[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3057-3060]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0996]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Hydroplane Races Within the Captain of
the Port Puget Sound Area of Responsibility

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulation to establish
permanent safety zones for hydroplane races taking place on various
dates within Puget Sound, WA. This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking changes the proposed regulation from establishing safety
zones under 33 CFR part 165 to establishing a special local regulation
under 33 CFR part 100, removes the duplicative Port Angeles race area
and adds a race area in Lake Sammamish to the designated hydroplane
race areas within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound area of
responsibility. When this proposed special local regulation is
activated, and thus subject to enforcement, this rule would limit the
movement of non-participating vessels within the regulated race areas
while hydroplane races are taking place. This rule is needed to provide
effective control over these events while ensuring the safety of the
maritime public.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 18, 2011. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0996 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ashley M. Wanzer, Waterways Management,
Sector Puget Sound, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0996), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0996'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0996'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140

on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before January 27, 2011 using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact LTJG Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard receives numerous marine event permits for
hydroplane races taking place on the waterways of Dyes Inlet, Lake
Washington, and Lake Sammamish, WA. Historically, these marine events
involve the establishment of a safety zone which is established on an
emergency basis to provide safety to the maritime public, participant
and spectators during these races. This proposed rule would establish a
special local regulation to restrict vessel movement in designated
areas during permitted hydroplane marine events and eliminate the need
to draft emergency rules to establish safety zones for hydroplane races
in these designated areas. This rule will establish permanent,
designated hydroplane race areas under 33 CFR part 100 enabling event
sponsors and the Coast Guard to adequately provide safety in support of
these marine events.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes establishing a special local regulation
for hydroplane races occurring within the Captain of the Port, Puget
Sound Area of Responsibility. This special local regulation is
necessary to restrict vessel movement in designated race areas thereby
ensuring unencumbered access for rescuers in the event of an emergency
as well as to ensure public safety from the numerous dangers associated
with high speed watercraft races.
    On Tuesday, January 19, 2010, we published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zones; Hydroplane Races within the
Captain of the Port Puget Sound Area of Responsibility'' in the Federal
Register (75 FR 2833). We did not receive any comments on the proposed
rule and did not receive any requests for a public meeting. A public
meeting was not held. The NPRM published for this regulation included
three permanent safety zones on the waters of Port Angeles, Dyes Inlet
and Lake Washington. The Port Angeles hydroplane race area is
duplicative to 33 CFR 100.1307 and has been removed from this proposed
regulation. This proposed rule has been revised to create a special
local regulation designating three permanent hydroplane race areas on
the waters of Dyes Inlet, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish, WA to
provide effective control over these hydroplane races while ensuring
the safety of the maritime public during these events. The first
designated race area is located in the northern section of Dyes inlet,
west of Port Orchard, WA to include all waters north to land from a
line connecting the following points 47[deg]37.36' N, 122[deg]42.29' W
and 47[deg]37.74' N, 122[deg]40.64' W. The second designated race area
is located in Lake Washington, south of the interstate 90 bridge and
north of Andrew's Bay, WA to include all waters east of the shoreline
within the following points: 47[deg]34.15' N, 122[deg]16.40' W;
47[deg]34.31' N, 122[deg]15.96' W; 47[deg]35.18' N, 122[deg]16.31' W;
47[deg]35.00' N, 122[deg]16.71' W. The third designated race area is
located in Lake Sammamish south to land from a line connecting the
following points 47[deg]33.810' N, 122[deg]04.810' W and 47[deg]33.810'
N, 122[deg]03.674' W.
    This special local regulation will restrict vessel movement within
these designated hydroplane race areas immediately prior to, during and
immediately following these permitted hydroplane marine events. These
designated race areas are minimal in size and will be subject to
enforcement only during hydroplane racing activities, historically 12
hours or less, with the purpose of providing safety for participants
and other waterway users. These designated race areas are located in
remote locations and are therefore expected to have a minimal impact on
other waterway users. We expect races to occur multiple times
throughout the year. Notification of the activation of this special
local regulation will be provided to the public via broadcast notice to
mariners.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action because it will be activated and thus
subject to enforcement for short periods of time in small areas which
are not considered high-density vessel traffic areas.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will affect the following small
entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or
anchor within these designated hydroplane race areas while enforced on
the waters of northern Dyes Inlet, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish,
Washington. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is small in
size and short in duration. The only vessels likely to be impacted will
be recreational boaters. Because the impact of this proposed rule is
expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule
will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Ombudsman at 1-888-REG-FAIR
(188-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination, under paragraph 34(h) of the
Instruction, that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation which
designates three hydroplane race areas in support of hydroplane races
events on the waters of Dyes Inlet, Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish,
WA. Because marine events which seek to use this area will be required
to conduct an environmental analysis as part of the permit process,
this proposed rule is excluded from further environmental analysis. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Safety of life on navigable waters.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add Sec.  100.1308 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.1308  Special Local Regulation[s]; Hydroplane Races within
the Captain of the Port Puget Sound Area of Responsibility.

