[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75011-75014]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 110331231-2684-01]
RIN 0694-AF19

Revisions to Authorization Validated End-User Provisions:
Requirement for Notice of Export, Reexport or Transfer (In-Country) and
Clarification Regarding Termination of Conditions on VEU Authorizations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding a requirement for
persons shipping under Authorization Validated End-User (VEU) to send
written notice of such shipments to the recipient VEU. BIS further
amends the EAR to clarify that when items subject to item-specific
conditions under Authorization VEU no longer require a license for
export or reexport or become eligible for shipment under a license
exception, as set forth in the EAR, VEUs are no longer bound by the
conditions associated with the original receipt of such items. On April
17, 2012, BIS published a proposed rule and requested public comments
on these topics (77 FR 22689). The comment period closed June 18, 2012.
BIS has addressed the public comments received in response to the
proposed rule in this final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective January 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User
Review Committee, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)

    Validated end-users (VEUs) are those entities located in eligible
destinations to which eligible items may be exported, reexported, or
transferred (in-country) under a general authorization instead of a
license. VEUs and their respective eligible destinations and eligible
items are identified in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR. VEUs
may obtain eligible items without having to wait for their suppliers to
obtain export licenses from BIS.
    VEUs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance
with the provisions of Section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to
Part 748 of the EAR. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of
representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and
Commerce, and other agencies, as appropriate, is responsible for
administering the VEU program.
    On April 17, 2012, BIS published a rule soliciting public comments
on two proposed amendments to Section 748.15 of the EAR (Authorization
Validated End-User (VEU)) (77 FR 22689). BIS proposed requiring persons
exporting, reexporting, or transferring (in-country) under
Authorization VEU to send written notification to the recipient VEU
with details about their shipment within seven days of the shipment. In
addition, BIS proposed explicitly clarifying in the EAR that VEUs that
are subject to item-specific conditions and have received items subject
to such conditions under Authorization VEU would no longer be bound by
the conditions associated with the items if the items no longer require
a license for export or reexport to the VEU's location or become
eligible for shipment under a license exception to the destination. BIS
received comments from two entities, which are summarized and responded
to below.

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: Both commenters indicated their overall support for the
proposed changes and the VEU authorization as a whole. One commenter
specifically noted that Authorization VEU had benefited a VEU and its
supplier by allowing the purchase and supply of equipment to proceed
without the additional lead-time issues often caused by potentially
lengthy government approvals.
    Response: BIS appreciates this input regarding the VEU program,
particularly in light of BIS's efforts to improve the program and make
it more effective for U.S. exporters.
    Comment 2: Both commenters explained that individual shipments may
include items shipped under ``multiple authorizations'' including
Authorization VEU. They asked BIS to clarify that proposed paragraph
(g) of Section 748.15 would only require that shippers notify VEUs of
items shipped under Authorization VEU and not of items shipped under
other authorizations in the same shipment as VEU items. Specifically,
one commenter recommended that notification be required to include ``a
list of the VEU authorized contents and a list of their respective
ECCNs.''
    Response: BIS recognizes that individual shipments may include
items authorized for shipment or transfer under Authorization VEU as
well as items being shipped under other EAR authorizations, such as
licenses or license exceptions. BIS intends that the notification be
required only for items shipped under Authorization VEU and not for any
other items shipped with the VEU-authorized items. BIS has amended the
text of Section 748.15(g) to specify that the notification requirement
applies only to the ``VEU-authorized'' items in a shipment and to
specify that the list suggested by the commenter be included as part of
the notification.
    Comment 3: Both commenters asked BIS to review its approach to the
timing and frequency of notifications under Section 748.15(g). Both
commenters recommended that BIS permit consolidated notifications under
Authorization VEU, rather than require

