[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69671-69675]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24269]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90278; File No. SR-MEMX-2020-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Enable Members To
Designate Certain Orders To Be Identified as Retail Orders to the
Exchange

October 28, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 26, 2020, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to adopt new Rule 11.21 to enable members of the Exchange (``Members'')
to designate certain orders they submit to the Exchange on behalf of
retail customers to be identified as retail orders to the Exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.

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 adopt new Rule 11.21 to enable Members to
designate certain orders they submit to the Exchange on behalf of
retail customers to be identified as retail orders to the Exchange.
Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange would create a new class
of market participant for any Member that satisfies the requirements
under proposed Rule 11.21 called a Retail Member Organization
(``RMO''), which would be eligible to submit certain retail order flow
(``Retail Orders'') to the Exchange. Specifically, proposed Rule 11.21
would: (i) Define a Retail Order and RMO; (ii) set forth an RMO's
qualification and application requirements and the Exchange's approval
process; (iii) outline procedures for when an RMO fails to abide by the
Retail Order requirements; and (iv) outline the procedures under which
a Member may appeal the Exchange's decision to disapprove it or
disqualify it as an RMO. The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 11.21 is
substantially similar to and based on paragraphs (a)-(d) of Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') Rule 11.25.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe BZX Rule 11.25; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 73237 (September 26, 2014), 79 FR 59537 (October 2,
2014) (SR-BATS-2014-043); 73677 (November 24, 2014), 79 FR 71150
(December 1, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-058); 76205 (October 21, 2015), 80
FR 65828 (October 27, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions under
proposed Rule 11.21(a). First, the term ``Retail Member Organization''
or ``RMO'' would be defined as a Member (or a division thereof) that
has been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. Second, the
term ``Retail Order'' would be defined as an agency or riskless
principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that
originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an
RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.