    (a) Location. The following areas are designated race areas for the
purpose of reoccurring hydroplane races:
    (1) All waters of Dyes inlet, west of Port Orchard, WA to include
all waters

north to land from a line connecting the following points 47[deg]37.36'
N, 122[deg]42.29' W and 47[deg]37.74' N, 122[deg] 40.64' W.
    (2) All waters of Lake Washington south of the interstate 90 bridge
and north of Andrew's Bay, WA to include all waters east of the
shoreline within the following points: 47[deg]34.15' N, 122[deg]16.40'
W; 47[deg]34.31' N, 122[deg]15.96' W; 47[deg]35.18' N, 122[deg]16.31'
W; 47[deg]35.00' N, 122[deg]16.71' W.
    (3) All waters of Lake Sammamish south to land from a line
connecting the following points 47[deg]33.810' N, 122[deg]04.810' and
47[deg]33.810' N 122[deg]03.674' W.
    (b) Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement. This
special local regulation will be activated and thus subject to
enforcement, under the following conditions: the Coast Guard must
receive and approve a marine event permit for each hydroplane event in
accordance with 33 CFR part 100. The Captain of the Port will provide
notice of the enforcement of this special local regulation by all
appropriate means to ensure the widest dissemination among the affected
segments of the public, as practicable; such means of notification may
include but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local
Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) When this special local regulation is
enforced, non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering the
designated race areas unless authorized by the designated on-scene
Patrol Commander.
    Spectator craft may remain in designated spectator areas but must
follow the directions of the designated on-scene Patrol Commander. The
event sponsor may also function as the designated on-scene Patrol
Commander. Spectator craft entering, exiting or moving within the
spectator area must operate at speeds which will create a minimum wake.
    (2) Emergency Signaling. A succession of sharp, short signals by
whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the areas under the discretion
of the designated on-scene Patrol Commander shall serve as a signal to
stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of
the patrol vessel. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the
area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: November 24, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-1022 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4180-4181]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0064]

OSHA-7 Form (``Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazard'');
Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the OSHA-7 Form.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
March 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0064, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0064) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publically available to read or download from the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda
Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3909,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., workers filing occupational safety or
health complaints) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program
to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and
continuing information collection requirements in accord with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the extent feasible
unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C.
657).
    Under paragraphs (a) and (c) of 29 CFR 1903.11 (``Complaints by
employees'') workers and their representatives may notify the OSHA area
director or an OSHA compliance officer of safety and health hazards
regulated by the Agency that they believe exist in their workplaces at
any time. These provisions state further that this notification must be
in writing and ``shall set forth with reasonable particularity the
grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employee or
representative of the employee.''
    In addition to providing specific hazard information to the Agency,
paragraph (a) permits workers/worker representatives to request an
inspection of the workplace. Paragraph (c) also addresses situations in
which workers/worker representatives may provide the information
directly to the OSHA compliance officer during an inspection. An
employer's former workers may also submit complaints to the Agency.
    To address the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c), especially
the requirement that the information be in writing, the Agency
developed the OSHA-7 Form; this form standardized and simplified the
hazard reporting process. For paragraph (a), they may complete an OSHA-
7 Form obtained from the Agency's Web site and then send it to OSHA
online, or deliver a hardcopy of the form to the OSHA area office by
mail or facsimile, or by hand. They may also write a letter containing
the information and hand deliver it to the area office, or send it by
mail or facsimile. In addition, they may provide the information orally
to the OSHA area office or another party (e.g., a federal safety and
health committee for federal workers), in which case the area office or
other party completes the hard copy version of the form. For the
typical situation addressed by paragraph (c), a worker/worker
representative informs an OSHA compliance officer orally of the alleged
hazard during an inspection, and the compliance officer then

