superfund Site, located in Gray, Maine from the National Priorities List (NPL). The U.S. EPA and the State of Maine, through the Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), other than operation and maintenance, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.   EPA, with the concurrence of MEDEP, will publish a Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) the Site from the NPL in the Federal Register this month. Assuming no substantive adverse comments are received, EPA will delete the Site from the NPL by the end of summer. EPA will keep you apprised of the deletion process. Whether or not the Site is deleted, the Settling Defendants under the 2001 Amended Consent Decree will continue to perform long-term monitoring, and operation and maintenance, while U.S. EPA will continue to conduct Five-Year Reviews at the Site.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you all for your time and continued support.

Please contact Charlotte Gray, U.S. EPA's community involvement coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and/or<PHONE_NUMBER> or myself<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and/or<PHONE_NUMBER> with any questions you may have.

For more information on the Former McKin Company Superfund Site, please visit: http://epa.gov/superfund/mckin

Best regards,

John C. Bryant Remedial Project Manager ME, VT, and CT Superfund Section US Environmental Protection Agency

cc:	Charlotte Gray, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 	Peter Mailey, Sevee & Maher Engineers Inc.  	Jeff Skakalski, Maine Assistant Attorney General 	Deborah Cabana, Town Administrator, Town of Gray


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20257-20258]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0035; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Brady, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Brady, Curtis Field, Brady, TX. This
action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Brady non-
directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach.
It enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach
procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this
airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates are being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 10, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Witucki, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Brady, Curtis Field, Brady, TX, to support instrument flight
rule operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 6710; February 28, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0035
to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Brady, Curtis Field, Brady, TX. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by:
    Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Brady, Curtis Field and
updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Brady NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action
enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument
approaches.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Brady, TX [Amended]

Brady, Curtis Field, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]10'45'' N, long. 99[deg]19'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 6.4 mile radius of Curtis Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 1, 2019.
John A. Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-09469 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P