[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47666-47668]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18347]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92712; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule With Respect to Its Strategy Fee Cap

August 20, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 17, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to its strategy fee cap. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 13 of its Fees Schedule in
relation to its strategy order fee cap, effective August 17, 2021.
    Footnote 13 provides that Market-Maker, Clearing Trading Permit
Holder, JBO participant, broker-dealer and non-Trading Permit Holder
market-maker transaction fees are capped at $0.00 for all merger, short
stock interest, reversal, conversion and jelly roll strategies executed
in open outcry on the same trading day in the same option class across
all symbols in equities, ETFs and ETNs. Footnote 13 also provides that
strategy orders must be marked with a code approved by the Exchange
identifying the orders as eligible for fee cap, and that strategy
orders executed during September 2020 will be eligible for the fee cap
notwithstanding not being marked, provided that a TPH submits a rebate
request with supporting documentation for such orders to the Exchange
within 3 business days of September 30, 2020 (i.e., October 5, 2020).
Beginning August 17, 2021, the Exchange's billing system will be able
to automatically identify strategy orders for purposes of the strategy
order fee cap, thereby eliminating the need for TPHs to manually mark
their strategy orders with a code approved the Exchange. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to update Footnote 13 by removing the language in
connection with the marking requirements for strategy orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\4\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \5\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that removing language from
its Fees Schedule in connection with manual marking requirements for
strategy orders in order for TPHs to receive the fee cap is reasonable
as the Exchange's billing system will now be able to automatically
identify strategy orders for purposes of the strategy order fee cap.
The proposed rule change makes no changes to the fee cap but merely
eliminates the need for TPHs to mark orders to receive the fee cap. The
proposed rule change is reasonable as it provides transparency in the
Fees Schedule and alleviates potential investor confusion in connection
with marking strategy orders as eligible to receive the fee cap,
thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system and protecting investors
and the public interest. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies
uniformly to all TPHs, in that, all strategy orders submitted will be
automatically identified as eligible for the fee cap by the Exchange's
billing system.

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. Specifically, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate as the
proposed rule change applies uniformly to all TPHs, in that, all
strategy orders submitted will be automatically identified as eligible
for the fee cap by the Exchange's billing system. The proposed rule
change makes no changes to the fee cap but merely eliminates the need
for TPHs to mark orders to receive the fee cap. Further, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary burden
on intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on Cboe
Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market
participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \8\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-049 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-CBOE-2021-049. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2021-049 and should be submitted on
or before September 16, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18347 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31906-31909]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12997]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67046; File No. SR-BX-2012-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
the Fees Under Rule 7003(b) and Adopt a New Equities Regulatory Fee

May 23, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 16, 2012 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees under Rule 7003(b) and
replace them with a new Equities Regulatory Fee. The Exchange will
implement the fee effective June 1, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

7003. Regulatory, Registration and Processing Fees

    (a) No change.
    (b) [The following fees will be collected via the Web CRD
registration system for the registration of associated persons of
Exchange members:
    (1) $60 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a
representative or principal. This fee shall be waived for initial
registrations occurring between January 1, 2009 and October 1, 2009.
    (2) $40 for each registration U4 transfer or re-licensing of a
representative or principal. This fee shall be waived for transfers
or re-licensings occurring between January 1, 2009 and October 1,
2009.
    (3) $50 annually for each of the member's registered
representatives and principals for system processing. This fee shall
be waived for the period from January 1, 2009 until such time as the
Exchange submits a proposed rule change to reinstate it.]
    The Equities Regulatory Fee is a fee assessed to member firms to
offset the cost of regulating member firms' activity on the
Exchange. The fee is assessed on a member firm annually based on
historical daily average orders entered on the Exchange in the prior
calendar year by a member firm, according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pro-rated
                                                   Annual      equities
               Daily order tiers                  equities    regulatory
                                                 regulatory     fee (7
                                                    fee        months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> = 50,000 orders                                    $4,000       $2,333
> = 1,000 orders, but < 50,000 orders                 2,500        1,458
< 1,000 orders                                            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the fees found under Rule
7003(b) (``Registration Fees'') and adopt a new Equities Regulatory
Fee. Currently, the Exchange assesses a member firm the following
Registration Fees: $60 fee for each initial Form U4 filed for the
registration of a representative or principal; $40 fee for each
registration U4 transfer or re-licensing of a representative or
principal; and $50 for each of the member firm's registered
representatives and principals for system processing (this fee is
currently waived). The Exchange is proposing to eliminate these fees
and introduce a new Equities Regulatory Fee (``ERF''), which is a tier-
based fee assessed annually at the beginning of the calendar year that
covers, in part, the regulatory costs of the Exchange. The ERF uses a
member firm's historical average daily orders entered on the Exchange
over the prior calendar year as a measure of the member's expected
current year's Exchange activity.
    Registration Fees, as well as other membership fees collected by
the Exchange, are intended to cover a portion of the cost of the
Exchange's regulatory program. The Exchange's regulatory program
consists of, among other things, surveillance, analysis and
investigation of trading occurring on the Exchange conducted by the
NASDAQ OMX Group's Market Watch group. The Exchange also has certain
fixed costs associated with running its regulatory program. In addition
to the costs incurred by the regulatory program effectuated by the
Exchange, it also incurs regulatory costs associated with a regulatory
services agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA''), whereby FINRA performs certain regulatory functions
on behalf of the Exchange for a fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange rules require that every qualified registered
representative and principal of a member firm be registered with, and
approved by, the Exchange.\4\ The Exchange believes that Registration

