[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16871-16878]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0246; Amdt. No. 91-321F]
RIN 2120-AL79

Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Territory and Airspace
of Libya

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends, with modifications to reflect changed
conditions in the Tripoli Flight Information Region (FIR) (HLLL) and
the associated risks to U.S. civil aviation safety, the prohibition
against certain flight operations in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) by all:
U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the
privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such
persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air
carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. Specifically,
with this final rule, the FAA removes the prohibition against U.S.
civil aviation operations at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 300 in

those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) that are outside the territory
and airspace of Libya. The FAA also republishes the approval process
and exemption information for this SFAR consistent with other recently
published flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA also modifies the title of
the relevant section of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect that
the geographic scope of FAA's flight prohibition for U.S. civil
aviation is now limited to the territory and airspace of Libya.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 17, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Petrak, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This action amends SFAR No. 112, title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), 91.1603, which currently prohibits certain U.S.
civil flight operations in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) \1\ by all: U.S. air
carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges
of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons
are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator
of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. This final rule contains
modifications to reflect changed conditions in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL)
and the associated risks to U.S. civil aviation safety. Specifically,
with this final rule, the FAA removes the prohibition against U.S.
civil aviation operations at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 300 in
those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) that are outside the territory
and airspace of Libya. However, the FAA continues to prohibit U.S.
civil aviation operations at all altitudes in the territory and
airspace of Libya due to the significant, continuing unacceptable risks
to the safety of such operations from various armed groups' access to
advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems, airspace de-confliction
challenges, and ongoing, intermittent violence in Libya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (the ``Chicago Convention''), done at Chicago, December 7,
1944, and to which nearly all countries around the world are
parties, recognize that every country has complete and exclusive
sovereignty of the airspace above its territory, and defines the
term ``territory,'' for purposes of the Convention, as ``the land
areas and territorial waters adjacent thereto under the sovereignty,
suzerainty, protection or mandate of such [country].'' While there
are many potential nuances depending upon local geographic factors,
in most cases, the territorial sea of a country extends 12 nautical
miles from the coastal baselines of that country drawn in accordance
with international law. The Tripoli FIR (HLLL) includes the entire
territory and airspace of Libya, and extends north into
international airspace above the Gulf of Sidra. It also extends
south into a portion of the territory and airspace of Chad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also extends the expiration date of this Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) from March 20, 2023 until March 20, 2025.
Consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, this
action also republishes the approval process and exemption information
for this flight prohibition SFAR.

II. Authority and Good Cause

A. Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for
the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and
U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. Sections 106(f) and (g)
of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I, establish the FAA
Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle
VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope
of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the
Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other
matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as
the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires
the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the
obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
    The FAA is promulgating this rule under the authority described in
49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is
charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum
standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
    This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority because
it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR
No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, from conducting flight operations in the
territory and airspace of Libya due to the continuing hazards to the
safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to
this final rule.

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Also, section 553(d)
permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an
effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. In this
instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and the
delayed effective date because they would be impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
    Providing notice and the opportunity for the public to comment here
would be contrary to the public interest. The FAA's flight
prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, need to include appropriate
boundaries that reflect the agency's current understanding of the risk
environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to protect the
safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers
and crews without over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. operators'
routing options. However, the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation
in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight
is fluid in circumstances involving fighting, extremist and militant
activity, or periods of heightened tensions, particularly where weapons
capable of targeting or otherwise negatively affecting U.S. civil
aviation are or may be present. This fluidity, and the potential for
rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation, significantly limits
how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can
usefully assess the risk environment. The delay that would be
occasioned by providing an opportunity to comment on this action would
significantly increase the risk that the resulting final action would
not accurately reflect the current risks to U.S. civil aviation
associated with the situation and thus would not establish boundaries
for the flight prohibition commensurate with those risks.
    While the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the
boundaries of the area in which unacceptable risks to the safety of
U.S. civil aviation existed might change due to: evolving military or
political circumstances; extremist and militant group activity; the
introduction, removal, or repositioning of more advanced anti-aircraft
weapon systems; or other factors. As a result, if the situation
improved while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the
rule the FAA finalized might be over-restrictive, unnecessarily
limiting U.S. operators' routing options and potentially causing them
to incur unnecessary additional fuel and operations-related costs, as
well as