completes the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form; occasionally, the
worker/worker representative provides the compliance officer with the
information on the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form.
    The information on the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form
includes information about the employer and alleged hazards, including:
the establishment's name; the site's address and telephone and
facsimile numbers; the name and telephone number of the management
official; the type of business; a description and the specific location
of the hazards, including the approximate number of workers exposed or
threatened by the hazards; and whether or not the worker/worker
representative informed another government agency about the hazards
(and the name of the agency if so informed).
    Additional information on the hard copy version of the form
concerns the complainant including: whether or not the complaintant is
a worker or a worker representative, or for information provided
orally, a member of a federal safety and health committee or another
party (with space to specify the party); the complainant's name,
telephone number, and address; and the complainant's signature
attesting that they believe a violation of an OSHA standard exists at
the named establishment; and the date of the signature. A worker
representative must also provide the name of the organization they
represent and their title.
    The information contained in the online version of the OSHA-7 Form
is similar to the hard copy version. However, the online version
requests the complainant's email address, and does not ask for the
site's facsimile number or the complainant's signature and signature
date.
    The Agency uses the information collected on the OSHA-7 Form to
determine whether reasonable grounds exist to conduct an inspection of
the workplace. The description of the hazards, including the number of
exposed workers, allows the Agency to assess the severity of the
hazards and the need to expedite the inspection. The completed form
also provides the employer with notice of the complaint and may serve
as the basis for obtaining a search warrant if the employer denies the
Agency access to the workplace.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements relating to the OSHA-7 Form. The Agency is
requesting an increase in burden hours from 13,414 to 13,659 (a total
increase of 245 burden hours). The Agency will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in
the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection
requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazards, OSHA-7 Form.
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0064.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Responses: 50,641.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes (.25 hour) to
communicate the required information orally to the Agency to 25 minutes
(.42 hour) to provide the information in writing and send it to OSHA.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 13,659.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $532

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency
name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0064). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publically available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912, January 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 17, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-01357 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53143]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4008-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4008-DR), dated July 25, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael
Moore, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Steven S. Ward as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-21754 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41885-41886]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355; FMCSA-2010-0203; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-
2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0313; FMCSA-2016-0315; FMCSA-2018-0056; FMCSA-
2018-0057; FMCSA-2019-0027; FMCSA-2019-0029]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-
0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056, FMCSA-2018-
0057, FMCSA-2019-0027, or FMCSA-2019-0029 in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On June 9, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (86 FR
30675). The public comment period ended on July 9, 2021, and no
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 11 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and
are discussed below. As of June 10, 2021, and in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 10 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate
CMV drivers (86 FR 30675):

John D. Archer (MO)
Brian Brown (PA)
Richard Conway Jr. (MO)
Daniel Gast (KS)
Stephen Harmon (WV)
Denton Hineline (WA)
Steve Hunsaker (ID)
Bryan R. Jones (PA)
Jason Lewis (CA)
Elvin Paul Morgan (CA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-
2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-
2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056, FMCSA-2018-0057, or FMCSA-2019-0027. Their
exemptions were applicable as of June 10, 2021 and will expire on June
10, 2023.
    As of June 18, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), Alan Finlayson (AL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the

epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate
CMV drivers.
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0029. The
exemption was applicable as of June 18, 2021 and will expire on June
18, 2023.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16528 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8447-8449]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91024; File No. SR-ICC-2021-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Operational Risk
Management Framework

