[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37758-37760]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA 2014-0021]

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental
Assessment and Notice of Public Scoping Period; Wildfire Mitigation
Programmatic Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing to
prepare a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) to evaluate the
potential beneficial and adverse impacts from eligible wildfire
mitigation activities funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program. This PEA will
evaluate the environmental impacts of continuing to fund eligible
activities under these programs (Proposed Action). FEMA anticipates
that this programmatic approach will result in better decision-making,
and will improve the timeliness and efficiency of environmental
reviews. The identification of specific activities that would not
require additional environmental review, along with project-specific
reviews informed by or ``tiered to'' the PEA, will improve efficiency
by helping to streamline the process of environmental review.
    FEMA provides this notice to advise other Federal and State
agencies, Territories, Indian Tribal Governments, local governments,
private non-profit and other non-governmental organizations, and the
public of our intent to prepare a PEA, to provide information on the
nature of the analysis, and to invite public input on the scope of
issues, proposed alternatives, potential effects and measures to lessen
those effects that may be considered. Agencies, interested parties, and
the public are invited to submit comments on the scope of the PEA at
any time during the public comment period.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0021 and
may be submitted by the following method:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Please note that this notice of
intent is not a rulemaking and that the Federal Rulemaking Portal is
being utilized only as a mechanism for receiving comments.
    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecelia Rosenberg, Chief, Grants
Policy Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street Room 608,
Arlington, VA 20598-3015,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting
this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy Notice'' link
in the footer of www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified
in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any
supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review
of duplicate submissions.

II. Background

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., authorizes FEMA to provide
funding for the purpose of reducing or eliminating risks to human life
and property from future hazard events, such as wildfire. Wildfires are
defined as any uncontrolled fires occurring within natural landscapes
such as forests and brush. FEMA funds wildfire mitigation activities
through two programs: the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program
(authorized by Section 203 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133) and the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) (authorized by Section 404 of
the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c). Through these programs, FEMA
provides grants to local governments, private non-profit organizations,
Territories, Indian Tribal Governments,