Fees are no longer the best means to assess regulatory fees because
they are based on the number of registered associated persons of
Exchange members. The Exchange has found that the number of registered
associated persons employed by a member firm is not the most accurate
measure of regulatory cost incurred by the Exchange. Specifically, the
regulatory effort expended by the Exchange is largely related to the
number of orders entered into the Exchange, and is not necessarily
commensurate with the total number of registered associated persons
employed by a member firm. In this regard, the Exchange notes that
member firms must comply with, among other things, the order protection
requirements of Regulation NMS,\5\ which effectively means that an
order of a registered representative's customer will not necessarily be
executed on BX, but rather on a venue at which it will receive the best
price for its customer. As a consequence of the current Registration
Fee structure, a majority of these fees are paid by member firms with
comparatively large groups of registered representatives that do not
necessarily trade on the Exchange, and therefore are not a significant
part of the regulatory expense incurred by the Exchange.
Notwithstanding, under the current Registration Fee structure, such
member firms are assessed greater regulatory fees as compared to a
member firm with few registered representatives, but a large number of
orders (and therefore greater regulatory cost) entered into the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 1030 series.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.600, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed ERF is designed to more closely allocate the
regulatory expenses incurred by the Exchange to the member firms
responsible for those expenses. In lieu of assessing fees based on the
number of Exchange-registered associated persons, the Exchange is
proposing to assess a fee on the number of orders entered into the
Exchange by a member firm. The Exchange will assess the ERF annually at
the beginning of the calendar year based on a member firm's historical
average daily orders entered into the Exchange over the prior calendar
year.\6\ The Exchange is using a member firm's average daily orders
entered into the Exchange in the prior calendar year as a measure of
such firm's anticipated order activity in the current year. The
Exchange believes that using such a measure will more closely tie the
member firm's Exchange order activity in the current year to the
projected regulatory costs incurred by the Exchange for such member's
Exchange activity in that same year. The ERF is tiered so that member
firms that enter what is essentially an immaterial number of orders
into the Exchange will not be assessed an ERF. Member firms that
qualify under the mid-level tier of the ERF will be assessed a fee of
$2,500 annually, and member firms that qualify for the top tier of the
ERF will be assessed $4,000 annually. The Exchange selected the tiers
so that an approximately equal number of member firms would fall under
each tier. Member firms that fall under the first tier represent a
relatively small regulatory cost to the Exchange, the sum of which is
covered by other regulatory fees paid by these members. The Exchange
allocated the total of fees assessed annually under the current
Registration Fees among the remaining two tiers so that the fees
collected would closely approximate the Registration Fees assessed
annually, with the member firms that fall under the top tier paying a
larger fee than those under the mid-level tier. As such, the Exchange
believes that the order-based tier structure of the ERF is a more fair
allocation of fees assessed for regulatory expenses. Because the
Exchange is implementing the ERF mid-calendar year, it will prorate the
annual fee for each member firm from June 1, 2012 through December 31,
2012 and use the average daily order for calendar year 2011 for
purposes of calculating its ERF obligation for calendar year 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The calculation of a member firm's average daily orders in
any given calendar year is based only on the trading days during the
year that it was a member of the Exchange. For example, if a member
firm was approved by the Exchange on October 10, 2013, only the
trading days from that date through the end of the year would be
used for purposes of calculating the firm's average daily orders,
which would be done in early 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange believes that the ERF is a better
means of allocating the regulatory costs incurred by the Exchange than
the current Registration Fees, and it does not anticipate the ERF will
result in an increase or decrease in total fees assessed to cover
regulatory costs. Rather, the Exchange believes that the ERF will
result in a more equitable allocation of the fees assessed for this
purpose. In this regard, the Exchange will evaluate annually, at the
close of the calendar year, the amount of revenue collected from the
ERF to ensure that the fees collected are commensurate with the
projected needs of the Exchange's regulatory program as represented by
the regulatory costs incurred during that year. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues would exceed regulatory costs, it would
adjust the ERF to bring the fees in line with such costs and use the
adjusted ERF in the calculation of member firm fees due in the next
annual ERF assessment.\7\ If the Exchange determines that the fees
collected under the ERF are commensurate with regulatory costs, the
Exchange would not adjust the ERF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will conduct and complete this assessment in
January of each year. If an adjustment to the ERF is warranted, the
Exchange would submit a proposed rule change to the Commission to
amend the ERF fee schedule. Shortly thereafter, the Exchange would
assess the ERF on its member firms based on the new fee and members'
average daily orders in the prior year. If no change in the ERF is
warranted, the Exchange would use the existing ERF fee schedule as a
basis for assessing the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which the Exchange operates or controls, and it does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The
Exchange believes that the new ERF is a more equitable allocation of
fees as compared to the current Registration Fees, in that the ERF is
tied to the use of, and hence regulatory cost incurred by, the
Exchange. The Exchange determined to have three tiers under the ERF,
with each tier representing a near equal number of Exchange member
firms. In selecting the proposed fees under each of the tiers of the
ERF, the Exchange first analyzed the distribution of Registration Fees
among member firms in comparison to the distribution among member firms
under various potential fees under the tiers of the ERF. The Exchange
elected to assess the ERF based on the proposed tiers because the
Exchange found these tiers to correlate the closest to the regulatory
costs incurred by the Exchange, as offset by the other regulatory fees
collected. In this regard, the Exchange notes that certain member firms
that have historical average daily orders of less than 1,000 are not
assessed a fee under proposed Rule 7003(b) because such members [sic]
firms represent a much smaller regulatory cost to the Exchange relative
to member firms that enter a greater number of orders and the sum of
such costs is generally met by other regulatory fees assessed these
member firms.\9\ As the goal of the ERF is to more

