[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23060]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09495]

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

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:
    Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T; SEC File No. 270-359, OMB Control No.
3235-0410.

    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 existing
collection of information provided for in Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T (17
CFR 240.17h-1T and 17 CFR 240.17h-2T), 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.
    Rule 17h-1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and
preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that
are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the
financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates
and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to
have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a covered broker-dealer to file
with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report
concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved
under Rule 17h-1T.
    The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T,
collectively referred to as the ``risk assessment rules'', is necessary
to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer
affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a
material impact on the financial and operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable
to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities
on the broker-dealer.
    There are currently 306 respondents that must comply with Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 306 respondents are estimated to
require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule
17h-1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,060 hours (306
respondents x 10 hours). In addition, each of these 306 respondents
must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These five responses
are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an
aggregate estimated annual burden of 4,284 hours (306 respondents x 14
hours).
    In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart
required under Rule 17h-1T and establish a system for complying with
the risk assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the
required organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a
system for complying with the risk assessment rules requires three
hours. Based on the unchanged number of filers in recent years, the
staff estimates there will be zero new respondents, and thus, a
corresponding estimated burden of zero hours for new respondents. Thus,
the total compliance burden per year is approximately 7,344 burden
hours (3,060 hours + 4,284 hours).
    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 will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the 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: April 20, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09495 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54162-54166]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19321]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78519; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

August 9, 2016.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 July 29, 2016, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its current MIAX Market Maker \3\
Sliding Scale for transaction fees to: (i) Modify the current Market
Maker Sliding Scale table of Market Maker Transaction Fees in Section
1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule, as described more fully below; and (ii)
adopt a ``maker'' fee and a ``taker'' fee for the various Tiers in the
Market Maker Sliding Scale, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Maker'' means any MIAX Market Maker
including Registered Market Makers (``RMMs''), Primary Lead Market
Makers (``PLMMs''), Lead Market Makers (``LMMs''), Directed Order
Lead Market Makers (``DLMMs'') and Directed Primary Lead Market
Makers (``DPLMMs''). See Exchange Rule 100. See also Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Maker Sliding Scale for Transaction Fees reduces a
Market Maker's per contract transaction fee based on the Market Maker's
percentage of total national Market Maker volume of any options classes
that trade on the Exchange during the calendar month, currently based
on the following scale:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract    Per contract
                     Tier                         Percentage of national market   fee for  penny   fee for  non-
                                                          maker volume                classes      penny classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................  0.00%-0.05%.....................           $0.25           $0.29
2.............................................  Above 0.05%-0.50%...............            0.19            0.23
3.............................................  Above 0.50%-1.00%...............            0.12            0.16
4.............................................  Above 1.00%-1.50%...............            0.07            0.11
5.............................................  Above 1.50%.....................            0.05            0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Maker Sliding Scale applies to all Market Makers for
transactions in all products except mini-options, with different per-