potentially causing passengers to incur unnecessarily some costs
attributed to their time. Conversely, if the situation deteriorated
while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule the FAA
finalized might be under-restrictive, allowing U.S. civil aviation to
continue operating in areas where unacceptable risks to their safety
had developed. Such an outcome would endanger the safety of these
aircraft, as well as their passengers and crews, exposing them to
unacceptable risks of death, injury, and property damage that could
occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise
damaged) while operating in the territory and airspace of Libya.
    Alternatively, if the FAA made changes to the area in which U.S.
civil aviation operations would be prohibited between a notice of
proposed rulemaking and a final rule due to changed conditions, the
version of the rule the public commented on would no longer reflect the
FAA's current assessment of the risk environment for U.S. civil
aviation. In addition, some or all of the rationale for such changes
during the course of the rulemaking might be based upon classified
information or controlled unclassified information not authorized for
public release. The FAA's ability to notify the public of its reasoning
and respond to comments would necessarily be limited--thus rendering
such proceedings impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest.
    Therefore, providing notice and the opportunity for comment would
be contrary to the public interest, as it would hinder FAA's ability to
maintain appropriate flight prohibitions based on up-to-date risk
assessments of the risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation
operations in airspace managed by other countries.
    For the same reasons discussed above, the potential safety impacts
and the need for prompt action on up-to-date information that is not
public would make delaying the effective date impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. For altitudes at or below FL300 in
those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) that are outside the territory
and airspace of Libya, any delay in the effective date of the rule
would continue a prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations at those
altitudes that the FAA has determined is no longer needed for the
safety of U.S. civil aviation and would thus unnecessarily restrict
U.S. operators' routing options at those altitudes.
    Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and
comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

III. Background

    On July 27, 2020, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal
Register prohibiting U.S. civil flight operations in the entirety of
the territory and airspace of Libya. That rule also prohibited U.S.
civil flight operations in those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL)
outside the territory and airspace of Libya at altitudes below
FL300.\2\ The FAA assessed the area of unacceptable inadvertent risk to
U.S. civil aviation operations at all altitudes had spread to the
entire territory and airspace of Libya. This spread was due to the
geographic expansion of the ongoing conflict between the Tripoli-based
Government of National Accord (GNA) and the Tobruk-based Libyan
National Army (LNA) for control over Libya's government, territory, and
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Tripoli Flight
Information Region (FIR) (HLLL) final rule, 85 FR 45084 (Jul. 27,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foreign state actors continued to provide material and technical
assistance to both the GNA and the LNA. This support involved third
party forces, as well as the deployment of advanced weapons, including
advanced fighter aircraft, weaponized unmanned aircraft systems (UAS),
surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and, likely, jammers. Both sides
had conducted air strikes, utilizing tactical combat aircraft and long-
range, armed UAS, to target airport infrastructure and aircraft on the
ground at airports. In May 2020, Russia deployed multiple fighter
aircraft to Libya to provide close air support to its private military
contractors and the LNA and protect their operations from attacks by
manned aircraft and weaponized UAS. The foreign states supporting the
LNA and GNA also deployed anti-aircraft weapons and self-protection
jamming systems to mitigate the air threat. The combination of these
activities posed airspace de-confliction concerns and an inadvertent
risk of in-flight engagement of civil aircraft as a result of possible
misidentification or miscalculation.
    More advanced, higher-altitude air defense systems had also been
deployed to Libya. In addition to an SA-22 SAM system, a foreign
sponsor associated with the GNA had reportedly deployed multiple
variants of anti-aircraft weapons to provide a layered air defense in
Tripoli. This deployment included a medium range I-Hawk SAM and a
Korkut 35mm air defense gun.
    The activities of the GNA and the LNA also presented risks to U.S.
civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Libya. Both the GNA and
the LNA possessed anti-aircraft artillery and MANPADS, some of which
have a maximum altitude of up to 25,000 feet (7,620 meters). As a
result of weapons activity posing a risk to civil aviation, the GNA
closed Mitiga International Airport (HLLM) on multiple occasions during
January and February 2020. LNA leader General Haftar announced on
January 23, 2020, that LNA forces would engage any military or civil
aircraft operating from Mitiga International Airport (HLLM). The FAA
was also concerned the GNA and the LNA might augment their air defense
operations with increased Global Positioning System (GPS) and radio
frequency jamming.
    Collectively, the FAA assessed that the escalating fighting,
increased foreign intervention, and deployment of additional air
defense capabilities presented an increasing risk to U.S. civil
aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Libya at all
altitudes. For these reasons, the July 27, 2020 final rule incorporated
the flight prohibition on U.S civil aviation operations in the
territory and airspace of Libya at all altitudes, previously contained
in NOTAM KICZ A0026/19, into SFAR No. 112, Sec.  91.1603.
    In addition, the FAA assessed that the hazards to the safety of
U.S. civil aviation operations at altitudes below FL 300 described in
the preamble to the March 2019 final rule remained of concern in those
portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) that are outside the territory and
airspace of Libya.\3\ The FAA noted that foreign military manned and
unmanned tactical aircraft might operate or approach targets from off
the northern coast, presenting airspace de-confliction challenges at
altitudes below FL300. Additionally, there was the potential for GPS
interference bleed over that might impact flights operating over the
southern Mediterranean Sea in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL). For these
reasons, the July 27, 2020 final rule also continued the prohibition
against all flights by U.S. civil operators and airmen at altitudes
below FL300 in those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) outside the
territory and airspace of Libya.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Amendment of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the
Tripoli Flight Information Region (FIR) (HLLL) final rule, 84 FR at
9952-9953 (Mar. 19, 2019).
    \4\ For all of the reasons described in the preamble to the July
27, 2020 final rule, the FAA also extended the expiration date of
SFAR No. 112, Sec.  91.1603, until March 20, 2023. See Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Tripoli Flight Information Region
(FIR) (HLLL) final rule, 85 FR 45084 (Jul. 27, 2020).