February 1, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
January 21, 2021, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by ICC. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC Operational Risk Management Framework. These revisions do not
require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes to revise the Operational Risk Management Framework,
which details ICC's dynamic and independent program of risk assessment
and oversight that aims to reduce operational incidents, encourage
process and control improvement, bring transparency to operational
performance standard monitoring, and fulfill regulatory obligations.
ICC believes such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible.
ICC proposes to make such changes effective following Commission
approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed revisions are
described in detail as follows.
    The proposed amendments incorporate reference to the
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE, Inc.'') Enterprise Risk
Management Policy (``ERM Policy'') and relevant regulations applicable
to ICC as a covered clearing agency. The ICE, Inc. Enterprise Risk
Management Department (``ERM'') provides the oversight and framework
for identifying, assessing, managing, monitoring and reporting on risk
across the ICE, Inc. organization and has dedicated resources focused
on the various ICE, Inc. business units, including ICC. ERM, in
conjunction with relevant ICC individuals, oversees the management of
this Operational Risk Management Framework.
    ICC proposes updates to the risk assessment process in the
Operational Risk Management Framework, which includes identifying,
assessing, monitoring, and mitigating plausible sources of operational
risk. Under the ``identify'' component, ICC proposes to more generally
refer to its ``risk-scenario-based assessment methodology'' as its
``risk-based assessment methodology,'' which more appropriately
describes the methodology. ICC proposes similar changes throughout the
risk assessment process to replace ``risk scenarios'' with ``risks.''
The proposed changes also cross reference the ERM Policy, noting that
ERM maintains an inventory of material risks faced by the clearing
house. Under the ``assess'' component, ICC proposes to incorporate the
ERM

Policy and its relevant guidelines. ICC proposes minor clarifications
with respect to the assessment of material risks and the controls and
mitigations used to prevent risks from materializing. ICC proposes
additional specifics relating to the determination of residual risk
ratings for identified risks. ICC further proposes to reference the ERM
Policy regarding risk scores and guidance relating to control
identification, effectiveness assessment and testing, among others.
With respect to the ``mitigate'' component, the proposed changes cross
reference relevant guidelines in the ERM Policy and include minor
updates regarding documenting output and reviewing risk assessments.
The proposed changes also update the ``report'' component to more
clearly state that ERM is responsible for operational risk reporting to
appropriate parties.
    ICC proposes updates to Appendix 1 of the Operational Risk
Management Framework that summarizes relevant regulatory requirements
and industry guidance for ICC. Specifically, ICC proposes to reference
its status as a covered clearing agency and to reference relevant
regulations applicable to ICC as a covered clearing agency relating to
operational risk requirements, namely Rules 17Ad-22(e)(17) and (21).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17) and (21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\
requires that the rule change be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest. ICC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F),\7\ because the proposed rule change enhances ICC's
ability to control its operational risk by ensuring that the
Operational Risk Management Framework accurately reflects ICC's
operational risk program, including the role of ERM and the regulatory
operational risk requirements applicable to ICC. The proposed changes
cross reference the ERM Policy and provide additional detail regarding
ERM's role in the risk assessment process. The cross-references are
intended to ensure clarity and consistency between relevant terms and
processes across the Operational Risk Management Framework and the ERM
Policy and are not intended to change the substance of either document.
Additionally, the proposed changes reference regulations applicable to
ICC as a covered clearing agency relating to operational risk
requirements to ensure that relevant regulatory requirements are
addressed as part of ICC's operational risk program. ICC believes that
such changes further ensure that ICC, through its operational risk
program, is able to manage its operational risks by identifying
plausible sources of operational risk and mitigating their impact
through the use of appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and
controls to avoid disruptions to operations, thereby promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions; the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of ICC or for which it is responsible; and the protection of
investors and the public interest. As such, the proposed rule change is
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions; to contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds
associated with security-based swap transactions in ICC's custody or
control, or for which ICC is responsible; and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule
17Ad-22.\9\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) \10\ requires each covered
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance
arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify clear and
direct lines of responsibility. The Operational Risk Management
Framework clearly assigns and documents responsibility and
accountability for operational risk actions and decisions. The proposed
changes more clearly specify the role of ERM in the risk assessment
process. Moreover, the proposed revisions continue to allow for
feedback from, and notification to, relevant stakeholders, such as ICC
committees, management, and the Board. These governance arrangements
are clear and transparent, such that information relating to the
assignment of responsibilities and the requisite involvement of
relevant committees and ICE, Inc. and ICC personnel is clearly
documented. In ICC's view, the proposed rule change continues to ensure
that ICC maintains policies and procedures that are reasonably designed
to provide for clear and transparent governance arrangements and
specify clear and direct lines of responsibility, consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17) \12\ requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to manage its operational risks by (i)
identifying the plausible sources of operational risk, both internal
and external, and mitigating their impact through the use of
appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and controls; (ii) ensuring
that systems have a high degree of security, resiliency, operational
reliability, and adequate, scalable capacity; and (iii) establishing
and maintaining a business continuity plan that addresses events posing
a significant risk of disrupting operations. The proposed
clarifications regarding the risk assessment process would enhance
ICC's ability to identify relevant sources of operational risk and
mitigate their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies,
procedures, and controls, including by more specifically setting out
the risk assessment process itself and the role and responsibilities of
ERM regarding the identification, assessment, mitigation, and reporting
of plausible sources of operational risk. Such amendments further
strengthen the risk assessment process and enhance ICC's ability to
ensure that systems have a high degree of security, resiliency,
operational reliability, and adequate, scalable capacity. The proposed
changes also update the regulatory operational risk requirements
applicable to ICC as a covered clearing agency to ensure that ICC will
continue to fulfill regulatory obligations, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17).
    \13\ Id.