contract transaction fees established for Penny option classes and non-
Penny option classes. A Market Maker's initial $0.25 per contract rate
in Penny classes and $0.29 per contract in non-Penny classes is reduced
when the Market Maker reaches the volume thresholds set forth in the
Market Maker Sliding Scale in a month. As a Market Maker's monthly
volume increases, its per contract transaction fee decreases when the
monthly volume thresholds described in the Market Maker Sliding Scale
are achieved.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule by deleting the
current Market Maker Sliding Scale table, and to create two new tables
based upon volume thresholds in the Priority Customer Rebate Program
\4\ applicable to Members and their Affiliates (as defined below). One
of the new tables will apply to Members and their Affiliates \5\ that
are included in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or
higher, and the other new table will apply to Members and their
Affiliates that are not included in Priority Customer Rebate Program
Volume Tier 3 or higher. Currently, the Fee Schedule provides
discounted transaction fees for Members and their qualified Affiliates
that achieve certain volume thresholds through the submission of
Priority Customer Orders \6\ under the Exchange's Priority Customer
Rebate Program.\7\ The current Fee Schedule describes the discounted
fees in narrative text and footnotes to the table. The Exchange is
proposing to delete this narrative text and parts of the footnotes to
simply include the discounted transaction fees in the two new tables.
The Market Maker sliding scale will continue to apply to MIAX Market
Maker transaction fees in all products except mini-options. MIAX Market
Makers will continue to be assessed a $0.02 per executed contract fee
for transactions in mini-options. The purpose of basing the proposed
two new tables on the volume thresholds in the Priority Customer Rebate
Program is to clarify that the Exchange provides incentives for Members
and their Affiliates to submit a greater number of Priority Customer
Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange is simply deleting this
information from the narrative text in the Fee Schedule and conveying
it more simply and clearly in table format. The proposed language ``or
higher,'' which replaces ``or 4,'' is intended to account for potential
additional tiers in the Priority Customer Rebate Program that may be
added in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MIAX credits each Member the per contract amount resulting
from each Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member which
is executed electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed
option classes (excluding QCC Orders, mini-options, Priority
Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, PRIME AOC Responses, PRIME
Contra-side Orders, PRIME Orders for which both the Agency and
Contra-side Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to
contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection
with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
referenced in MIAX Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain
percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Priority
Customer Rebate Program table. See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii).
    \5\ For purposes of the MIAX Options Fee Schedule, the term
``Affiliate'' means an affiliate of a Member of at least 75% common
ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A (``Affiliate''). See proposed new Footnote 1 to the Fee
Schedule.
    \6\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A ``Priority
Customer Order'' means an order for the account of a Priority
Customer. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ The Exchange will aggregate the trading activity of separate
MIAX Market Maker firms for purposes of the sliding scale if there
is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on
each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. Any Member or its affiliates of at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer
Rebate Program volume tiers 3 or 4 will be assessed $0.23 per
contract for tier 1, $0.17 per contract for tier 2, $0.10 per
contract for tier 3, $0.05 per contract for tier 4, and $0.03 per
contract for tier 5 for transactions in standard options in Penny
Pilot Classes. Any Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common
ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program
volume tiers 3 or 4 will be assessed $0.27 per contract for tier 1,
$0.21 per contract for tier 2, $0.14 per contract for tier 3, $0.09
per contract for tier 4, and $0.07 per contract for tier 5 for
transactions in standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes. See Fee
Schedule Section 1)a)i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to establish new percentage thresholds
of national customer volume in the current Tiers in the Market Maker
Sliding Scale. The new thresholds will be the same in each new table.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish new percentage
thresholds of national customer volume in the Market Maker Sliding
Scale as follows: (i) In Tier 1, from 0-0.0% to 0-0.075%; (ii) in Tier
2, from above 0.075% to 0.60%; (iii) in Tier 3, from above 0.60% to
1.00%; (iv) in Tier 4, from above 1.00% to 1.50%; and (v) in Tier 5,
above 1.50%. These Tiers will apply to both new tables. The Exchange
notes that a number of other