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

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA continues to assess the situation in the territory and
airspace of Libya as hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. Representatives
of the Libyan Army of the GNA and the LNA General Command of the Armed
Forces signed a United Nations-backed ceasefire agreement on October
23, 2020. Among other things, the October 23, 2020 ceasefire provided
for: an immediate ceasefire, effective upon signature of the agreement;
the departure of all mercenaries and foreign fighters from Libya,
including its land, air, and sea territory, within three months; and
the suspension of all military training agreements and departure of all
training crews until a new unified government assumed its functions.
    Since the October 23, 2020 ceasefire agreement, combat operations
in Libya have significantly decreased, with only intermittent ground
clashes between opposing factions. In addition, Russian-backed Vagner
Group (also referred to as private military company (PMC) Wagner) has
reduced the number of its air defense systems and forces deployed in
Libya, with more than 1,300 Vagner personnel having departed the
country. However, protests and intermittent clashes between the various
armed factions in Libya continue. Unrest in the capital, in particular,
has been driven by militia infighting and multiple failed attempts by
the Government of National Stability (GNS) to enter Tripoli, and has
contributed to the lack of progress on key milestones set forth in the
ceasefire agreement. In particular, the provisions of the ceasefire
agreement relating to departure of all mercenaries and foreign fighters
from Libya and the suspension of all military training agreements and
departure of all training crews until the Government of National Unity
(GNU) assumed its functions have not been fully implemented. In June
and August 2022, the GNS attempted to enter Tripoli to seize control of
government offices and were met with protests and violence, including
armed clashes that resulted in the temporary suspension of flight
operations at Mitiga International Airport (HLLM).
    Airspace de-confliction challenges also remain a safety-of-flight
concern in the territory and airspace of Libya. Various armed groups
operating in Libya continue to have access to advanced anti-aircraft
weapons systems. These groups likely lack comprehensive airspace
awareness sufficient to enable effective aircraft identification and
de-confliction of civil and military flights. These circumstances
create the potential for localized operational control and use of anti-
aircraft systems, rather than a coordinated air defense command and
control structure, posing an enduring inadvertent risk to civil
aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Libya. Forces
aligned with GNA and LNA can quickly increase force protection
measures, such as GPS jamming, air strikes, and the deployment of SAM
systems capable of reaching as high as 49,000 feet. In addition to
foreign-operated air defense capabilities, both GNA and LNA forces have
access to anti-aircraft artillery and advanced MANPADS, some of which
have a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet.
    On August 22, 2022, LNA air defense forces claimed to have shot
down a U.S. MQ-9 UAS operating in the vicinity of Benghazi during a
period of increased tensions and threats of renewed violence between
competing militias vying for control of Tripoli. The MQ-9 was operating
in support of diplomatic engagements, and the operator had conducted
pre-mission coordination with Libyan authorities. While this incident
involved a military UAS, it is illustrative of the potential for
inadequate aircraft identification and de-confliction procedures
leading to an inadvertent shoot down, resulting in significant
casualties, and loss of an aircraft, if a civil aircraft carrying
passengers were mistakenly engaged.
    In addition, despite a reduction in foreign presence, tensions in
Libya remain elevated, and warring factions in Libya and their
affiliated foreign sponsors maintain access to advanced weapons.
Tensions over the implementation of a unity government spiked violently
in March, June, and August 2022 in conjunction with GNU attempts to
enter Tripoli and assume control of national government functions. The
ensuing clashes between Libya's various armed factions included small
arms and indirect fire exchanges, causing temporary disruptions to
airport operations in the capital region. Within their respective
strongholds in various areas of the country, Libya's armed factions
have either gained access to, or have foreign sponsors equipped with,
tactical aircraft, long-range weaponized UAS, air defense systems, and
GPS jammers. Given the current tenuous security environment in Libya,
the FAA remains concerned about the continued risk of rapid escalation
involving these systems during spikes in tensions, which would pose
safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation outside the capital
region.
    As a result of the significant, continuing unacceptable risks to
the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations at all altitudes in the
territory and airspace of Libya, the FAA maintains the prohibition on
U.S. civil aviation operations at all altitudes in the territory and
airspace of Libya and extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, 14
CFR 91.1603, from March 20, 2023, until March 20, 2025. Further
amendments to SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, might be appropriate if the
risk to U.S. civil aviation safety and security changes. In this
regard, the FAA will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate the
extent to which persons described in paragraph (a) of this rule might
be able to operate safely in the territory and airspace of Libya.
    The FAA assesses the risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the
portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) outside the territory and airspace
of Libya at altitudes below FL300 has diminished and the situation has
stabilized sufficiently to permit U.S. civil aviation operations to
resume in that airspace. Since the October 2020 ceasefire agreement,
foreign actors have significantly reduced weapons shipments and
military activities off the coast of Libya. Previously, these
activities included targeting suspected weapons shipments destined for
the opposing side or their foreign sponsors. As a result, the risk of
either side or their foreign sponsors misidentifying civil aircraft
operations in the overwater portion of the Tripoli FIR as carrying
weapons shipments destined for the other side or their foreign sponsors
and mistakenly targeting them has diminished. The reduction of
widespread conflict has also reduced the risk to U.S. civil aviation
operations in the small portion of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) that extends
into Chad's territorial airspace. Therefore, due to the diminished
risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations and stabilized
situation in those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) outside the
territory and airspace of Libya, the FAA amends SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR
91.1603, to remove the prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations in
those areas.
    The FAA republishes the details concerning the approval and
exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, consistent
with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs to enable
interested persons to refer to this final rule for comprehensive
information about requesting relief from the FAA from the provisions of
SFAR No. 112, Sec.  91.1603. The FAA also modifies the heading of SFAR
No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, in the CFR, to reflect the change in the
geographic scope of the FAA's flight prohibition for U.S.