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) \14\ requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting
the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, and
have its management regularly review the efficiency and effectiveness
of its (i) clearing and settlement arrangements; (ii) operating
structure, including risk management policies, procedures, and systems;
(iii) scope of products cleared or settled; and (iv) use of technology
and communication procedures. As noted above, ERM provides the
oversight and framework for identifying, assessing, managing,
monitoring and reporting on risk across the ICE, Inc. organization and
has dedicated resources focused on ICC, allowing ICC to be efficient
and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the
markets it serves. Moreover, the amended framework more clearly sets
out the ERM function with respect to ICC to ensure the fulfillment of
relevant responsibilities, thereby promoting ICC's ability to be
efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants
and the markets it serves. Further, the proposed revisions clarify
responsibilities regarding review of risk assessments and operational
risk reporting to appropriate parties, which would promote management's
regular review of the efficiency and effectiveness of ICC's clearing
and settlement arrangements, operating structure, product scope, and
use of technology and communication procedures. The proposed rule
change is thus reasonably designed to meet the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(21).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(21).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to
the Operational Risk Management Framework will apply uniformly across
all market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the amendments
would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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 such 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-ICC-2021-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2021-003. 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 filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2021-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 26, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02399 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11597]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-357-002]

Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline Company; Notice of Amendment

February 28, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 17, 2006, Cheniere Creole Trail
Pipeline Company (Cheniere Creole Trail), 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 3100,
Houston Texas 77002, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), filed in Docket No. CP05-357-002 to amend its pending
application filed on May 23, 2005, to reflect the withdrawal of its
request for authorization to construct and operate the 6.8-mile, 20-
inch diameter Hackberry Lateral portion of its project. The filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

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

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding these applications should be directed to
Patricia Outtrim, Cheniere Energy, Inc., 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 3100,
Houston, Texas 77002,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Lisa Tonery, King & Spalding
LLP, 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the
``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    Comment Date: March 21, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3192 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14180-14183]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85497; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 928NY To Reduce the Minimum Allowable Parameter for the
Percentage-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism

April 3, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on March 22, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 928NY (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the
percentage-based Risk Limitation Mechanism. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 928NY (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the
percentage-based Risk Limitation Mechanism.
Risk Limitation Mechanisms
    Rule 928NY sets forth the risk-limitation system, which is designed
to help Market Makers, as well as ATP Holders, better manage risk
related to quoting and submitting orders, respectively, during periods
of increased and significant trading activity.\4\ The Exchange requires
Market Makers to utilize a risk limitation mechanism for quotes, which
automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an
options class when certain parameter settings are breached.\5\ The
Exchange permits, but does not require, ATP Holders to utilize its risk
limitation mechanism for orders, which automatically cancels such
orders when certain parameter settings are breached.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market Makers are included in the definition of ATP Holders
and therefore, unless the Exchange is discussing the quoting
activity of Market Makers, the Exchange does not distinguish Market
Markers from ATP Holders when discussing the risk limitation
mechanisms. See Rule 900.2NY(5) (defining ATP Holder as ``a natural
person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited
liability company or other organization, in good standing, that has
been issued an ATP,'' and requires that ``[a]n ATP Holder must be a
registered broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934''). See also Rule 900.2NY(38) (providing that a
Market Maker is ``an ATP Holder that acts as a Market Maker pursuant
to Rule 920NY'').
    \5\ See Rule 928NY, Commentary .04(a) (providing that Market
Makers are required to utilize one of the three risk settings for
their quotes); and Commentary .01 (regarding the cancellation of
quotes once the risk settings have been breached).
    \6\ See Rule 928NY, Commentary .04(b) (providing that ATP
Holders may avail themselves of one of the three risk limitation
mechanisms for certain of their orders) and Commentary .01
(regarding the cancellation of orders once the risk settings have
been breached).