exchanges have tiered fee schedules that offer different transaction
fee rates depending on the monthly average daily volume (``ADV'') of
liquidity providing executions on their facilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
Fee Schedule, p. 3; see also NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') Fees
and Rebates, Chapter XV, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new tables will continue to list separate per contract
transaction fees for Penny classes and non-Penny classes. The new
tables will also establish, and the Exchange will assess, different
fees to MIAX Market Makers that are ``makers'' and Market Makers that
are ``takers'' in Penny and non-Penny classes. Market Makers that place
resting liquidity, i.e., quotes or orders on the MIAX System,\9\ will
be assessed the ``maker'' fees described in the new tables. MIAX Market
Makers that execute against resting liquidity will be assessed a
different, higher ``taker'' fee. This is distinguished from traditional
``maker-taker'' models where ``makers'' typically receive a rebate and
``takers'' do not; the Exchange is not proposing a rebate but instead
is simply proposing to assess lower transaction fees to ``makers'' as
compared to ``takers.'' It is, however, similar to the manner in which
other exchanges assess fees for resting market maker liquidity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that maker-taker pricing has been
adopted on at least one other exchange for certain classes of
options. See, e.g., ISE Schedule of Fees, Section I. The Exchange's
proposed maker fees are similar in that resting ISE liquidity from
makers is charged lower fees than the fees for takers. ISE's maker-
taker fees are distinguished from the proposed MIAX maker-taker fees
because the ISE maker-taker fee applies to ISE market maker orders
sent to ISE by ISE Electronic Access Members, whereas the current
Exchange proposal affords lower maker fees for resting quotes and
orders submitted by Market Makers. Despite this distinction, the
result is that MIAX will charge a lower fee for resting Market Maker
liquidity, as ISE does today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised Market Maker Sliding Scale proposed by the Exchange
will be as follows:

                                Members and Their Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract fee for penny    Per contract fee for non-penny
                                                                                classes                         classes
                                                 Tier           Percentage thresholds    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker           Taker           Maker           Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers....................               1  0.00%-0.075%................           $0.21           $0.23           $0.25           $0.30
                                                         2  Above 0.075%-0.60%..........            0.15            0.22            0.19            0.27
                                                         3  Above 0.60%-1.00%...........            0.08            0.15            0.12            0.20
                                                         4  Above 1.00%-1.50%...........            0.04            0.06            0.08            0.12
                                                         5  Above 1.50%.................            0.02            0.04            0.06            0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Members and Their Affiliates Not In Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract fee for penny    Per contract fee for non-penny
                                                                                classes                         classes
                                                 Tier           Percentage thresholds    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker           Taker           Maker           Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers \11\...............               1  0.00%-0.075%................           $0.23           $0.25           $0.27           $0.32
                                                         2  Above 0.075%-0.60%..........            0.17            0.24            0.21            0.29
                                                         3  Above 0.60%-1.00%...........            0.10            0.17            0.14            0.22
                                                         4  Above 1.00%-1.50%...........            0.06            0.08            0.10            0.14
                                                         5  Above 1.50%.................            0.04            0.06            0.08            0.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes that the lower per contract ``maker''
fee for both Penny pilot classes and non-Penny pilot classes will apply
to opening transactions, transactions resulting from quotes that
uncross the Away Best Bid or Offer (``ABBO'') and to any other
transaction that is not a taker transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See MIAX Rule 100 for the definition of Registered Market
Maker (``RMM''), Primary Lead Market Maker (``PLMM'') and Lead
Market Maker (``LMM''). Directed Order Lead Market Maker (``DLMM'')
and Directed Primary Lead Market Maker (``DPLMM'') are each a party
to a transaction being allocated to the LMM or PLMM and are each the
result of an order that has been directed to the LMM or PLMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For clarity and ease of reference, the Exchange is proposing to
define the term ``Affiliate'' in the Fee Schedule as an affiliate of a
Member of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected
on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A (``Affiliate''). This definition
will be included in proposed new Footnote 1 to the Fee Schedule, and
the term ``Affiliate'' will be used in subsequent text and footnotes in
the Fee Schedule for brevity, clarity and ease of reference. The
Exchange believes this simplifies and streamlines these sections of the
Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Market Maker
Sliding Scale are objective because the proposed transaction fees are
based on the achievement of stated volume thresholds, and on rewarding
Market Makers that provide liquidity on the Exchange with the reduced
``maker'' transaction fees. The specific volume thresholds of the tiers
were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current
volume levels. The specific volume thresholds and rates were set in
order to encourage MIAX Market Makers to reach for higher tiers. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the tiered fee schedule
will cause Market Makers to display their quotes and orders on the
Exchange, to improve the price and size of such quotes and orders, and
thus increase the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange.
    As stated above, the Exchange does not propose a change in the
corresponding fees for mini options. The proposed rule change is
scheduled to become operative August 1, 2016.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members, and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee structure is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all similarly situated MIAX Market Makers are
subject to the same fee structure, and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    Volume-based pricing models such as those currently maintained and
proposed on the Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges
and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal
basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer a reduced fee to Market Makers
that provide liquidity in Penny and non-Penny options is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory under the Act. While distinguished from
the traditional ``maker-taker'' fee model under which an exchange pays
a per-share rebate to their members to encourage them to place resting
liquidity-providing quotes and orders on their trading systems, the
instant proposal reflects a substantially similar fee structure that
provides a reduced fee for ``makers.'' If an execution occurs, rather
than giving the liquidity providing ``maker'' a rebate and assessing
the ``taker'' that executes against that resting order a fee, the
Exchange is simply proposing a reduced fee for ``makers'' as compared
to ``takers.''
    The Exchange believes that the proposed maker-taker model is an
important competitive tool for exchanges and directly or indirectly can
provide better prices for investors. The proposed fee structure may
narrow the MIAX Bid and Offer (``MBBO'') because the reduced fee for
``makers'' effectively subsidizes, and thus encourages, the posting of
liquidity. The Exchange believes that the reduced ``maker'' fees will
also provide MIAX Market Makers with greater incentive to either match
or improve upon the best price displayed on MIAX, all to the benefit of
investors and the public in the form of improved execution prices.
    The use of volume-based incentives has long been accepted as an
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory pricing practice employed at
multiple competing options exchanges. In fact, the specific volume-
based incentives proposed here, a reduced fee for providing greater
amounts of liquidity in Penny and non-Penny options (i.e., in the
Priority Customer Rebate Program), is currently employed by other
exchanges and it has been accepted as equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory under the Act.\15\ The discounted fees for Members and
their Affiliates that achieve the Tier 3 volume threshold or higher are
equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
provide incentive for Members and their Affiliates to submit more
orders to the Exchange, thus enhancing liquidity and removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system. The proposed reduced maker fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it benefits all
market participants by attracting valuable liquidity to the market and
thereby enhancing the quality and efficiency of the MIAX marketplace.
The market participants that post liquidity to the Book, thereby
contributing to price discovery and size discovery while taking the
risk of not receiving an execution by posting passive liquidity are
justly rewarded with a lower transaction fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, supra note 8. See also, NOM Fees and Rebates, Chapter
XV, Section 2, and BATS BZX Exchange Fee Schedule (providing rebates
for adding liquidity and charging fees for removing liquidity in
securities at or above $1.00).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to charge Market Makers who remove
liquidity a higher fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory and
follows a similar line of reasoning. It is common practice among
options exchanges to differentiate between fees for adding liquidity
and fees for removing liquidity, and such differentiation has been
accepted as not unfairly discriminatory under the Act.\16\ The Exchange
believes that the differentiation in pricing between ``makers'' and
``takers'' is appropriate, because ``takers'' remove liquidity and
benefit disproportionately from their executions compared to
``makers,'' without assuming the obligations that ``makers'' assume in
making continuous, two-sided markets, and without engaging in
competitive price discovery and improvement in the same manner as
``makers.'' Liquidity removers benefit from the price and size
discovery function that liquidity providers have performed in posting
their quotations and orders, and when executing against resting
liquidity a ``taker'' is not taking the risk of an order or quote
sitting unexecuted on the Book. The Exchange believes for these reasons
that a ``taker'' fee that is higher than a ``maker'' fee or rebate is
equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory, and thus
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lower fees charged for providing liquidity have been considered
beneficial in that attracting this liquidity benefits all market
participants by improving the overall quality of trading on the
Exchange. The level of differentiation between the ``maker'' fee and
the ``taker'' fee is also within the bounds of what has been accepted
as not unfairly discriminatory under the Act. Finally, the proposed
fees will be imposed equally among all participants.