civil aviation, which is now limited to the territory and airspace of
Libya.

V. Approval Process Based on a Request From a Department, Agency, or
Instrumentality of the United States Government

A. Approval Process Based on an Authorization Request From a
Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States Government

    In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support
their activities in the territory and airspace of Libya. If a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government
determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described
in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, including a U.S. air
carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military
passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the territory and
airspace of Libya, that department, agency, or instrumentality may
request the FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR
No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, to conduct such operations.
    The requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or
instrumentality must submit the request for approval to the FAA's
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an
appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality.\5\ The FAA will not accept or consider requests for
approval from anyone other than the requesting U.S. Government
department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior
official signing the letter requesting FAA approval must be
sufficiently positioned within the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality to demonstrate that the organization's senior
leadership supports the request for approval and is committed to taking
all necessary steps to minimize aviation safety and security risks to
the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position
to: (1) attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA
in the request for approval, and (2) ensure that any support from the
requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is
maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances,
requesting U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities
must submit requests for approval to the FAA no less than 30 calendar
days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality wishes the operator(s) to commence the proposed
operation(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This approval procedure applies to U.S. Government
departments, agencies, or instrumentalities; it does not apply to
the public. The FAA describes this procedure in the interest of
providing transparency with respect to the FAA's process for
interacting with U.S. Government departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities that seek to engage U.S. civil aviation to operate
in the area in which this SFAR would prohibit their operations in
the absence of specific FAA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator
for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable,
and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it
electronically as to whether the FAA grants the request for approval.
If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the
requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight
Standards Service, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, to obtain the appropriate email
address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple
persons described in SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, or for multiple
flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the
person(s) the requester expects the SFAR to cover on whose behalf the
U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality seeks FAA
approval, and it must describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will
provide;
     To the extent known, the specific locations in the
territory and airspace of Libya where the proposed operation(s) will
occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of
the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and airspace of
Libya and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the
aircraft will take off and land; and
     The method by which the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise
obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the
operator will integrate this information into all phases of the
proposed operations (i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-
flight, and post-flight phases).
    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with
whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or
cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s))
for specific flight operations in the territory and airspace of Libya.
The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA at any time
after the FAA issues its approval. Neither the operators listed in the
original request, nor any operators the requestor subsequently seeks to
add to the approval, may commence operations under the approval until
the FAA issues them an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of
Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, for operations in the territory
and airspace of Libya. The approval conditions discussed below apply to
all operators. Requestors should send updated lists to the email
address they obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling
(202) 267-8166.
    If an approval request includes classified information or
controlled unclassified material not authorized for public release,
requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Bill Petrak for
instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information
appears in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final
rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603,
does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of the responsibility to
comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators
of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their
certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also
comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government
departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that may apply to the
proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations
issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