RMO Qualifications and Approval Process
    Under proposed Rule 11.21(b), any Member could qualify as an RMO if
it conducts a retail business or routes retail orders on behalf of
another broker-dealer. Proposed Rule 11.21(b)(1) makes clear that an
RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis
would be considered to conduct a retail business for purposes of the
rule. The qualification standards and approval process under proposed
Rule 11.21(b) are designed to ensure that Members are properly
qualified as an RMO and only designate as Retail Orders those orders
that meet the definition of Retail Orders under proposed Rule
11.21(a)(2) described above. Any Member that wishes to obtain RMO
status would be required to submit: (i) an application form; (ii)
supporting documentation sufficient to demonstrate the retail nature
and characteristics of the applicant's order flow; \7\ and (iii) an
attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially
all orders submitted by the Member as a Retail Order will qualify as
such under proposed Rule 11.21(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, a prospective RMO could be required to provide
sample marketing literature, website screenshots, other publicly
disclosed materials describing the retail nature of their order
flow, and such other documentation and information as the Exchange
may require to obtain reasonable assurance that the applicant's
order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail Order
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO would be required to have written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as
Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such
written policies and procedures must require the Member to (i) exercise
due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a
Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements of proposed Rule
11.21, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet
the applicable requirements. If the RMO does not itself conduct a
retail business but routes Retail Orders on behalf another broker-
dealer, the RMO's supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to
assure that the orders it receives from such other broker-dealer that
it designates as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order.
Such an RMO must (i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form
acceptable to the Exchange, from each other broker-dealer that sends it
orders to be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as
Retail Orders will be in compliance with the requirements of proposed
Rule 11.21, and (ii) monitor whether Retail Order flow routed on behalf
of such other broker-dealers continues to meet the applicable
requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange or another self-regulatory organization on
behalf of the Exchange will review an RMO's compliance with these
requirements through an exam-based review of the RMO's internal
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange disapproves a Member's application to be an RMO,
the Exchange would provide a written notice to the Member. The
disapproved applicant could appeal the disapproval by the Exchange as
provided in proposed Rule 11.21(d) and/or reapply for RMO status 90
days after the disapproval notice is issued by the Exchange. An RMO
also could voluntarily withdraw from such status at any time by giving
written notice to the Exchange.
    As described above, under proposed Rule 11.21(b), any Member could
qualify as an RMO if it conducts a retail business or routes retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer, and Proposed Rule
11.21(b)(1) makes clear that an RMO that carries retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis would be considered to conduct a
retail business for purposes of the rule. The Exchange proposes to
distinguish an RMO's routing services on behalf of another broker-
dealer from services provided by an RMO that carries retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis, as described below. As background
with respect to this aspect of the proposed change, the Exchange first
would like to describe the terms ``introducing broker'', ``carrying
firm'' or ``carrying broker-dealer'', and ``fully disclosed,'' as such
terms are commonly used in the securities industry. An ``introducing''
broker-dealer is ``one that has a contractual arrangement with another
firm, known as the carrying or clearing firm, under which the carrying
firm agrees to perform certain services for the introducing firm.
Usually, the introducing firm submits its customer accounts and
customer orders to the carrying firm, which executes the orders and
carries the account. The carrying firm's duties include the proper
disposition of the customer funds and securities after the trade date,
the custody of customer securities and funds, and the recordkeeping
associated with carrying customer accounts.'' \9\ Further, a ``fully
disclosed'' introducing arrangement is ``distinguished from an omnibus
clearing arrangement where the clearing firm maintains one account for
all the customer transactions of the introducing firm. In an omnibus
relationship, the clearing firm does not know the identity of the
customers of the introducing firm. In a fully disclosed clearing
arrangement, the clearing firm knows the names, addresses, securities
positions and other relevant data as to each customer.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24,
1992), 57 FR 56973 (December 2, 1992).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a broker-dealer that is routing on behalf of
another broker-dealer, the Exchange does not believe that the routing
broker-dealer has sufficient information to assess whether orders are
truly retail in nature, and thus, requires an RMO routing on behalf of
other broker-dealers to maintain additional supervisory procedures and
obtain annual attestations, as described above, in order to submit
Retail Orders to the Exchange. In contrast, however, if a broker-dealer
is carrying a customer account on a fully disclosed basis, then such
carrying broker-dealer is required to perform certain diligence
regarding such account that the Exchange believes is sufficient to
assess whether a customer is a retail customer in order to submit
orders on behalf of such a customer to the Exchange as a Retail Order.
The carrying broker of an account typically handles orders from its
retail customers that are ``introduced'' by an introducing broker.
However, as noted above, in contrast to a typical routing relationship
on behalf of another broker-dealer, a carrying broker does obtain a
significant level of information regarding each customer introduced by
the introducing broker. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to state in
Rule 11.21(b)(1) that for purposes of Rule 11.21, ``conducting a retail
business shall include carrying retail customer accounts on a fully
disclosed basis.''
Failure of RMO To Abide by Retail Order Requirements
    Proposed Rule 11.21(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by
Retail Order requirements. If an RMO designates orders submitted to the
Exchange as Retail Orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole
discretion, that those orders fail to meet any of the requirements of
Retail Orders, the Exchange may disqualify a Member from its status as
an RMO. When disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange
would provide a written disqualification notice to the Member. A
disqualified RMO could appeal the disqualification provided in proposed
Rule 11.21(d) and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the
disqualification notice issued by the Exchange.

Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification
    Proposed Rule 11.21(d) provides appeal rights to Members. If a
Member disputes the Exchange's decision to disapprove it as an RMO
under proposed Rule 11.21(b) or disqualify it under proposed Rule
11.21(c), such Member may request, within five business days after
notice of the decision is issued by the Exchange, that the Retail
Member Organization Panel (the ``RMO Panel'') review the decision to
determine if it was correct. The RMO Panel would consist of the
Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO''), or a designee of the
CRO, and two officers of the Exchange designated by the Exchange's
Chief Executive Officer. The RMO Panel would review the facts and
render a decision within the time frame prescribed by the Exchange. The
RMO Panel could overturn or modify an action taken by the Exchange and
all determinations by the RMO Panel would constitute final action by
the Exchange on the matter at issue.
Implementation
    The Exchange notes that, under the proposed rule change, an order
involving any Regulation NMS security traded on the Exchange that meets
the definition of Retail Order would be eligible to be designated as
such by an RMO. The Exchange also notes that orders designated as
Retail Orders would only be designated as such to the Exchange and
would not be designated as such on the Exchange's market data feeds or
otherwise identifiable as Retail Orders by any market participants or
the public. Further, the Exchange notes that orders designated as
Retail Orders would be handled in the exact same way under the
Exchange's rules as if such orders were not designated as Retail
Orders. In other words, the designation of an order as a Retail Order
would not in any way affect the priority or other handling procedures
applicable to such order under the Exchange's rules.
    The purpose of enabling RMOs to designate orders as Retail Orders
to the Exchange under the proposed rule change is so the Exchange may
identify and track orders designated as such, which the Exchange
believes will be useful for it in considering potential pricing
modifications to such orders as it continues to evaluate its pricing
structure following the recent commencement of its operations as a
national securities exchange. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to have the appropriate
mechanisms and processes in place to implement any differentiated
pricing for Retail Orders if and when the Exchange proposes to do so in
the future. The Exchange notes that, at some point following the
adoption and implementation of proposed Rule 11.21 as described in this
proposed rule change, the Exchange may separately propose to amend its
fee schedule to adopt a specific fee code for Retail Orders to be
provided on an RMO's execution reports and/or to provide differentiated
pricing for Retail Orders, which the Exchange believes would attract
additional retail order flow to the Exchange, thereby providing the
benefits of exchange transparency, regulation, and oversight to more
retail orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would allow it to be organized with the appropriate infrastructure
(i.e., mechanisms and processes) in advance of any such proposal, and
as such, would allow the Exchange to more quickly implement any such
differentiated pricing.
Comparison To Existing Rules of Other Equity Exchanges
    As noted above, proposed Rule 11.21 is substantially similar to and
based on Cboe BZX Rule 11.25.\11\ Specifically, proposed Rule 11.21 is
nearly identical to paragraphs (a)-(d) of Cboe BZX Rule 11.25, with the
only differences being to the name of the RMO Panel, the deletion of a
defined term not otherwise used in the rule, and that the Exchange's
Chief Executive Officer, rather than Chief Information Officer,
designates two officers to serve on the RMO Panel, and otherwise
differs from Cboe BZX Rule 11.25 only in that such rule contains a
separate paragraph (e) that allows an RMO to designate a Retail Order
to be identified as such on Cboe BZX's proprietary data feeds.\12\ As
noted above, proposed Rule 11.21 would not allow an RMO to designate a
Retail Order to be identified as such on the Exchange's market data
feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5 [sic].
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that proposed Rule 11.21 is also
substantially similar to the existing rules of several other equity
exchanges.\13\ Certain of these exchanges include these rules as part
of a retail attribution program,\14\ retail liquidity program \15\ or
retail price improvement program.\16\ However, unlike those programs,
the Exchange does not propose to attribute retail orders in its market
data feeds, to adopt any special order handling for Retail Orders or
orders intended to provide liquidity to Retail Orders, or to adopt any
mechanics for price improvement for Retail Orders. Instead, as
described above, the proposed rule change would only enable an RMO to
designate that their Retail Orders be identified as such to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGX'') Rule
11.21; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BYX'') Rule 11.24; Nasdaq BX,
Inc. (``Nasdaq BX'') Rule 4780; NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule
7.44-E.
    \14\ See, e.g., Cboe EDGX Rule 11.21.
    \15\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E.
    \16\ See, e.g., Nasdaq BX Rule 4780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with these principles because it would increase competition
among execution venues and enable the Exchange to implement future
pricing changes to encourage the submission of additional Retail Orders
to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of
the orders of retail investors are executed over-the-counter.\17\ The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to put in place the mechanisms
and processes to enable the Exchange to subsequently offer any
differentiated pricing for Retail Orders as the Exchange believes that
such pricing could incentivize market participants to bring more retail
order flow to the Exchange, thereby providing the benefits of exchange
transparency, regulation, and oversight to more retail orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Based on data made available through consolidated data
feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF) and OTC data made available by FINRA,
during the week of August 31, 2020, the volume reported by retail
wholesalers reporting to the FINRA TRF exceeded 25% of overall
market volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially
similar to paragraphs (a)-(d) of Cboe BXZ Rule 11.25 and the existing
rules of several other equity exchanges, as described in more detail
above.\18\ Specifically, proposed Rule 11.21 contains nearly identical
definitions, standards and qualification procedures as Cboe BZX Rule
11.25 and the comparable retail order rules of Cboe EDGX, Cboe BYX,