and State governments to implement comprehensive, long-term, and cost-
effective hazard mitigation measures in conformance with State and
local mitigation plans. The PDM program and HMGP are available to
mitigate the risk to health and safety and risk of damage to clearly
defined vulnerable buildings and structures from wildfires.
    In 2008, FEMA issued the Wildfire Mitigation Grant Policy for the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM) Program (FEMA Policy MRR-2-08-1) which established funding
eligibility criteria. The policy clarified the use of program funds for
wildfire hazard reduction, the types of activities that would be
eligible for grant assistance, and other conditions that would apply.
FEMA substantively reviewed the policy three years later and found that
revisions were not warranted. At that time, FEMA incorporated the
policy into Part B of the Addendum to the Hazard Mitigation Assistance
Unified Guidance (June 2013), found at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/33634?id=7851. Also at that time, FEMA decided
it would be prudent to look at eligible wildfire mitigation activities
programmatically because it had not previously done so. The nationwide
PEA will assess the potential environmental impacts of wildfire
mitigation activities for which subsequent actions will be implemented,
based on either the PEA without requiring additional environmental
review, or on subsequent project-specific reviews tiered to the PEA. In
addition, environmental considerations may lead to identification of
potential improvements to program operations.
    Eligible Activities: Following are three types of wildfire
mitigation projects:
     Defensible space--The creation of perimeters around
residential and non-residential buildings and structures through the
removal or reduction of flammable vegetation;
     Structural Protection through Ignition-Resistant
Construction--The application of non-combustible building envelope
assemblies, the use of ignition-resistant materials, and the use of
proper retrofit techniques in new and existing structures; and
     Hazardous Fuels Reduction--Vegetation management to
decrease the amount of hazardous fuels; vegetation thinning; and
reduction of flammable materials to protect life and property beyond
defensible space perimeters but proximate to at-risk structures.
    Eligible wildfire mitigation projects must clearly demonstrate
reduction or elimination of the threat of damages to buildings and
structures from future wildfires.
    Area of Study: Eligible projects must be located within a Wildland-
Urban Interface (WUI), where wildland vegetation is adjacent to or
intermingled with the built environment, or be located within two miles
of a large contiguous block of wildland vegetation, and must provide
protection to life and the built environment from future wildfires. The
WUI is not a place, per se, but a set of conditions that can exist
anywhere. The eligibility of wildfire mitigation projects located up to
two miles from wildlands recognizes the danger from flaming embers to
ignite structures even when they are not immediately adjacent to
wildland vegetation. Eligible projects may be located anywhere in the
United States. However, most past HMGP and PDM grant applications for
wildfire hazard reduction projects have come from FEMA Regions V, VI,
VIII, IX, and X, which correspond to areas of greatest wildfire
frequency. These regions include the following States:
     Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin.
     Region VI: Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.
     Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
     Region IX: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the
Pacific Islands.
     Region X: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
    Duplication of Programs: FEMA mitigation grant programs target at-
risk structures and are for activities in areas outside of the primary
focus of other Federal agencies' fire threat reduction programs. FEMA
hazard mitigation assistance for wildfires is available only for long-
term and cost-effective actions that reduce the risk to specific
property or structures from future wildfires. The FEMA goal of reducing
the risk from wildfire hazards to human life and property, including
loss of function of critical facilities, is intended to complement, and
not duplicate, the programs of other Federal agencies such as the U.S.
Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, to address wildfire
threat to the built human environment within or proximate to the WUI.
FEMA does not have authority to fund projects on land owned by another
Federal entity, or projects with the purpose of addressing forest
health conditions or ecological or agricultural issues related to land
and forest management.
    Proposed Scope of the PEA: This PEA will be used to evaluate the
environmental impacts of continuing to fund eligible activities under
the PDM program and HMGP as described in Part B of the Addendum to the
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance (June 2013) (Proposed
Action). FEMA will compare the Proposed Action with the No Action
Alternative, which would consider the elimination of FEMA grant funding
for wildfire hazard mitigation. Environmental effects of each