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

    Pursuant to Rule 928NY, the Exchange establishes a time period
during which the System calculates for quotes and orders, respectively:
(1) The number of trades executed by the Market Maker or ATP Holder in
a particular options class (``transaction-based''); (2) the volume of
contracts traded by the Market Maker or ATP Holder in a particular
options class (``volume-based''); or (3) the aggregate percentage of
the Market Maker's quoted size or ATP Holder's order size(s) executed
in a particular options class (``percentage-based'') (collectively, the
``risk settings'').\7\ If a risk setting is triggered, the System will
cancel all of the Market Maker's quotes or the ATP Holder's open orders
in that class until the Market Maker or ATP Holder notifies the
Exchange it will resume submitting quotes or orders.\8\ The temporary
suspension of quotes or orders from the market that results when the
risk settings are triggered is meant to operate as a safety valve that
enables Market Makers and/or ATP Holders to re-evaluate their positions
before requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 928NY(b)-(d) (setting forth the three risk
limitation mechanisms available). A Market Maker may activate one
Risk Limitation Mechanism for its quotes (which is required) and a
different Risk Limitation Mechanism for its orders (which is
optional), even if both are activated for the same class. See also
Commentary .08 to Rule 928NY.
    \8\ See Commentaries .01 and .02 to Rule 928NY (requiring that a
Market Maker or ATP Holder request that it be re-enabled after a
breach of its risk settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Minimum Parameter for Percentage-Based Risk Setting
    Per Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY, the Exchange establishes outside
allowable parameters for each risk setting and announces by Trader
Update ``any applicable minimum, maximum and/or default settings for
the Risk Limitation Mechanisms'' that are at or within these outside
parameters. ATP Holders, in turn, adjust their own risk settings within
the Exchange-established parameters, based on risk tolerance, taking
into account such factors as present and anticipated market conditions,
news in an option, and/or sudden change in volatility of an option. Put
another way, the rule sets forth the minimum/maximum for each risk
setting and the Exchange may, but does not have to, use these settings.
However, the Exchange may instead choose settings that are higher than
the minimum and lower than the maximum settings (i.e., if the rule
allows a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10, the Exchange could use these
parameters or could instead establish a minimum of 3 and a maximum of
7). Once the Exchange determines and announces the applicable
parameters for each risk setting, the ATP Holder, in turn, selects a
setting within the Exchange announced parameters that suits their risk
tolerance (i.e., assuming the Exchange selected a minimum of 3 and a
maximum of 7, the ATP Holder may select a setting of 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7).
    The Exchange proposes to adjust the minimum allowable parameter as
established by Rule for the percentage-based risk setting from 100
percent to 1 percent (the ``Minimum Parameter'').\9\ The following
illustrates the potential impact of the Exchange setting the reducing
the minimum threshold from 100 percent to 1 percent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY. The manner in
which Rule 928NY operates is not being amended in this rule change.

    If a market participant has interest in two series of the same
underlying, A and B, for 10 contracts each, the participant uses the
percentage-based risk setting, and the exposure risk is set to 100
percent, an execution in series A for 10 contracts will result in
the interest in series B being canceled. However, if the execution
in series A is for 9 contracts (as opposed to 10), the interest in
series B would not be cancelled. If there is a subsequent execution
within the time period \10\ in series B for any number of contracts
or for the remaining contract in series A, the remaining interest in
series A and B will be canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY (providing that the
Exchange will specify via Trader Update ``any applicable time
period(s) for the Risk Limitation Mechanisms; provided, however,
that the Exchange will not specify a time period of less than 100
milliseconds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the same facts as above, but instead, the participant's
exposure risk is set to 1 percent (as opposed to 100 percent), an
execution in series A for any number of contracts, will result in
the remaining interest in series A and B being canceled.