separate notifications for each shipment under Authorization VEU.
Specifically, one commenter provided a semiconductor industry-specific
example of the multiple transfers of an integrated circuit's layout or
design that may be necessary between a semiconductor foundry and its
customer to correct design flaws prior to production. The commenter
suggested that the exporter should be required to provide only a single
notification for such shipments. In addition, both commenters asked
that BIS clarify that notification may be made before shipment occurs.
One of the commenters specifically suggested that the timing be
modified to ``no later than seven days after shipment or as mutually
agreed in writing by both parties.'' This commenter further suggested
that BIS could require that the terms of VEU notification be included
in Section 748.15(e), which requires that exporters and reexporters
obtain from VEUs certifications regarding end use and compliance with
VEU requirements. The commenter expressed that this approach would
maximize benefits and minimize burdens associated with notification,
and would ensure transparency and help to verify compliance.
    Response: BIS has reviewed the timing and frequency of
notifications and agrees that exporters, reexporters and transferors
(in-country) should have the option to consolidate notifications to
VEUs when multiple shipments are made under Authorization VEU. BIS
therefore has included this as an option in Section 748.15(g). Further,
as the timeframe for notification that is appropriate for one VEU and
shipper may be inappropriate for others, BIS agrees with the commenter
who suggested that notification be within a timeframe that is mutually
agreed to in writing by both parties. That mutual agreement must,
however, be reached prior to the shipment or transfer. With reference
to the comment proposing that BIS require the notification to be
included in the certification required under Section 748.15(e) of the
EAR, BIS notes that the 748.15(e) certification is required under the
EAR only in advance of the first shipment by a supplier to a VEU under
Authorization VEU and at no other time thereafter and that while
provision of the 748.15(e) certification is the sole responsibility of
the VEU, advance agreement on the notification schedule is the
responsibility of both the VEU and the shipper. Although a VEU and a
shipper may agree to include the notification schedule in the
certification, BIS will not require that the schedule be included in
the certification. BIS has revised Section 748.15(g) by providing that
notifications should be made within a timeframe agreed to in writing by
the VEU and the shipper in advance of the initial shipment and has
removed the reference to ``within seven calendar days'' of the
shipment. With this modification, BIS clarifies its original intent to
permit notification in advance of shipment.
    Comment 4: One commenter expressed concern regarding BIS's
explanation in the proposed rule that, ``BIS intends to improve the
ability of VEUs to determine which authorization their suppliers
utilized. This will enable VEUs to better determine which set of
conditions governs their use of the received item(s) more efficiently,
thereby increasing the VEUs' compliance.'' The commenter asked that BIS
modify this explanation to make clear that the notification
requirement's purpose is not to require that companies be able to
distinguish between identical items sent under a VEU authorization and
other types of authorization. The commenter noted that when identical
parts and materials shipped or transferred under different
authorizations are commingled within inventories, some VEUs ensure
compliance with U.S. law by meeting the requirements of the most
restrictive conditions associated with a particular stock-keeping unit
(SKU) and keep track of the total quantity of items received under a
specific authorization through first-in-first-out (FIFO) and other
standard inventory accounting methods.
    Response: The use of Authorization VEU requires VEUs to track items
received under Authorization VEU, but does not require VEUs to
distinguish between identical items sent under Authorization VEU and
other types of shipping authorizations. BIS understands that, as a
practical matter, individual items in inventory may not be easily or
efficiently tracked, and that there are VEUs that fulfill their
requirements under Authorization VEU by meeting the most restrictive
conditions associated with a particular SKU and tracking the total
quantity of items received under a specific authorization through the
standard inventory accounting methods described by the commenter.
    Comment 5: One commenter encouraged BIS to consider expanding the
scope of Authorization VEU by implementing the VEU program in countries
other than China and India.
    Response: BIS is taking this comment under advisement and is not
responding to it here as it is outside the scope of BIS's proposed
rule.