equitably assess regulatory fees, the Exchange believes that it is not
unfairly discriminatory to member firms that fall under the mid-level
and top tiers to assess no ERF on certain low-order volume member firms
that already pay other regulatory fees adequate to cover the regulatory
costs incurred by the Exchange associated with such member firms'
activities in a given year. The Exchange divided the total fees
assessed under the Registration Fees among the mid-level and top tiers,
with 50,000 average daily orders representing the mid-point between
remaining two thirds of member firms falling under these tiers and the
top tier paying a greater amount than the mid-level tier based on the
relative regulatory cost such member firms represent to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ For example, BX assesses each member firm an annual
membership fee of $3,000 and a monthly trading rights fee of $500.
See Rule 7001(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the ERF is a reasonable fee as it
is assessed on member firms based on their usage of the Exchange, and
the Exchange does not believe that the new fee will result in a net
increase in fees received compared to the fees currently received
through assessment of the Registration Fees. Because the Exchange is
more closely tying regulatory fees with regulatory costs and because
the Exchange has taken great care in determining the tiers under which
member firms will fall under the fee, as described above, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed fee unfairly discriminates between
member firms assessed the fee. In addition, because the Exchange is
implementing the ERF in the middle of a calendar year, it is pro-rating
the fees assessed to reflect the partial calendar year of the ERF's
effectiveness and that member firms may have paid Registration Fees
through the first five months of 2012. The ERF will be applied to all
member firms equally, based upon the tier under which they fall.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
As a self-regulatory organization, the Exchange has an obligation to
regulate its member firms and their associated persons. The regulatory
fees assessed by the Exchange are designed to cover the expenses
associated with running an effective regulatory program. Eliminating
the Registration Fees and implementing the ERF will not negatively
impact the total fees assessed to help cover the regulatory program
costs. As discussed, the total fees assessed under Rule 7003(b) will be
compared annually to the regulatory costs expected to be incurred
during the same calendar year, and the Exchange will make any
adjustments to the fee needed to keep it in line with such costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the new fee is pro-competitive as it will
more closely align the fee assessed for the Exchange's regulatory
program with the use of the Exchange, thus allowing member firms to
compete for order flow on a level playing field in terms of regulatory
fees assessed as a precondition for participation on the Exchange. The
Exchange notes a member firm that believes the ERF to be an excessive
burden may reduce its order flow to the Exchange, thus reducing the
impact of the ERF, or may withdraw as a member of the Exchange
altogether.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2012-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-031. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-
2012-031, and should be submitted on or before June 20, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12997 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77867-77868]
[DOCID:fr19de08-191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-47]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before January 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
1283 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We post all comments we receive, without change, to http:/
/www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and
read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, Transport Airplane
Directorate, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-1283.
    Petitioner: Alenia Aeronautica, S.p.A.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 26.37 (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: Alenia seeks exemption, for airplane
model C-27J, from 26.37 (b) to permit relief from the ignition-source-
prevention requirements included in Sec.  25.981(a)(d) at Amendment 25-
125, and to show compliance with SFAR 88 requirements. Alenia proposes
to comply with SFAR 88 within 18 months after type certification (TC)
to address the ignition-prevention requirements, with confirmation that
the C-27J meets flammability-reduction requirements at TC date.