alternative to be evaluated will include impacts on fish, wildlife, and
vegetation; cultural and historic resources; visual resources and
aesthetics; air quality and climate change; geology and soils; water
quality; wetlands; floodplains; land use; and socioeconomic factors
including environmental justice.
    Public Involvement and Comments: Public comment is invited on the
scope of the PEA and specifically on the scope of issues, proposed
alternatives, potential effects and measures to lessen effects that may
be considered (40 CFR 1501.7). Public comments are being accepted
during the scoping period as described under the DATES section of this
Notice and comments may be submitted as described under the ADDRESSES
section of the this Notice.
    FEMA specifically invites comments that relate to the environmental
effects that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action.
FEMA will consider these comments in developing the draft PEA. We
particularly seek comments on the following:
    1. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that implementation
of any reasonable alternative could have on the natural and cultural
environment;
    2. Other reasonable alternatives for consideration and their
associated effects;
    3. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with
regard to the proposed wildfire hazard mitigation measures.
    After gathering public comments on the scope of the PEA, FEMA will
develop a draft PEA that will be available for public review and
comment according to 44 CFR part 10. FEMA will publish a notice of
availability in the Federal Register when the draft PEA is available
for public review, and will notify parties who provided comments during
this scoping period.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.; 40 CFR part 1500; 44 CFR
part 10.

    Dated: June 25, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-15486 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17060-17062]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0943; FRL-9372-01-Region 9]

Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan
Revisions; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Refinery Flares

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from refinery flares. We are proposing action on a
local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0943 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    E. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency               Rule No.               Rule title               Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...........................            1118  Control of Emissions from          07/07/2017      02/16/2018
                                                    Refinery Flares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 16, 2018, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1118 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1118 into the SIP on August
28, 2007 (72 FR 49196). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on July 7, 2017, and CARB submitted them to us on
February 16, 2018. If we take final action to approve the July 7, 2017
version of Rule 1118, this version will replace the previously approved
version of this rule in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Emissions of NOX and VOCs contribute to the production
of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm
human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control NOX and VOC
emissions. Rule 1118 Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares is
designed to monitor and record data on refinery and related flaring
operations, and to control and minimize flaring and flare related
emissions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
NOX and VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The SCAQMD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area classified as Extreme for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, this rule must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 1118 improves the SIP by establishing more stringent emission
limits and by clarifying monitoring, recording, and recordkeeping
provisions. The rule is largely consistent with CAA requirements and
relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are
summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    The director's discretion in Rule 1118 Section (j) does not satisfy
the requirements of section 110 of the Act and prevents full approval
of the SIP revision. Documents submitted for inclusion into the SIP
should not include unbounded director's discretion that allows the
State to approve alternatives to the applicable SIP without following
the SIP revision process described in CAA section 110. Rule 1118
Section (j) provides the Executive Officer the authority to approve
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods other than
those currently included in the rule. Without further specificity
regarding how this authority will be exercised, it could functionally
allow for a revision of the SIP without complying with the process for
SIP revisions required by the CAA. As a result, this undermines the
enforceability of the submission, constitutes a SIP deficiency, and
conflicts with CAA Section 110.