Nasdaq BX, and NYSE Arca.\19\ However, unlike certain of these
exchanges' rules, the proposed rule change does not propose to
attribute retail orders in the Exchange's market data feeds, to adopt
any special order handling for Retail Orders or orders intended to
provide liquidity to Retail Orders, or to adopt any mechanics for price
improvement for Retail Orders, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 5 and 12 [sic].
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposed qualification standards and
review process under proposed Rule 11.21 promote just and equitable
principles and are not unfairly discriminatory because they are
designed to ensure that Members are properly qualified as RMOs and only
designate as Retail Orders those orders that meet the definition of
Retail Orders under proposed Rule 11.21(a)(1) described above. The
qualification process proposed herein by the Exchange is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination, but rather ensure that orders that are
designated as Retail Orders are, in fact, orders submitted by a retail
customer that satisfy the proposed definition of Retail Order. Lastly,
the Exchange notes that these qualification and review provisions are
nearly identical to those included in the rules of the Cboe BZX, Cboe
EDGX, Cboe BYX, Nasdaq BX, and NYSE Arca.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that distinguishing an RMO's routing
services on behalf of another broker-dealer from services provided by
an RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis
in proposed Rule 11.21(b)(1) is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices because it highlights the parties for
whom additional procedures are required because they do not maintain
relationships with the end customer (i.e., routing brokers) and still
requires the RMO to follow such procedures to ensure that such orders
qualify as Retail Orders. As proposed, however, an RMO would not be
required to follow such procedures, including obtaining annual
attestations, to the extent such RMO actually knows the end customer
and carries the account of such customer and thus can itself confirm
that the orders qualify as Retail Orders. The Exchange believes that
this aspect of the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it will allow RMOs that carry retail customer accounts
to designate Retail Orders as such without imposing additional
attestation requirements that the Exchange believes are not necessary
for such RMOs, as described above.

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendment would not burden intramarket competition because the
ability to designate Retail Orders to be identified as such to the
Exchange would be open to all Members that wish to send Retail Orders
to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
not burden, but rather increase, intermarket competition by permitting
RMOs to identify orders as Retail Orders when submitted to the
Exchange, which would ultimately enable the Exchange to better compete
with other exchanges that offer retail order programs.\21\ As noted
above, at this time the Exchange is not proposing to attribute retail
orders in the Exchange's market data feeds, to adopt any special order
handling for Retail Orders or orders intended to provide liquidity to
Retail Orders, or to adopt any mechanics for price improvement for
Retail Orders. Rather, adoption of the proposed rule will enable the
Exchange to have the appropriate mechanisms and processes in place to
implement differentiated pricing for Retail Orders if and when the
Exchange proposes to do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 5 and 12 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \23\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MEMX-2020-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2020-13. 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 information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2020-13 and should be submitted on
or before November 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24269 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13627-13628]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05025]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 746

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AI77

Addition to the List of Countries Excluded From Certain License
Requirements Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to the Russian Federation's (Russia's) further
invasion of Ukraine, and to protect U.S. national security and foreign
policy interests, the Department of Commerce has added new and highly
restrictive license requirements and policies for certain transactions
involving Russia and Belarus under the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR). In order to recognize partner countries that have
committed to implementing substantially similar new export controls on
Russia and Belarus in their domestic laws, the Department of Commerce
has published a list of countries excluded from portions of these new
U.S. export controls. These exclusions apply specifically to certain
requirements under the EAR related to foreign-produced items. In this
rule, the Department of Commerce adds the Republic of Korea (South
Korea) to the list of excluded countries.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this final rule,
contact Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of National Security and
Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: (202)<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email: [email protected]. For emails, include ``Russia'' in the subject
line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Effective February 24, 2022, in response to Russia's further
invasion of Ukraine, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry
and Security (BIS) added new Russia license requirements and policies
to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to protect U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests. See 87 FR 12226 (March 3, 2022)
(Russia Sanctions rule). These new Russia license requirements included
new Commerce Control List (CCL)-based license requirements involving
exports, reexports, and transfer (in-country) transactions and two new
foreign ``direct product'' rules (FDP rules) specific to Russia and to
Russian `military end users.' A subsequent rule, effective March 2,
2022, extended these license requirements to export, reexport, and
transfer (in-country) transactions involving Belarus, as a result of
Belarus's substantial enabling of Russia's invasion of Ukraine (Belarus
Sanctions rule).\1\ Both of these rules included a savings clause
specific to items controlled by the two FDP rules, stating that such
items en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or
transfer (in-country), on or before March 26, 2022, pursuant to actual
orders for reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign
destination, may proceed to such foreign destination under an
applicable authorization that was available prior to the new license
requirements, or with no license required, if no license requirements
had previously applied to such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Imposition of Sanctions Against Belarus Under the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR), FR 2022-04819, scheduled to
publish March 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new Belarus and Russia restrictions set forth in Sec.  746.8 of
the EAR refer to a list of countries that have committed to
implementing substantially similar export controls on Belarus and
Russia under their domestic laws. Pursuant to Sec.  746.8(a)(5),
countries that have made such a commitment receive full or partial
exclusions, as appropriate, from the FDP rules' license requirements
set forth under Sec.  746.8(a)(2) and (3) of the EAR. Similarly, the
license requirements in Sec.  746.8(a)(1) are not used to determine
controlled U.S.-content under the EAR's de minimis rules, as set forth
in supplement no. 2 to part 734 of the EAR, provided the criteria in
Sec.  746.8(a)(5)(i) and (ii) are met. Countries excluded from these
requirements are listed in supplement no. 3 to part 746 (Russia and
Belarus Exclusions List). As a result of South Korea's commitment to
implement substantially similar export controls on Russia and Belarus
under its domestic laws, the Department of Commerce adds South Korea to
supplement no. 3 to part 746 in this rule with the designation of
``full.''