B. Approval Conditions

    If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety
organization will send an approval letter to the requesting U.S.
Government department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the
FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
    (1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions
that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator,
while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational
objectives.
    (2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to
the FAA:
    (a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages,
claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and
expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the
approved operations in the territory and airspace of Libya; and

    (b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S.
Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and
liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses,
relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved
operations in the territory and airspace of Libya.
    (3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those the FAA
might impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
    The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator
from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance
policy the FAA issues under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
    If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue
an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the
original request and any operators the requestor subsequently adds to
the approval, authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s). In
addition, as stated in paragraph (3) of this section V.B., the FAA
notes that it may include additional conditions beyond those contained
in the approval letter in any OpSpec or LOA associated with a
particular operator operating under this approval, as necessary in the
interests of aviation safety. U.S. Government departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities requesting FAA approval on behalf of entities
with which they have a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative
agreement should request a copy of the relevant OpSpec or LOA directly
from the entity with which they have any of the foregoing types of
arrangements, if desired.

VI. Information Regarding Petitions for Exemption

    Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues
through the approval process set forth previously may only occur in
accordance with an exemption from SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603. A
petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will
consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those described
in the approval process in the previous section. To determine whether a
petition for exemption from the prohibition this SFAR establishes
fulfills the standards described in 14 CFR 11.81, the FAA consistently
finds necessary the following information:
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will
provide;
     The specific locations in the territory and airspace of
Libya where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not
limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is
operating in the territory and airspace of Libya and the airports,
airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and
land;
     The method by which the operator will obtain current
threat information and an explanation of how the operator will
integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations
(i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-
flight phases); and
     The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize
the risks identified in this preamble to the proposed operations, to
support the relief sought and demonstrate that granting such relief
would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at
least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found
comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be
helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for
exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
    The FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues,
a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.
    The FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government,
the governments of other countries could plan operations that may be
affected by SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603. While the FAA will not permit
these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider
exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and in
accordance with the order of preference set forth in paragraph (c) of
SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603.
    If a petition for exemption includes information that is sensitive
for security reasons or proprietary information, requestors may contact
Aviation Safety Inspector Bill Petrak for instructions on submitting it
to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

VII. Severability

    Congress authorized the FAA by statute to promote safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things,
regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security. 49 U.S.C. 44701. Consistent with that mandate,
the FAA is prohibiting certain persons from conducting flight
operations in the territory and airspace of Libya due to the continuing
hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations. The purpose of
this rule is to operate holistically in addressing a range of hazards
and needs in the territory and airspace of Libya. However, the FAA
recognizes that certain provisions focus on unique factors. Therefore,
the FAA finds that the various provisions of this final rule are
severable and able to operate functionally if severed from each other.
In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of this final
rule's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand, thus
allowing the FAA to continue to fulfill its Congressionally authorized
role of promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce.

VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits
of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory
changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96-39), as codified in 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this final
rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant
regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive
order. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does

not require notice and comment for this final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and
604 do not require regulatory flexibility analyses regarding impacts on
small entities. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the
foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    This action amends, with modifications to reflect changed
conditions in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) and the associated risks to U.S.
civil aviation safety, the SFAR prohibiting certain U.S. civil flight
operations in the Tripoli FIR (HLLL). This action also extends the
expiration date of the SFAR for an additional two years. As a result of
this rule, U.S. civil operators and airmen may operate in those
portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) outside the territory and airspace
of Libya at all altitudes, instead of being limited to conducting
flight operations in those portions of the Tripoli FIR (HLLL) outside
the territory and airspace of Libya at altitudes at or above FL300.
U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Libya
remain prohibited at all altitudes.
    The alternative flight routes result in some additional fuel and
operations costs to the operators, as well as some costs attributed to
passenger time. Accordingly, the incremental costs of the amendment of
this flight prohibition SFAR are minimal. By prohibiting unsafe
flights, the benefits of this rule will exceed the minimal flight
deviation costs. Therefore, the FAA finds that the incremental costs of
amending and extending SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, will be minimal
and are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries,
and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were
shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the territory and
airspace of Libya.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an
agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law
requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking
for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a
final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law
requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The
FAA concludes good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and to not
delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not
require notice and comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604
similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil
aviation from risks to their operations in the territory and airspace
of Libya, a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule complies with
the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens it imposes on the public. The FAA has determined no
new requirement for information collection is associated with this
final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, the FAA's policy is to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to
this regulation. The FAA finds this action is fully consistent with the
obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure the FAA exercises
its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under
international agreements.
    While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air
carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers
from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that
operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition
for U.S. civil aviation. In addition, foreign air carriers and other
foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by
their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA
has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and DOT Order
5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be
informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations
into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could
have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United
States. The FAA has determined this action is exempt pursuant to
Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the
potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the
United States.
    The FAA has determined that this action will not have a significant
environmental effect abroad. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-6(c), the
FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for
this determination and has placed it in the docket for this rulemaking.