D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    There are no further recommendations.

E. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted rule. The
limited disapproval for Rule 1118 is based on the enforceability issue
identified in section II.C. of this document. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until April 25, 2022. If finalized,
this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP,
including those provisions identified as deficient. If we finalize this
disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would require the EPA to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan within 24 months unless we approve
subsequent SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in
the final approval.
    In addition, final disapproval would trigger the offset sanction in
CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of a final
disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1)
six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction will not be
imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects
the deficiencies identified in our final action before the applicable
deadline. The EPA intends to work with the SCAQMD to correct the
deficiency in a timely manner.
    Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SCAQMD, and
the EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency
from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any
portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the
federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SCAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional

requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-06344 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18603-18605]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08852]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83094; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of the Direxion Daily
Bitcoin Bear 1X Shares, Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.25X Bull Shares,
Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.5X Bull Shares, Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bull
Shares and Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bear Shares Under NYSE Arca Rule
8.200-E

April 23, 2018.
    On January 4, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the following exchange-traded
products under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02: Direxion Daily
Bitcoin Bear 1X Shares (``1X Bear Fund''), Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.25X
Bull Shares (``1.25X Bull Fund''), Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.5X Bull
Shares (``1.5X Bull Fund''), Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bull Shares
(``2X Bull Fund''), and Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bear Shares (``2X
Bear Fund'') (each a ``Fund,'' and collectively the ``Funds''). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 24, 2018.\3\ The Commission has received no comment letters
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82532 (Jan. 18,
2018), 83 FR 3380 (Jan. 24, 2018) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82795 (Mar. 1,
2018), 83 FR 9768 (Mar. 7, 2018). The Commission designated April
24, 2018, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission notes that additional information regarding
the Trust (as defined herein), the Shares, and the Funds, including
investment strategies, calculation of net asset value (``NAV'') and
indicative fund value, creation and redemption procedures, and
additional background information about bitcoins, the bitcoin
network, and bitcoin futures contracts, among other things, can be
found in the Notice. See Notice, supra note 3. The registration
statement was filed confidentially with the Commission on Form S-1
(``Registration Statement'') under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act''). The Exchange represents that the Registration
Statement, and all amendments thereto, will be publicly filed not
later than 21 days before the date on which the issuer conducts a
road show, as such term is defined in Rule 433(h)(4) under the
Securities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca
Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of
Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange.\8\ Each Fund will be a series of
the Direxion Shares ETF Trust II (``Trust''), and the Trust and the
Funds will be managed and controlled by Direxion Asset Management, LLC
(``Sponsor''). Bank of New York Mellon will be the custodian and
transfer agent for the Funds. U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC will
serve as the administrator for the Funds, and Foreside Fund Services,
LLC will serve as the distributor of the Shares (``Distributor'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. NYSE Arca Rule
8.200-E permits the listing and trading of ``Trust Issued
Receipts,'' defined as a security (1) that is used by the trust
which holds specific securities deposited with the trust; (2) that,
when aggregated in some specified minimum number, may be surrendered
to the trust by the beneficial owner to receive the securities; and
(3) that pay beneficial owners dividends and other distributions on
the deposited securities, if any are declared and paid to the
trustee by an issuer of the deposited securities. Commentary .02
applies to Trust Issued Receipts that invest in any combination of
investments, including cash; securities; options on securities and
indices; futures contracts; options on futures contracts; forward
contracts; equity caps, collars, and floors; and swap agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Funds will seek to obtain daily
short, leveraged long, or leveraged short exposure (before fees and
expenses) to the target benchmark, which is the lead-month bitcoin
futures contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') or
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (``CBOE'') or on any other U.S. exchange that
subsequently trades bitcoin futures contracts (``Bitcoin Futures
Contract'').\9\ Specifically, the 1.25X Bull Fund, the 1.5X Bull Fund,
and the 2X Bull Fund will seek daily investment results (before fees
and expenses) that are 125%, 150%, or 200%, respectively, of the daily
return of the target benchmark.\10\ The 1X Bear Fund and the 2X Bear
Fund will seek daily inverse investment results (before fees and
expenses) that are -100% or -200%, respectively, of the daily return of
the target benchmark.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Bitcoin Futures Contracts will be cash-settled. The ``lead
month'' contract is the monthly contract with the earliest
expiration date. See Notice, supra note 3, at 3381, n.6.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 3382.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The target benchmark's value will be calculated as the last sale
price published by the CME or the CBOE, or any other U.S. exchange that
subsequently trades bitcoin futures contracts, on or before 11:00 a.m.
E.T. for the Bitcoin Futures Contract and may reflect trades occurring
and published by the CME or CBOE or another U.S. exchange that
subsequently trades bitcoin futures contracts outside the normal
trading session for the Bitcoin Futures Contract.\12\ The Funds will
compute their NAV as of 11:00 a.m. E.T., or such earlier time that the
NYSE may close.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 3381.
    \13\ See id. at 3383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Fund, under normal market conditions, will seek to achieve its
daily investment objective by investing in the Bitcoin Futures
Contract, swaps on the Bitcoin Futures Contract, or listed options on
bitcoin or the Bitcoin Futures Contract (collectively, ``Bitcoin
Financial Instruments''). The Funds' investments in Bitcoin Financial
Instruments will be used to produce economically ``leveraged'' or
``inverse leveraged'' investment results for the Funds.\14\ A Fund may
invest in the listed options and swaps described above in a manner
consistent with its investment objective in situations where the
Sponsor believes that investing in such financial instruments is in the
best interests of a Fund. In addition, a Fund may invest in swap
contracts referencing the Bitcoin Futures Contract if the market for a
specific bitcoin futures contract experiences emergencies or if
position, price, or accountability limits (if any) are reached with
respect to a specific bitcoin futures contract. Each trading day at the
close of the U.S. equity markets, each Fund will position its portfolio
to ensure that the Fund's exposure to the target benchmark is
consistent with the Fund's investment objective.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 3381-82.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assets of each Fund not invested in Bitcoin Financial Instruments
will be held in cash or invested in cash equivalents, such as U.S.
Treasury Securities or other high credit quality short-term, fixed-
income, or similar securities (including shares of money market funds,
bank deposits, bank