Amendments to Section 748.15 of the EAR

Prior Notification Requirement

    In this rule, BIS adopts the amendment to the EAR proposed on April
17, 2012 (77 FR 22689) with some changes. In the April rule, BIS
proposed amending Section 748.15 by adding paragraph (g) to require
persons exporting, reexporting, or transferring (in-country) under
Authorization VEU to send written notification to the recipient VEU
with details about their shipment within seven days of the shipment.
The April proposal also specified that the notification must include a
list of the VEU-authorized contents of the shipment and the quantity of
such items that are being, have been, or will be shipped to the
respective VEUs, as well as a list of the applicable Export Control
Classification Numbers (ECCNs) for VEU-authorized items included in the
shipment. This final rule adopts the notification requirement in Sec.
748.15 while making a change from the proposed rule by providing that
notification must be made within a timeframe agreed to in writing by
the VEU and the persons exporting, reexporting or transferring (in-
country), rather than within seven days of the shipment as proposed in
the April rule. This final rule also adds that the VEU and the persons
exporting, reexporting or transferring (in-country) must agree to the
notification timeframe in advance of shipment under Authorization VEU.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, the purpose of this new
requirement is to enhance the ability of VEUs to comply with the
requirements of the VEU program. This amendment to the EAR is not the
result of non-compliance with VEU requirements by existing VEUs. With
this amendment to the EAR, BIS intends to improve the ability of VEUs
to determine which shipments are made to them under Authorization VEU.
The use of Authorization VEU requires VEUs to track items received
under Authorization VEU, but does not require VEUs to distinguish
between identical items sent under Authorization VEU and other types of
shipping authorizations. Accordingly, this amendment will enable VEUs
to better determine which set of conditions governs their use of the
received item(s) more efficiently, thereby better enabling the VEUs'
compliance with the EAR.
    With this rule, BIS is not requiring a specific form of
communication (e.g., fax, email, letter) for the notification, but does
require that it be in a written format. Similarly, the VEU and the
shipper may determine if notifications

need to be made for each Authorization VEU shipment or whether multiple
shipments may be the subject of a consolidated notification. As noted
above, the notification must be conveyed to the VEU within the time
period agreed to in writing by the VEU and the persons exporting,
reexporting or transferring (in-country) the VEU items in advance of
the initial shipment. VEUs are required to maintain the notifications
they receive and exporters and reexporters are required to maintain the
notifications they send pursuant to their recordkeeping requirements.

Clarification Regarding Termination of Conditions on VEU Authorizations

    In the proposed rule, BIS also proposed amending Section 748.15(h)
to clarify that VEUs that are subject to item-specific conditions and
have received items subject to such conditions under Authorization VEU
are no longer bound by the conditions associated with the items if the
items no longer require a license for export or reexport to the VEU's
authorized location or become eligible for shipment under a license
exception to the destination. This amendment is the same, in effect, as
existing Section 750.7(i) (Terminating license conditions), which
generally applies to exporters and reexporters who have shipped under
license. No public comments were received on this proposal, and the
proposed regulatory text is being adopted with minimal changes,
described below.
    To supplement the proposed regulatory text, BIS is adding phrasing
in paragraph (h) to clarify that when the EAR are amended such that
items previously exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) to a
VEU under Authorization VEU would be eligible for shipment to the VEU
under a License Exception, the items received under Authorization VEU
become subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable License
Exception and not the original conditions associated with export,
reexport or transfer under Authorization VEU. In addition, when the EAR
are amended such that items previously exported, reexported or
transferred (in-country) to a VEU under Authorization VEU would remain
subject to the EAR but become eligible for export without a license
under the EAR, the items received under Authorization VEU may only be
exported, reexported, transferred (in-country) or disposed of in
accordance with the EAR. These two statements are not substantive and
were added only in the interest of clarifying the scope of new
paragraph (h) on requirements under the EAR. These new sentences also
parallel existing Section 750.7(i) (Terminating license conditions).