IX. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132. The agency has

determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, this rule will not have
federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The agency
has determined it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the
executive order and will not be likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609 promotes international regulatory cooperation
to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

X. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access

    Except for classified and controlled unclassified material not
authorized for public release, all documents the FAA considered in
developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical
reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this
rulemaking.
    Those documents may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's
Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601)
requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may
contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Freight, Libya.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.1603 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(b), (c), and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1603  Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 112--Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Territory and Airspace of Libya.

* * * * *
    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this
section may conduct flight operations in the territory and airspace of
Libya.
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in the territory and airspace of Libya, provided that such
flight operations occur under a contract, grant, or cooperative
agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S.
Government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the
department, agency, or instrumentality and the person described in
paragraph (a) of this section), with the approval of the FAA, or under
an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for
approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference
being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. Government-
sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of
government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support
of a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third,
for all other operations.
* * * * *
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until March 20,
2025. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR, as necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and (g), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on or
about March 13, 2023.
Billy Nolen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-05390 Filed 3-17-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 51654]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Council on Transportation
Statistics (ACTS) of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research
and Technology (OST-R)

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    This notice announces, pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 72-363; 5 U.S.C. app. 2), a
meeting of the Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics (ACTS).
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10th, 2015 from 8:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Room
E37-302, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC. Section 52011 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) directs the
U.S. Department of Transportation to establish an Advisory Council on
Transportation Statistics subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C., App. 2) to advise the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS) on the quality, reliability, consistency, objectivity, and
relevance of transportation statistics and analyses collected,
supported, or disseminated by the Bureau and the Department. The
following is a summary of the draft meeting agenda: (1) USDOT Welcome
and Introduction of Council Members; (2) Update on Current BTS Issues;
(3) Discussion about Future Data Products; (4) Program Review; (5)
Public Comments and Closing Remarks. Participation is open to the
public.
    Members of the public who wish to participate must notify Mr.
D.Senay Gales at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>not later than August 31, 2015.
Members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting with
the approval of Patricia Hu, Director of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. Non-committee members wishing to present oral statements or
obtain information should contact Mr. D.Senay Gales via email no later
than August 31, 2015. Questions about the agenda or written comments
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or submitted by U.S. Mail to:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Research and Technology, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Attn:
Mr. D.Senay Gales, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room #E34-429,
Washington, DC 20590, or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>. BTS requests that
written comments be received by August 31, 2015. Access to the DOT
Headquarters building is controlled therefore all persons who plan to
attend the meeting must notify Mr. Gales at<PHONE_NUMBER> prior to
August 31, 2015. Individuals attending the meeting must report to the
main DOT entrance on New Jersey Avenue SE., for admission to the
building. Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is
available. Persons with a disability requiring special services, such
as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Mr. D.Senay
Gales at<PHONE_NUMBER> at least seven calendar days prior to the
meeting.
    Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and
the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102-3)
covering management of Federal advisory committees.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 18th day of August 2015.
Rolf Schmitt,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2015-20969 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58270-58271]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0882]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0047