[FR Doc. E8-30217 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8612-8614]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of MET
Laboratories, Inc., for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's
preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before March 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the

instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for
assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0028). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data. For further information on submitting
comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before March 2, 2022 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), is applying for expansion of
its current recognition as a NRTL. MET requests the addition of
seventeen test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides a final decision on the application. These notices
set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that
scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including MET, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at:
MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland
21230. A complete list of MET's scope of recognition is available at
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/met.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    MET submitted an application to expand its NRTL recognition on
April 20, 2020 (OSHA-2006-0028-0082). The expansion application would
add seventeen additional test standards to MET's NRTL scope of
recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the
application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1, below, lists the appropriate test standards found in MET's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 62841-1................  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 1: General
                             Requirements.
UL 62841-2-2..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-2: Particular
                             Requirements For Hand-Held Screwdrivers and
                             Impact Wrenches.
UL 62841-2-4..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-4: Particular
                             Requirements For Hand-Held Sanders And
                             Polishers Other.
UL 62841-2-5..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools And Lawn And Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-5: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Circular Saws.
UL 62841-2-8..............  Safety Requirements for Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Shears and
                             Nibblers.
UL 62841-2-9..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools And Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-9: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Tappers and
                             Threaders.
UL 62841-2-10.............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools And Lawn And Garden
                             Machinery--Part 2-10: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Mixers.
UL 62841-2-11.............  Safety Requirements for Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Reciprocating
                             Saws.