    As indicated above, the proposed reduction of the Minimum Parameter
was specifically requested by some ATP Holders and would inure to their
benefit as it would allow the Exchange to offer more sensitive risk
controls. The Exchange notes that it is not modifying the maximum
threshold for the percentage-based setting, which provides ATP Holders,
and Market Makers in particular, the ability to more finely calibrate
their risk exposure. The Exchange has not modified this Minimum
Parameter since implementing the risk settings in 2012.\11\ The
Exchange believes a modification to the Minimum Parameter would account
for increased market volatility and fragmentation, as well as the ever-
increasing automation, speed and volume transacted in today's
electronic trading environment. In this regard, this proposed change
would provide the Exchange with more flexibility within which to
establish the lower bound risk parameter for ATP Holders that use this
risk setting. To the extent this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange
believes this should afford such ATP Holders the ability to better
calibrate and manage risk.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67713 (August 22,
2012), 77 FR 52090 (August 28, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-39). In 2016,
the Exchange modified only the upper bound of the percentage-based
(as well as the upper bound of the volume-based) risk setting. At
that time, the Exchange also modified both the upper and lower bound
of the transaction-based setting. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79468 (December 5, 2016), 81 FR 89160 (December 9, 2016)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2016-110).
    \12\ The Exchange would still announce by Trader Update the
actual minimum setting for the percentage-based risk setting, which
may be the same as or greater than the Minimum Parameter (but no
greater than the maximum allowable percentage-based setting). See
Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATP Holders are vulnerable to the risk from a system or other error
or a market event that may cause them to send a large number of orders
or receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their
exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as
the available risk settings, ATP Holders may opt to reduce the amount
of order flow and liquidity that they provide to the market, which
could undermine the quality of the markets available to market
participants. The Exchange