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as
amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for
BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS
issues this rule.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because it ``pertain[s]'' to a ``military or foreign affairs function
of the United States'' under sec. 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule
involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject
to the PRA: 0694-0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a
burden hour estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic
submission; 0694-0096 ``Five Year Records Retention Period,'' which
carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and 0607-0152
``Automated Export System (AES) Program,'' which carries a burden hour
estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission. BIS anticipates this
rule will result in a slight decrease in the number of estimated
license applications because this rule provides

relief from the burden of the new Russia Sanctions rule and Belarus
Sanctions rule requirements that would otherwise pertain to items
produced in, exported or reexported from South Korea, or transferred
(in-country). Thus, this rule does not create a substantive change to
OMB Control Numbers 0694-0088, 0694-0096, or 0607-0152.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821) (ECRA), this action is exempt from the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for
notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation,
and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides
sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also
independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a
military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C.
553(a)(1)).
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 746

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 746 of the Export
Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as
follows:

PART 746--EMBARGOES AND OTHER SPECIAL CONTROLS

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 746 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Sec. 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117
Stat. 559; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et
seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
614; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3
CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; Presidential Determination 2003-23, 68 FR
26459, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 320; Presidential Determination 2007-7,
72 FR 1899, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 325; Notice of May 6, 2021, 86 FR
26793 (May 10, 2021).

0
2. Supplement no. 3 to part 746 is amended by adding an entry for
``South Korea'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Supplement No. 3 to Part 746--Countries Excluded From Certain License
Requirements of Sec.  746.8

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Federal Register
             Country                     Scope             citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
South Korea.....................  Full..............  87 FR [INSERT FR
                                                       PAGE NUMBER] 3/10/
                                                       2022.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thea D. Rozman Kendler,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-05025 Filed 3-4-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34457-34458]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11375]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1203; Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-233 and Revocation of VOR
Federal Airway V-320 Due to the Decommissioning of the Mount Pleasant,
MI, VOR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Very High Frequency (VHF)
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-233 and revoke VOR Federal
airway V-320. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Mount Pleasant, MI (MOP),
VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID).
The Mount Pleasant VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's
VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1203 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-12 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group,
Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Incorporation by Reference

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Mount
Pleasant, MI (MOP), VOR/DME in March 2024. The Mount Pleasant VOR was
one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's
VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice,
``Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational
Network),'' published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR
48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Mount Pleasant VOR/DME is planned
for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support current and future NextGen PBN flight procedure
requirements.
    The Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes affected by the Mount Pleasant
VOR decommissioning are VOR Federal airways V-233 and V-320. The
remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to
enable the continuity of the airways within the affected area. As such,
the FAA proposes to remove the affected portion of V-233 and expand the
existing gap in the airway, and to revoke V-320 in its entirety.
    To address the proposed removal of the affected airway segment of
V-233 and the revocation of V-320, instrument flight rules traffic
could use adjacent VOR Federal airways V-78, V-133, V-420, and V-609,
or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly through or
around the affected area. Aircraft equipped with Area Navigation (RNAV)
capabilities could also use RNAV route T-265 or file point to point
through the affected area using the fixes and waypoints that will
remain in place. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via
the affected ATS routes could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR
Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR
Federal airway V-233 and revoking VOR Federal airway V-320 due to the
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Mount Pleasant, MI,
VOR/DME. The proposed airway actions are described below.
    V-233: V-233 currently extends between the Spinner, IL, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Goshen, IN, VORTAC; and
between the Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME and the Pellston, MI, VORTAC.
The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment overlying the Mount
Pleasant VOR/DME between the Mount Pleasant VOR/DME and the Gaylord,
MI, VOR/DME. As amended, the airway would extend between the Spinner
VORTAC and the Goshen VORTAC, and between the Gaylord VOR/DME and the
Pellston VORTAC.
    V-320: V-320 currently extends between the Pellston, MI, VORTAC and
the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
overlying the Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME between the Traverse City,
MI, VOR/DME and the Saginaw VOR/DME. Additionally, the FAA proposes to
remove the airway segment between the Pellston VORTAC and the Traverse
City VOR/DME as it overlays the same airway segment as V-193. As a
result, the airway would be removed in its entirety.
    The NAVAID radials in the VOR Federal airway V-233 description in
the Proposed Amendment section below are unchanged and stated in
degrees True north.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11G,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and
effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-233 [Amended]