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0047,
Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation; without change.
Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public.
Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-0882] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Stop 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0882], and
must be received by January 18, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0047.
    Summary: This collection pertains to the vital system automation on
commercial vessels that is necessary to protect personnel and property
on board U.S.-flag vessels.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate
regulations for the safety of personnel and property on board vessels.
Various sections within parts 61 and 62 of Title 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations contain these rules.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, shipyards, designers, and
manufacturers of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
46,500 hours to 68,475 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated
annual number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: November 8, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-25150 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18674-18677]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0803]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Sector Southeastern New England Captain of the
Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a permanent regulation that would
create security zones around cruise ships in the Southeastern New
England Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. These security zones are
nearly identical to security zones currently put in place by a
temporary final rule. The proposed rule would create a 100-yard radius
security zone encompassing all navigable waters around any cruise ship
anchored or moored and 200-yard radius security zone encompassing all
navigable waters around any cruise ship underway that is being escorted
by Coast Guard or law enforcement agencies assisting the Coast Guard.
These zones are needed to protect cruise ships and the public from
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other
malicious acts of a similar nature. Persons or vessels may not enter
these security zones without permission of the COTP or a COTP
designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 5, 2011. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before April 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0803 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 methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Chief, Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<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-2010-0803), 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 phone 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-2010-0803'' 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-2010-0803'' 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 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.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
which collectively authorizes the Coast Guard to define Security Zones.
The Coast Guard's maritime security mission includes the requirement to
protect cruise ships from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage,
subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature.
Protecting these vessels from potential threats or harm while
transiting, or while moored, at any berth, or at anchor in the waters
of Southeastern New England COTP Zone is necessary to safeguard cruise
ships and the general public. The Coast Guard proposes a permanent
regulation that would create security zones for specified navigable
waters around certain cruise ships in the Southeastern New England
Captain of the Port Zone. On September 22, 2010, the COTP issued a
temporary final rule that created nearly identical security zones in 33
CFR 165.T01-0864. See Security Zone: Passenger Vessels, Southeastern
New England Captain of the Port Zone, 75 FR 63714, October 18, 2010. In
a rule published March 31, 2011 (FR Doc. 2011-7640), temporary Sec.
165.T01-0864 was extended in effect through October 1, 2011.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish 100-yard radius security
zones encompassing all navigable waters around cruise ships that are
moored, at any berth or at anchor within the Southeastern New England
COTP Zone. This notice of proposed rulemaking also proposes to
establish 200-yard radius moving security zones encompassing all
navigable waters around escorted cruise ships while underway in the
navigable waters within the Southeastern New England COTP zone. We
propose to define a ``cruise ship'' as a passenger vessel (as defined
in 46 U.S.C. 2101(22)) that is authorized to carry more than 400
passengers for hire and is 200 feet or more in length. This definition
of ``cruise ship'' will include ferries (as defined in 46 CFR 2.10-25)
that are authorized to carry more than 400 passengers for hire and are
200 feet or more in length. This proposed zone would be activated and
subject to enforcement at all times a cruise ship is underway, anchored
or moored within the navigable waters of the United States in the
Southeastern New England COTP Zone.

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 would not be a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and would 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. These proposed
security zones would be activated and enforced only when a cruise ship
is transiting, anchored, or moored within the Southeastern New England
COTP zone. Persons and/or vessels may enter a security zone if they
obtain permission from the Coast Guard COTP, Southeastern New England.

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. These proposed security zones would be
enforced only when a vessel is transiting within the Southeastern New
England COTP zone (a routine transit is usually two hours or less), and
only when enforced by Coast Guard law enforcement personnel. Persons
and/or vessels with may enter a security zone if they obtain permission
from the Coast Guard COTP, Southeastern New England.
    This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to operate or transit within the security zones when a cruise ship is
transiting, anchored or moored.
    These proposed security zones would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons. These proposed security zones are temporary, and would be
enforced only either when a vessel is transiting within the
Southeastern New England COTP zone (a routine transit is usually two
hours or less) or anchored or moored in the Zone. Persons and/or
vessels may enter a security zone if they obtain permission from the
Coast Guard COTP, Southeastern New England.
    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 Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Chief,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 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 proposed 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 in accordance with Department
of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f) and have made a preliminary determination that this action is
one of a category of actions which the Coast Guard concluded do not
normally have individual or cumulative significant effects on the human
environment. Since the proposed action involves establishment of
security zones, the applicable categorical exclusion is found in Figure
2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this preliminary determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.123 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.123  Cruise Ships, Sector Southeastern New England Captain of
the Port (COTP) Zone.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable
waters within the Southeastern New England Captain of the Port (COTP)
Zone, extending from the surface to the sea floor:
    (1) Within a 200-yard radius of any cruise ship that is underway
and is under escort of U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement personnel or
designated representative, or
    (2) Within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship that is anchored,
at any berth or moored.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section--
    ``Cruise ship'' means a passenger vessel as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(22), that is authorized to carry more than 400 passengers and is
200 or more feet in length. A cruise ship under this section will also
include ferries as defined in 46 CFR 2.10-25 that are authorized to
carry more than 400 passengers and are 200 feet or more in length.
    ``Designated representative'' means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on
the COTP's behalf. The designated representative may be on a Coast
Guard vessel, or onboard federal, state, or a local agency vessel that
is authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
    ``Southeastern New England COTP Zone'' is as defined in 33 CFR
3.05-20.
    (c) Enforcement. The security zones described in this section will
be activated and enforced upon entry of any cruise ship into the
navigable waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 2.36(a) to include
the 12 NM territorial sea) in the Southeastern New England COTP zone.
This zone will remain activated at all times while a cruise ship is
within the navigable waters of the United States in the Sector
Southeastern New England COTP Zone. In addition, the Coast Guard may
broadcast the area designated as a security zone for the duration of
the enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or move
within the security zones created by this section unless granted
permission to do so by the COTP Southeastern New England or the
designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels granted permission to enter a security
zone must comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated
representative. Emergency response vessels are authorized to move
within the zone, but must abide by the restrictions imposed by the COTP
or the designated representative.
    (3) No person may swim upon or below the surface of the water
within the boundaries of these security zones unless previously
authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or the
designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other
means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (5) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone shall contact the COTP or the designated representative
via VHF channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector Southeastern New England
command center) to obtain permission to do so.