believes that the proposed Minimum Parameter, which setting has not
been modified since it was adopted in 2012, removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by providing the
Exchange with more flexibility within which to establish the
appropriate lower bound of the percentage-based setting, in
consideration of market conditions, which would enable this risk
setting to operate in the manner intended to the benefit of all market
participants. To the extent this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange
believes this should afford ATP Holders that utilize this risk setting
the ability to better calibrate and manage risk.
    Further, this proposed change, which was specifically requested by
some ATP Holders, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market because it would be available to all ATP
Holders (if the Exchange choses to reduce the Minimum Parameter to one
percent) and may encourage more ATP Holders to utilize the percentage-
based risk setting, specifically, or the risk settings generally, which
would benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes this
proposal has the potential to help ATP Holders better manage their risk
as it would allow for more precise customization of their risk settings
which would, in turn, help ATP Holders avoid trading a number of
contracts that exceeds the ATP Holder's risk tolerance level.
    The Exchange notes that other options exchanges offer risk settings
for quotes and orders, including analogous percentage-based settings,
consistent with the proposed Minimum Parameter. For example, Rule
21.16, Risk Monitor Mechanism, on both Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX'') and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') states that each BZX
or EDGX Member may (but is not required to) configure a single counting
program or multiple counting programs to govern its trading activity
(i.e., on a per port basis).\15\ Just as with Exchange's [sic]
percentage-based risk setting, BZX/EDGX offer a risk setting that is
based on a percentage-based trigger, measured against the number of
contracts executed as a percentage of the number of contracts
outstanding within a time period designated by the Exchange
(``percentage trigger'').\16\ This percentage trigger is calculated
similarly to the risk setting on the Exchange: The BZX/EDGX counting
program first calculates, for each series of an option class, the
percentage of a BZX/EDGX Member's order size in the specified class or
a the [sic] percentage of BZX/EDGX Member that is a market maker's
quote size in the appointed class that is executed on each side of the
market, including both displayed and non-displayed size; the counting
program then sums the overall series percentages for the entire option
class to calculate the percentage trigger. Unlike the Exchange's rule,
BZX/EDGX Rule 21.16 has no minimum equivalent, which the Exchange
understands means that the risk setting established by the Member for
its trading activity (whether orders or market maker quotes) may be set
as low as 1 percent. And unlike the Exchange, BZX/EDGX do not require
its market makers to establish risk settings for quotes, nor does it
impose a default setting for participants that do not establish such
risk settings. As proposed, the Minimum Parameter would authorize the
Exchange to allow the percentage-based trigger to be as low as 1
percent, which would thus allow the Exchange's rule to operate more
similarly to the BZX/EDGX rule.\17\ The Exchange believes that this
proposal is consistent with the BXZ/EDGX rules that allow order senders
(i.e., including non-Market Makers) to use a percentage-based risk
parameter that may be set as low as 1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(i)-(iv) (providing optional
risk settings). On each market (BZX and EDGX), risk setting limits
have been reached [sic], the Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or
rejects such Member's orders or quotes in all underlying securities
and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes. See BZX and
EDGX Rule 21.16(b)(i)-(iii).
    \16\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(iv) (setting forth percent
trigger risk setting).
    \17\ The Exchange notes that other options in [sic] exchanges in
the Cboe family offer a similar Risk Monitor Mechanism. See, e.g.,
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') Rule 6.14(c)(5)(A)(i)-(v) (setting
forth risk settings, with paragraph (iv) setting forth the
percentage-based setting, each of which mirror those offered by BZX
and EDGX). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84778
(December 10, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-058) (immediately effective
EDGX filing to harmonize risk mechanism to that of its affiliated
exchange, C2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that two non-Cboe affiliated options
exchanges likewise offer similar percentage-based risk settings that
apply solely to quotes. Specifically, Miami International Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'') Rule 612(a) requires its market makers to establish a risk
settings [sic] for quotes in its appointment (as does the Exchange).
MIAX's percentage-based risk setting operates similar to the Exchange's
analogous setting. However, MIAX does not provide a minimum Allowable
Engagement Percentage (``AEP''); market makers are free to pick any AEP
(effectively allowing them to set a threshold as low as 1 percent). If
a MIAX market maker does not establish an AEP, MIAX will impose a
default minimum of 100 percent. In addition, Nasdaq PHLX (``PHLX'')--
like the Exchange and MIAX--also requires its market makers to utilize
one of its risk settings (either volume-based or percentage-based) for
quotes. PHLX's percentage-based risk setting operates similar to the
Exchange's analogous setting. Further, PHLX Rule 1099(c)(2)(A) provides
that market makers that opt to utilize PHLX's percentage-based risk
setting may establish a minimum threshold (i.e., a ``Specified
Percentage'') of no lower than 1 percent.\18\ The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with the MIAX and PHLX rules that
require market makers on those exchanges to use a percentage-based risk
parameter that may be set as low as 1 percent (and, in the case of
MIAX, a default setting will be imposed if the market maker fails to
select one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that MIAX cited to the BZX rule when it
filed an immediately effective proposed rule change to change its
AEP setting from 100 percent to any percentage established by the
market maker (i.e., no minimum parameter). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 77817 (May 12, 2016), 81 FR 31286 (May 18, 2016)
(SR-MIAX-2016-10). See also [sic] See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78129 (June 22, 2016), 81 FR 42024 (June 28, 2016)) (SR-
Phlx-2016-67) (immediately effective rule filing, citing MIAX AEP,
to modify its analogous percentage-based risk setting to establish
the minimum Specified Percentage determined by a market maker at not
less than 1 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
would promote just and equitable principles of trade because Market
Makers have the option to select one of three risk settings for quotes
and non-Market Makers have this same option or may choose to utilize no
risk settings at all. Thus, this proposal merely provides the Exchange
additional latitude in establishing the percentage-based risk setting
and may encourage more ATP Holders to utilize this or the other two
risk settings, which benefits all market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a
Minimum Parameter that would provide the Exchange will greater
flexibility in establishing the appropriate lower bound of the
percentage-based setting, which may in turn provide ATP Holders that
utilize this setting with greater control and flexibility over setting
their

risk tolerance and, potentially, more protection over risk exposure.
The proposal is structured to offer the same enhancement to all ATP
Holders, regardless of size, and would not impose a competitive burden
on any participant. The proposal may foster competition among Market
Makers by providing them with the ability to enhance and customize
their percentage in order to compete for executions and order flow.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the
existing risk limitation mechanism would impose a burden on competing
options exchanges. Rather, it provides ATP Holders with the opportunity
to avail themselves of risk settings for quotes and orders that are
consistent with such tools currently available on BZX, EDGX, MIAX and
PHLX.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra notes 15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    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 \20\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \22\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \23\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. As
noted above, the proposed operational functionality is substantially
similar to those utilized on other options exchanges,\24\ and the
differences noted herein do not raise substantive or novel issues.
Waiver of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately
implement the proposed functionality in coordination with the
availability of the technology supporting the proposal, permitting ATP
Holders to utilize the optional risk settings without undue delay. Thus
the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and
hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ See supra notes 14-17.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-08 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-NYSEAMER-2019-08. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-08 and should be submitted
on or before April 30, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06926 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P