UL 62841-2-14.............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn And Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-14: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Planers.
UL 62841-2-17.............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 2-17: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Routers.
UL 62841-2-21.............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools And Lawn And Garden
                             Machinery--Part 2-21: Particular
                             Requirements for Hand-Held Drain Cleaners.
UL 62841-3-1..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 3-1: Particular
                             Requirements For Transportable Table Saws.
UL 62841-3-4..............  Safety Requirements for Particular
                             Requirements for Transportable Bench
                             Grinders.
UL 62841-3-6..............  Safety Requirements for Particular
                             Requirements for Transportable Diamond
                             Drills with Liquid System.
UL 62841-3-9..............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden
                             Machinery--Safety--Part 3-9: Particular
                             Requirements for Transportable Mitre Saws.
UL 62841-3-13.............  Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools,
                             Transportable Tools And Lawn And Garden
                             Machinery--Part 3-13: Particular
                             Requirements for Transportable Drills.
UL 62841-4-2..............  Standard for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-
                             Held Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn
                             And Garden Machinery--Safety--Part 4-2:
                             Particular Requirements for Hedge Trimmers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    MET submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent
documentation, indicate that MET can meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition
of these seventeen test standards for NRTL testing and certification
listed in Table 1. This preliminary finding does not constitute an
interim or temporary approval of MET's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, at the above address. These materials also
are available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
OSHA-2006-0028.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant MET's application for
expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will
make the final decision on granting the application. In making this
decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to
Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85
FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 25, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-03194 Filed 2-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6551-6552]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 15b1-1/Form BD;
    SEC File No. 270-19, OMB Control No. 3235-0012.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information provided for in Rule 15b1-1
(17 CFR 240.15b1-1) and Form BD (17 CFR 249.501) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Form BD is the application form used by firms to apply to the
Commission for registration as a broker-dealer, as required by Rule
15b1-1. Form BD also is used by firms other than banks and registered
broker-dealers to apply to the Commission for registration as a
municipal securities dealer or a government securities broker-dealer.
In addition, Form BD is used to change information contained in a
previous Form BD filing that becomes inaccurate.
    The total industry-wide annual time burden imposed by Form BD is
approximately 4,999 hours, based on approximately 13,732 responses (193
initial filings + 13,539 amendments). Each application filed on Form BD
requires approximately 2.75 hours to complete and each amended Form BD
requires approximately 20 minutes to complete. (193 x 2.75 hours = 531
hours; 13,539 x 0.33 hours = 4,468 hours; 531 hours + 4,468 hours =
4,999 hours.) The staff believes that a broker-dealer would have a
Compliance Manager complete and file both applications and amendments
on Form BD at a cost of $279/hour. Consequently, the staff estimates
that the total internal cost of compliance associated with the annual
time burden is approximately $1,394,721 per year ($279 x 4999). There
is no external cost burden associated with Rule 15b1-1 and Form BD.
    The Commission uses the information disclosed by applicants in Form
BD: (1) To determine whether the applicant meets the standards for
registration set forth in the provisions of the Exchange Act; (2) to
develop a central information resource where members of the public may
obtain relevant, up-to-date information about broker-dealers, municipal
securities dealers, and government securities broker-dealers, and where
the Commission, other regulators, and SROs may obtain information for
investigatory purposes in connection with securities litigation; and
(3) to develop statistical information about broker-dealers, municipal
securities dealers, and government securities broker-dealers. Without
the information disclosed in Form BD, the Commission could not
effectively implement policy objectives of the Exchange Act with
respect to its investor protection function.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02340 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49241-49244]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0700]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Delaware River Dredging, Marcus Hook, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones on the
waters of the Delaware River in portions of Marcus Hook Range and
Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range. The safety zones will temporarily
restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the
Delaware River while maintenance dredging is being conducted within the
Delaware River. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel,
vessels and the marine environment from hazards created by dredging
operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the COTP or his designated
representatives.

DATES: This interim rule is effective without actual notice from
September 2, 2021 through November 2, 2021. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 31, 2021, through
September 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0700 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0700
using the Federal Decision Making 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Waterways Management Branch,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a
reasonable comment period prior to the start date for dredging
operations. The rule must be in force by August 31, 2021, to serve its
purpose of ensuring the safety of the public from hazards associated
with dredging operations such as submerged and floating pipeline,
booster pumps, head