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2011-8003 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14878]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT95-11-008]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Refund Report

March 16, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 10, 2006, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), formerly Williams Gas Pipelines
Central, Inc., tendered for filing a refund report regarding collection
of Kansas ad valorem taxes in Southern Star's Docket No. GT95-11-007.
    Southern Star states that this filing is being made in compliance
with a Commission order requiring Southern Star to continue to make
refunds of ad valorem tax collections and to file refund reports.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on March 23, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4251 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44375-44377]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18826]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83949; File No. SR-BOX-2018-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Reflect a Non-Substantive Name Change in the Market's Governing
Documents

August 27, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 15, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to reflect a non-substantive name change in
the Market's governing documents. The text of the proposed rule change
is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxoptions.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to reflect a non-substantive name
change in the Market's governing documents. On July 13, 2018, the BOX
Market LLC Board of Directors approved that the name of BOX Market LLC
be changed to ``BOX Options Market LLC'' and that each officer of the
Company be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to undertake any
actions required or advisable to carry out the name change, including
with respect to the SEC and any governmental or third parties. The
Exchange intends for these changes to be effective upon filing.
    As proposed, references to the Market's name will be deleted and
revised to state the new name, as described more fully below. No other
substantive changes are being proposed in this filing. The Exchange
represents that these changes are concerned solely with the
administration of the Market, a facility of the Exchange, and do not
affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the
Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members
or their associated persons is any way. Accordingly, this filing is
being submitted under Rule 19b-4(f)(3). In lieu of providing a copy of
the marked name changes for all corporate documents, the Exchange
represents that it will make the necessary non-substantive revisions
described below to the applicable corporate governance documents and
post updated versions of

each on the Exchange's website pursuant to Rule 19b-4(m)(2).
Market Name Change
    In connection with the name change of the Market, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the Market's operative documents. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Market's Certificate of Amendment [sic],
and the BOX Market LLC Agreement.\3\ Within these documents the
Exchange proposes to delete all references to BOX Market LLC (``BOX
Market'' or ``BOX'') and replace it with BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX
Options Market'' or ``BOX Options'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange is also proposing to delete obsolete references
within the Market LLC Agreement. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to remove all references to the Boston Options Exchange Group LLC
(``Old BOX''), which merged into what is now BOX Market LLC on May
12, 2012. The Exchange believes references to the Old BOX within the
Market LLC agreement are no longer necessary or appropriate within
the BOX Options Market LLC Amended and Restated Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in connection with the name change of the Market, the
Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive conforming changes to the
BOX Holdings LLC Agreement and the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete all references to BOX
Market LLC and replace it with ``BOX Options Market LLC'' in these
documents.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(1) \5\ in that it enables the Exchange to be so organized
as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the
Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its exchange
members and persons associate with its exchange members, with the
provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed change is a non-substantive change and
does not impact the governance, ownership or operations of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that by ensuring that the Exchanges
operative documents accurately reflect the new legal names, the
proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market
participant confusion.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of
obsolete references would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because the
change would eliminate an obsolete reference to Old BOX, thereby
reducing potential confusion. Market participants and investors would
not be harmed and in fact could benefit from the increased clarity and
transparency in the Market LLC Agreement, ensuring that market
participants could more easily understand the Market LLC Agreement.

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 proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with updating the Exchange's governance and operative documents
to reflect the abovementioned name changes.

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

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

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

    This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder in that the proposed rule changes is concerned solely with
the administration of the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-26. 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, on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-26 and should be
submitted on or before September 20, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18826 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

General Comment:Supplement to British Airways Request for Waiver and for an Equivalent  Alternative Determination