Records Review

    In the proposed rule, BIS further proposed adding new paragraph (i)
is to Section 748.15 to remind exporters that records requirements for
shipments that were made under Authorization VEU prior to the removal
of a license requirement or the availability of a license exception
remain subject to the review requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of
section 748.15 on and after the date that the license requirement was
removed or the license exception became applicable. No public comments
were received on this provision, and BIS is adopting paragraph (i) as
proposed.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in
lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by
the Notice of August 15, 2012 (77 FR 49699, August 16, 2012), has
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export
Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law,
pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is
required to respond to nor 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 final rule involves
information collections previously approved by the OMB under control
number 0694-0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application'', which carries a burden
hour estimate of 45.8 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748, which
involves requirements in connection with Authorization VEU. BIS revised
the burden hour estimate shown for the 0694-0088 collection by two
minutes to include the notification requirement proposed in this rule.
This revision does not represent a significant increase in burden hours
for submitting information under the collection.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The basis for the certification was published in the preamble
to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. BIS received no comments
or new information regarding the certification. Therefore, a final
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been
prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026,61 FR 58767,3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222,66 FR
44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2012 (77 FR
49699 (August 16, 2012)).

0
2. Section 748.15 is amended by adding paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) to
read as follows:

Sec.  748.15  Authorization Validated End-User (VEU).

* * * * *
    (g) Notification requirement. Exporters and reexporters shipping
under Authorization VEU and persons transferring (in-country) under
Authorization VEU are required to provide the VEUs to which they are
shipping or transferring notice of the shipment or transfer. Such
notification must be conveyed to the VEU in writing and must include a
list of the VEU-authorized contents of the shipment or transfer and a
list of the ECCNs under which the VEU-authorized items in the shipment
or transfer are classified, as

well as a statement that the items are being, will be, or were shipped
or transferred pursuant to Authorization VEU. Notification of the
export, reexport or transfer (in-country) to the VEU must be made
within a timeframe agreed to in writing by the VEU and the person
exporting, reexporting or transferring (in-country). The VEU and the
person exporting, reexporting or transferring (in-country) must agree
to the notification timeframe prior to the initial shipment or transfer
under Authorization VEU. Depending on the agreement between the VEU and
the person exporting, reeexporting or transferring (in-country), a
notification may be for individual shipments or for multiple shipments.
Exporters, reexporters and VEUs are required to maintain the
notifications they send or receive in accordance with their
recordkeeping requirements.
    (h) Termination of Conditions on VEU Authorizations. VEUs that are
subject to item-specific conditions and have received items subject to
such conditions under Authorization VEU are no longer bound by the
conditions associated with the items if the items no longer require a
license for export or reexport to the PRC or India, as applicable, or
become eligible for shipment under a license exception to the
destination. Items that become eligible for a License Exception are
subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable License Exception
and the restrictions in Sec.  740.2 of the EAR. Items that become
eligible for export without a license and that remain subject to the
EAR may only be exported, reexported, transferred (in-country) or
disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the EAR. Termination
of VEU conditions does not relieve a validated end-user of its
responsibility for violations that occurred prior to the availability
of a license exception or prior to the removal of license requirements.
    (i) Records. Records of items that were shipped under Authorization
VEU prior to the removal of a license requirement or the availability
of a license exception remain subject to the review requirements of
paragraph (f)(2) of this section on and after the date that the license
requirement was removed or the license exception became applicable.

    Dated: December 12, 2012.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-30482 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11591-11593]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05815]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85387; File No. SR-BOX-2019-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Facility To Add the
Concepts of Appointed OFP and Appointed MM