sections and vessels with a restricted ability to maneuver.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety
hazards associated with dredging operations in these locations.
    Due to the length of time this temporary rule will be in effect, we
are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard
determines that changes to the rule are necessary we will publish a
subsequent rulemaking document in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that there
are potential hazards associated with dredging operations. The purpose
of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment within a 250-yard radius of dredging operations
and all associated pipeline and equipment.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes safety zones from August 31, 2021, through
November 2, 2021. The safety zones are necessary to facilitate annual
maintenance dredging of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Marcus
Hook Range and Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range (as described in 33
CFR 110.157(a)(8)). Dredging will most likely be conducted with the
dredge ESSEX, though other dredges may be used, along with associated
dredge pipeline and boosters. The pipeline consists of a combination of
floating hoses immediately behind the dredge and submerged pipeline
leading to upland disposal areas. Due to the hazards related to
dredging operations, the associated pipeline and the location of
submerged pipeline, safety zones are being established in the following
areas:
    (1) Safety zone one includes all navigable waters within 250 yards
of the dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in
ability to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, and all related
dredge equipment when the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range, and
Anchorage 7. This safety zone is being established for the duration of
the maintenance project. Vessels requesting to transit the safety zone
must contact the dredge on VHF channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior
to arrival to arrange safe passage. At least one side of the main
navigational channel will be kept clear for safe passage of vessels in
the vicinity of the safety zone. At no time will the entire main
navigational channel be closed to vessel traffic. Vessels should avoid
meeting in these areas where one side of the main navigational channel
is open and proceed per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR
subchapter E).
    (2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8). Vessels
wishing to anchor in Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range while this rule
is in effect must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in
advance by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessels requesting permission to
anchor within Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook must be at least 650 feet in
overall length. The COTP will permit, at minimum, only one vessel to
anchor at a time on a ``first-come, first-served'' basis. Vessels will
only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour period. Vessels that require an
examination by the Public Health Service, Customs, or Immigration
authorities will be directed to an anchorage by the COTP for the
required inspection. Vessels are encouraged to use Anchorage 9 near the
entrance to Mantua Creek, Anchorage 10 at Naval Base, Philadelphia, and
Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point Range as alternative anchorages.
    Preference is being given to vessels at least 650 feet in length in
the Anchorage 7 while this rule is in effect because vessels of this
size are limited in their ability to utilize other anchorages due to
draft. The depth of Anchorage 7 provides an acceptable depth for large
vessels to bunker and stage for facility arrival. Smaller vessels
maintain a host of other options to include, but are not limited to
Anchorage 9 and 10 as recommended above.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within safety zone one is
prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the COTP or make
satisfactory passing arrangements with the operating dredge per this
rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). The COTP may
issue updates regarding the vessel and equipment being utilized for
these dredging operations via Marine Safety Information Bulletin and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and traffic management of the safety zones. The safety zones
will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with
transiting commercial and recreational traffic. At least one side of
the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit at
all times. Moreover, the Coast Guard will work in coordination with the
pilots to ensure vessel traffic can transit the area safely.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to regulated areas,
the effect of this rule will not be significant because there are a
number of alternate anchorages available for vessels to anchor.
Furthermore, vessels may transit through the safety zones with the
permission of the COTP or make satisfactory passing arrangements with
the dredge ESSEX, or other dredge(s) that may be used in accordance
with this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). The
Coast Guard will notify the maritime public about the safety zones
through maritime advisories, allowing mariners to alter their plans
accordingly.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety
zones to protect waterway users that would prohibit entry within 250
yards of dredging operations and will close only one side of the main
navigation channel. Vessels can request permission to enter the
channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG- 2021-0700 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in
the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related
Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be
placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions
on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0700, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0700  Safety Zones, Delaware River Dredging; Marcus Hook,
PA

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) Safety zone one includes all waters within 250 yards of the
dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability
to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, as well as all

related dredge equipment, while the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook
Range. For enforcement purposes Marcus Hook Range includes all
navigable waters of the Delaware River shoreline to shoreline, bound by
a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the
farthest upriver point of the range to a line drawn perpendicular to
the center line of the channel at the farthest downriver point of the
range.
    (2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8) and depicted on
U. S. Nautical Chart 12312.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the Captain of the Port to assist with enforcement
of the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Entry into or transiting within the safety
zone one is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the
Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or make
satisfactory passing arrangements via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 with the
operating dredge per this section and the rules of the Road (33 CFR
subchapter E). Vessels requesting to transit shall contact the
operating dredge via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior to
arrival.
    (2) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24
hours in advance by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The COTP will permit, at
minimum, one vessel at a time to anchor on a ``first-come, first-
served'' basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour
period. Vessels that require an examination by the Public Health
Service, Customs, or Immigration authorities will be directed to an
anchorage for the required inspection by the COTP.
    (3) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, must be at least 650 feet in length overall.
    (4) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in the
following operations: enforcement of laws, service of aids to
navigation, and emergency response.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by federal,
state and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from August 31,
2021, through November 2, 2020, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain
of the Port.

    Dated: August 30, 2020.
Leon McClain, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2021-19015 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P