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. The Exchange
believes that the proposed ``maker-taker'' model is an important
competitive tool for the Exchange and directly or indirectly can
provide better prices for investors. The proposed fee structure is
intended to promote narrower spreads and greater liquidity at the best
prices. The fee-based incentives for market participants to submit
liquidity providing orders and quotes to the Exchange, and thereafter
to improve the MBBO to ensure participation, should enable the Exchange
to attract, and compete for, order flow with other exchanges.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be

excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract
order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
reflect this competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's
fees in a manner that encourages market participants to provide
liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.

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,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 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-MIAX-2016-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-21, and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19321 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 [Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)] [CORRECTIONS]                [Page 20087] [DOCID:fr14ap08-105]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-59-000]

  Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request for  Permission to Withdraw Tariff Filing

Correction

    In notice document E8-5252 beginning on page 14242 in the issue of  Monday, March 17, 2008, make the following correction:     On page 14242, in the third column, the docket number should read  as set forth above.

[FR Doc. Z8-5252 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54405-54408]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0915; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-020-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require repetitive
general visual inspections for broken or missing latch pins of the
lower sills of the forward and aft lower lobe cargo doors; repetitive
detailed inspections for cracking of the latch pins; and corrective
actions if necessary. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of
fractured latch pins found in service; investigation revealed that the
cracking and subsequent fracture were initiated by fatigue and
propagated by a combination of fatigue and stress corrosion. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct fractured or broken latch pins,
which could result in a forward or aft lower lobe cargo door opening
and detaching during flight, and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 17,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0915;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-020-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of fractured latch pins found in service;
investigation revealed that the cracking and subsequent fracture were
initiated by fatigue and propagated by a combination of fatigue and
stress corrosion. One operator reported a fractured latch pin of the
lower sill of the aft lower lobe cargo door; the fracture initiated
from a crack on the pin's internal diameter. Part of the pin was found
on the ground during an airplane walk-around. The airplane had
accumulated 75,495 total flight hours and 9,393 total flight cycles. A
dye penetrant inspection of the remaining seven latch pins in the lower
sill was done with no defects found. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in a forward or aft lower lobe cargo door opening and
detaching during flight, and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835, original,
dated October 28, 2010. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive general visual inspections for broken or missing latch
pins of the lower sills of the forward and aft lower lobe cargo doors;
repetitive detailed inspections of the replaced latch pins for broken
or missing latch pins; and corrective actions if necessary.
    For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes, Configurations 1 and 2; and for Group
3 airplanes; the corrective actions include replacing any broken or
missing latch pin, and the latch pins at the adjacent latch fitting
locations, with new latch pins; and replacing any cracked latch pins
with new latch pins.
    For Group 1 airplanes, Configurations 3 and 4, there are two
options for corrective actions:
     Replacing any broken or missing latch pin, and the latch
pins at the adjacent latch fitting locations, with new latch pins (with
identical part numbers); and replacing any cracked latch pins with new
latch pins (with identical part numbers).
     Modifying or replacing the latch pins and bearing plates;
replacing any broken or missing latch pin, and the latch pins at the
adjacent latch fitting locations, with new latch pins (with alternative
part numbers); and replacing any cracked latch pins with new latch pins
(with alternative part numbers).
    For airplanes on which all latch pins are replaced, the first
repetitive inspection interval is within 6,000 flight cycles after
replacement. For airplanes on which not all of the latch pins are
replaced, the first repetitive inspection interval is 1,600 flight
cycles after inspecting. For all airplanes, the repetitive interval for
subsequent inspections is 1,600 flight cycles.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is
currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 228 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost     Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  3 work-hours x $85 per           $0  $255 per inspection     $58,140 per inspection
                              hour = $255 per                      cycle.                  cycle.
                              inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/
modifications that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                    Labor cost                  Parts cost    product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of latch pins...................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680......           $0         $680
Modification of latch fittings..............  36 hours x $85 per work-hours = $3,060..            0        3,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0915; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-020-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 17, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100,
747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-
400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes;
certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of fractured latch pins
found in service; investigation revealed that the cracking and
subsequent fracture were initiated by fatigue and propagated by a
combination of fatigue and stress corrosion. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fractured or broken latch pins, which could
result in a forward or aft lower lobe cargo door opening and
detaching during flight, and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspections

    (g) Before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection for broken or
missing latch pins of the lower sills of the forward and aft lower
lobe cargo doors, and a detailed inspection for cracking of the
latch pins, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Work
Instructions,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835,
original, dated October 28, 2010. Repeat the inspections thereafter
at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835,
original, dated October 28, 2010. Before further flight, do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Work Instructions,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2835,
original, dated October 28, 2010.

Special Flight Permits

    (h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided the cabin is not pressurized.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane.

Related Information

    (j) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (k) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 25, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22371 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42644-42647]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0609]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Canal Fest of the Tonawandas, Erie Canal, Tonawanda,
NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Erie Canal, Tonawanda, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of the Erie Canal during the Canal Fest of the
Tonawandas Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a
fireworks display.

DATES: This rule will be effective between 9:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
on July 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0609]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may
visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9343, email<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:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display,
which are discussed further below.
    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. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on July 22, 2012, a fireworks
display will be held on the Erie Canal near Tonawanda, NY. The Captain
of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to
a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

C. Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Canal Fest of
the Tonawandas Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from
9:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 22, 2012. This zone will encompass
all waters of the Erie Canal, Tonawanda, NY within a 210 foot radius of
position 43[deg]01'17.84'' N and 78[deg]52'40.97'' W (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Erie Canal on the evening of July
22, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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
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 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:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 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.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0609 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0609  Safety Zone; Canal Fest of the Tonawandas, Erie
Canal, Tonawanda, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Erie
Canal, Tonawanda, NY within a 210 foot radius of position
43[deg]01'17.84'' N and 78[deg]52'40.97'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on July 22, 2012 from 9:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 9, 2012.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2012-17761 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P