money market accounts, certain variable rate-demand notes, and
repurchase agreements collateralized by government securities) that
serve as collateral for, or pending investments in, the Funds'
investments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 3383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, each Fund will create and redeem Shares
in one or more Creation Units (a Creation Unit is a block of 50,000
Shares of a Fund). A creation transaction, which is subject to
acceptance by the Distributor, generally takes place when an Authorized
Participant deposits a specified amount of cash in exchange for a
specified number of Creation Units. Similarly, Shares can be redeemed
only in Creation Units, generally for cash. Only Authorized
Participants may purchase and redeem Shares from a Fund.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 3384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2018-02 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\19\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by May 18, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 1,
2018. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set
forth in the Notice,\22\ in addition to any other comments they may
wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What are commenters' views on whether the Exchange has
sufficiently described how the Sponsor will select the applicable
Bitcoin Futures Contract, given that the bitcoin futures contracts
trading on the two named bitcoin futures exchanges (or on any other
U.S. exchange that subsequently trades bitcoin futures contracts) have
different terms (including different reference prices) and trade at
different prices, and given that any bitcoin futures contracts
subsequently listed on a U.S. exchange may likewise have different
terms or trade at different prices?
    2. In its proposal, the Exchange states that each Fund will seek to
achieve its daily investment objective by investing in Bitcoin
Financial Instruments, which include the Bitcoin Futures Contract,
swaps on the Bitcoin Futures Contract, or listed options on bitcoin or
the Bitcoin Futures Contract. What are commenters' views on the current
availability of these swaps or listed options? What are commenters'
views on the ability of the Funds to invest in these swaps or listed
options in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are
reached with respect to any bitcoin futures contracts? What are
commenters' views on the ability of the Funds to invest in these swaps
or listed options if an underlying futures market experiences
emergencies or disruptions?
    3. What are commenters' views on whether the Funds would have the
information necessary to adequately value, including fair value, the
Bitcoin Financial Instruments when determining an appropriate NAV for
the Funds, taking into account any volatility, fragmentation, or
general lack of regulation of the underlying bitcoin markets?
    4. What are commenters' views on the potential impact of
manipulation in the underlying bitcoin markets on the Funds' NAV? What
are commenters' views on the potential effect of such manipulation on
the valuation of a Fund's Bitcoin Financial Instruments, which is
determined using the last sale price for the Bitcoin Futures Contract
on the applicable U.S. futures exchange (as opposed to the settlement
price, closing price, midpoint, or volume weighted average price)? What
are commenters' views on the potential effect of such manipulation on
the pricing of a Fund's non-exchange-traded Bitcoin Financial
Instruments? What are commenters' views on the potential effect of
manipulation on the valuation of a Fund's portfolio in cases where,
according to the Exchange, the target benchmark's value reflects trades
occurring outside the normal trading session for the Bitcoin Futures
Contract?
    5. What are commenters' views on how the Funds' valuation policies
would address the potential for the bitcoin blockchain to diverge into
different paths (i.e., a ``fork'')?
    6. What are commenters' views on the price differentials and
trading volumes across bitcoin trading platforms (including during
periods of market stress) and on the extent to which these differing
prices may affect the trading of Bitcoin Financial Instruments and,
accordingly, trading in the Shares of the Funds?
    7. What are commenters' views on how the substantial margin
requirements for bitcoin futures contracts, and the nature of liquidity
and volatility in the market for bitcoin futures contracts, might
affect the Trust's ability to meet redemption orders? What are
commenters' views on

whether and how the margin requirements for bitcoin futures contracts
may affect a Fund's use of available cash to achieve its investment
strategy?
    8. What are commenters' views on the possibility that the Funds--
along with other exchange-traded products with similar investment
objectives--could acquire a substantial portion of the market for some
or all of the Bitcoin Financial Instruments? What are commenters' views
on whether such a concentration of holdings could affect the Funds'
portfolio management, the liquidity of the Funds' respective
portfolios, or the pricing of some or all of the Bitcoin Financial
Instruments?
    9. What are commenters' views on possible factors that might impair
the ability of the arbitrage mechanism to keep the trading price of the
Shares tied to the NAV of each Fund? What are commenters' views on
whether determining the value of the Funds' benchmark, or striking the
Funds' NAV, as of 11:00 a.m. E.T. might affect the arbitrage mechanism
during the remainder of the trading day? With respect to the markets
for Bitcoin Financial Instruments, what are commenters' views on the
potential impact on the arbitrage mechanism of the price volatility and
the potential for trading halts? What are commenters' views on whether
or how these potential impairments of the arbitrage mechanism may
affect the Funds' ability to ensure adequate participation by
Authorized Participants? What are commenters' views on the potential
effects on investors if the arbitrage mechanism is impaired?
    10. What are commenters' views on the risks of price manipulation
and fraud in the underlying bitcoin trading platforms and how these
risks might affect the Bitcoin Financial Instruments? What are
commenters' views on how these risks might affect trading in the Shares
of the Funds?
    11. What are commenters' views on how an investor may evaluate the
price of the Shares in light of the risk of potential price
manipulation and fraud in the underlying bitcoin trading platforms and
in light of the potentially significant spread between the price of
Bitcoin Financial Instruments and the spot price of bitcoin?
    12. What are commenters' views on whether the two named bitcoin
futures exchanges represent a significant market, i.e., a market of
significant size?
    13. With respect to the Funds that seek leveraged or leveraged-
inverse returns, would trading of the Shares, hedging activity, or
creation and redemption activity affect the daily volume, volatility,
or liquidity of the underlying Bitcoin Financial Instruments or of the
spot bitcoin market any differently than a non-leveraged bitcoin
futures exchange-traded product would? If so, why, how, and to what
extent? Would any such effect be different during periods of downward
market movement or high volatility? If so, why, how, and to what
extent?
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2018-02 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-NYSEArca-2018-02. 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-NYSEArca-2018-02 and should be submitted
by May 18, 2018. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 1, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08852 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33128-33130]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0166]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tall Ships Boothbay Harbor 2021, Boothbay Harbor, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a series of temporary safety
zones on the waters of Boothbay Harbor, Maine. These safety zones are
necessary to provide for the safety of participant vessels and the
general public during Tall Ships Boothbay Harbor, 2021, an event
allowing for public tours of tall ships (large sailing vessels) from
various countries while at the docks of Boothbay Harbor, Maine. When
enforced, this rule will prohibit persons and vessels from entering
into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Northern New England or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 25, 2021 until
12:01 a.m. on June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0166 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, in the
Document

Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Shaun Doyle, Sector Northern New England Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 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
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Northern New England

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    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 it is impracticable. We must
establish the temporary safety zone by June 25, 2021 and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule. The potential safety
hazards associated with this event and the large number of vessels and
spectators in the vicinity of vessels require immediate action to
ensure the safety of event participants and vessels. Further, waiting
for a comment period to run is also contrary to the public interest as
it would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and
waterways safe, protect the public from the hazards associated with
this event, and minimize the impact on vessel traffic on the navigable
waterway.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the
preceding paragraph, 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 the temporary
safety zone regulation must be established on June 25, 2021 to ensure
the safety of spectators and vessels during the event.

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 Captain of the Port Sector
Northern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the public tours would be a safety concern for anyone
within a 25-yard radius of the participating tall ships. The purpose of
the rule is to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and
transient vessels on the navigable waters of Boothbay Harbor during the
scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes temporary safety zones from 12:01 a.m. on
June 25, 2021 until 12:01 a.m. on June 28, 2021. The safety zones would
cover all navigable waters within 25 yards of a tall ship in Boothbay
Harbor. The duration of the zones is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters during the Tall Ships Boothbay
Harbor 2021 Marine Event of National Significance. No vessel or person
would be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining
permission from the COTP or Designated Representative. If the tall
ships are operating in a confined area and there is not adequate room
for vessels to stay out of the safety zones due to a of a lack of
navigable water, then vessels will be permitted to operate within the
safety zone and shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain
a safe course. The navigation rules shall apply at all times while
transiting the safety zones. The regulatory text appears at the end of
this document.

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 the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone
only impacts a small designated area of the Booth Bay Harbor, ME.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around these safety
zones or through it at slow speed in congested areas. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone and persons or vessels desiring to
enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

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 limited in duration and size that encompass the areas around
visiting tall ships. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60[a] 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.

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 is
amending 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. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0166 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0166  Safety Zone; Tall Ships Boothbay Harbor 2021,
Boothbay Harbor, Maine.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated Representative. A ``Designated Representative'' is
any Coast Guard Commissioned, Warrant or Petty Officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England
(COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The Designated Representative may
be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate
with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of
this regulation.
    (2) Official patrol vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (3) Spectators. All persons and vessels not registered with the
event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
    (4) Tall ship. Tall ship means any sailing vessel participating in
the Tall Ships Boothbay 2021 within Boothbay Harbor, Maine.
    (b) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All navigable
waters of the United States located in Boothbay Harbor within a 25-yard
radius of any tall ship.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel is allowed within the
safety zones unless authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port or
their Designated Representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels operating within a confined harbor or
channel, where there is not sufficient navigable water outside of a
safety zone to safely maneuver are allowed to operate within the safety
zone and shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course. Vessels operating within the safety zones shall not come within
25 yards of a tall ship unless authorized by the cognizant Captain of
the Port, their Designated Representative, or the on-scene official
patrol.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 12:01 a.m.
on Friday, June 25, 2021 through 12:01 a.m. on Monday, June 28, 2021.
    (e) Navigation Rules. The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times
within a tall ships safety zone.

    Dated: June 11, 2021.
B.J. LeFebvre,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2021-13477 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P