    From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061[deg] and Roberts, IL, 233[deg]
radials; Roberts; Knox, IN; to Goshen, IN. From Gaylord, MI; to
Pellston, MI.
* * * * *

V-320 [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-11375 Filed 5-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22389-22390]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165

[USCG-2018-0276]

2018 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special
Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated
Navigation Areas

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notification of substantive rules
issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but
expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This
document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation
areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the
Federal Register was not possible.

DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became
effective, primarily between January 2018 and March 2018, unless
otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published
in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed
online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this document contact
Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains
of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and
security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District
Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain
local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or
environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described
by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in
motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to
vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are
issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas
and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize
changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal
vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are
water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels
navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast
Guard District Commander.
    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be
precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs
without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however,
often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press
releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by
Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the
rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the
end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the
contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation
regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement
action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal
Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation
without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard
periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security
zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and
drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in
this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal
Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if
sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect
or terminated.
    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily
during the period between January 2018 and March 2018 unless otherwise
indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and
search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.                          Type                          Location             Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-2012-1036..................  Safety Zones..................  Long island Sound Zone........      11/25/2017
USCG-2017-1103..................  Safety Zones..................  Sandusky, OH..................      12/31/2017
USCG-2018-0001..................  Safety Zones..................  Bellaire, OH..................        1/6/2018
USCG-2018-0021..................  Safety Zones..................  Palm Beach, FL................       1/11/2018
USGC-2018-0018..................  Security Zones................  Palm Beach, FL................       1/12/2018
USCG-2017-1088..................  Security Zones................  Detroit, MI...................       1/13/2018
USCG-2017-1096..................  Safety Zones..................  Piti, GU......................       1/17/2018
USCG-2018-0053..................  Safety Zones..................  Thebes, IL....................       1/18/2018
USCG-2017-1110..................  Safety Zones..................  Harbor, GU....................       1/24/2018
USCG-2018-0062..................  Special Local Regulations.....  New York Zone.................       1/26/2018
USCG-2017-1029..................  Special Local Regulations.....  San Diego Captain of the Port.       1/27/2018

USCG-2018-0073..................  Security Zones................  Palm Beach, FL................        2/2/2018
USCG-2018-0035..................  Security Zones................  Pittsburgh, PA................        2/2/2018
USCG-2018-0058..................  Safety Zones..................  San Francisco, CA.............        2/3/2018
USCG-2018-0008..................  Safety Zones..................  Mobile, AL....................        2/3/2018
USCG-2018-0115..................  Safety Zones..................  Delaware Bay..................        2/6/2018
USCG-2018-0116..................  Drawbridges...................  Sparrows point, MD............       2/13/2018
USCG-2017-1024..................  Safety Zones..................  Virgin Island, U.S............       2/15/2018
USCG-2018-0149..................  Security Zones................  Palm Beach, FL................       2/15/2018
USCG-2018-0040..................  Safety Zones..................  Letart, WV....................       2/17/2018
USCG-2018-0159..................  Safety Zones..................  Miami, FL.....................       2/23/2018
USCG-2018-0166..................  Security Zones................  Palm Beach, FL................        3/2/2018
USCG-2018-0012..................  Special Local Regulations.....  Tuscaloosa, AL................        3/3/2018
USCG-2018-0213..................  Safety Zones..................  New York, NY..................        3/3/2018
USCG-2018-0204..................  Safety Zones..................  Blackslough Landing, CA.......       3/22/2018
USCG-2018-0155..................  Special Local Regulations.....  Oak Ridge, TN.................       3/23/2018
USCG-2018-0247..................  Security Zones................  Palm Beach, FL................       3/23/2018
USCG-2018-0024..................  Safety Zones..................  Wilmington, NC................       3/26/2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
Katia Kroutil,
Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United
States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-10308 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P