March 21, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 11, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the Fee Schedule [sic] on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'')
facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to amend Section VIII.A (Aggregate Billing) of the BOX Fee Schedule to
add the concepts of ``Appointed OFP'' and ``Appointed MM'' which would
increase opportunities for firms to qualify for various volume tier
discounts and rebates.
    The Exchange proposes to allow BOX Market Makers to designate an
Order Flow Provider (``OFP'') \5\ as its ``Appointed OFP'' and to
likewise allow OFPs to designate a Market Maker as its ``Appointed
MM.'' \6\ As proposed, BOX Participants would effectuate the
designation--of an Appointed OFP or Appointed MM--by each sending an
email to the Exchange.\7\ The Exchange would view corresponding emails
as acceptance of such an appointment and would only recognize one such
designation for each party once every 12-months, which designation
would remain in effect unless or until the Exchange receives an email
from either party indicating that the appointment has been
terminated.\8\ The Exchange believes that this requirement would impose
a measure of exclusivity and would enable both parties to rely upon
each other's, and potentially increase, transaction volumes executed on
the Exchange, which is beneficial to all BOX Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rule 100(a)(46) (defining OFP as those Options
Participants representing as agent Customer Orders on BOX and those
non-Market Maker Participants conducting proprietary trading).
    \6\ See proposed rule text Section VIII.A.4.
    \7\ See id.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to allow a Participant to opt to combine its
volume with that of its Appointed OFP/Appointed MM to qualify for the

various incentive programs offered on the Exchange. First, a
Participant with an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM would be able to
aggregate certain of its volumes with that of its Appointed OFP/
Appointed MM for purposes of qualifying for certain (1) rebates
available in the Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions for
Market Makers and Public Customers (``Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-
Auction Transactions''), (2) fees assessed for Primary Improvement
Orders, and (3) rebates available to all Public Customer PIP and COPIP
Orders of 250 and under contracts that do not trade with their contra
order (``BOX Volume Rebate''). Currently, a Participant can only
aggregate its volume with that of its affiliate(s).\9\ The concept of
Appointed OFP/Appointed MM would apply in instances where a Participant
qualifies for a favorable fee by calculating qualifying volume through
combining its transactions with that of Appointed OFP/Appointed MM.
However, a Participant that has both an Appointed OFP/Appointed MM and
any affiliate(s) may only aggregate volumes with one of those two, not
both. Thus, the Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to provide
that in calculating qualifications for volume of a Participant's
activity, the Participant may request the Exchange to ``aggregate its
eligible activity with the eligible activity of either its affiliate(s)
or its Appointed OFP or its Appointed Market Maker.'' \10\ The Exchange
notes that other exchanges have adopted similar concepts.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BOX Fee Schedule.
    \10\ See proposed language in Section VIII.A. of the BOX Fee
Schedule.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77524 (April 5,
2016), 81 FR 21417 (April 11, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-04); 77526
(April 5, 2016), 81 FR 21405 (April 11, 2016) (SRBatsEDGX-2016-05);
77926 (May 26, 2016), 81 FR 35421 (June 2, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-045);
78382 (July 21, 2016), 81 FR 49293 (July 27, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-
62); 80416 (April 10, 2017), 82 FR 18028 (April 14, 2017) (SR-MIAX-
2017-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose to modify any of the volume
qualifications or the associated fees and rebates for the various
incentive programs at this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the proposal would be
available to all Market Makers and OFPs and the decision to be
designated as an ``Appointed OFP'' or ``Appointed MM'' would be
completely voluntary and a Participant may elect to accept this
appointment or not. In addition, the proposed changes would enable
firms that are not currently eligible for certain rebates and discounts
to avail themselves of these rebates/discounts, as well increase
opportunities for firms that are currently eligible for certain
rebates/discounts to potentially achieve a higher tier, thus qualifying
to higher rebates/discounts. The Exchange believes these proposed
changes would incentivize firms to direct their order flow to the
Exchange. Specifically, the proposed changes would enable any Market
Maker--not just those with affiliates--to pool certain volumes to
potentially qualify its Appointed OFP for rebates/discounts available
on the Exchange. Moreover, the proposed change would allow any OFP, by
virtue of designating an Appointed MM, to aggregate certain of its own
volumes with the activity of its Appointed MM, which would enhance the
OFP's potential to qualify for additional rebates and discounts. The
Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Appointed
OFPs and OFPs with an Appointed MM to direct order flow to the
Exchange, which additional liquidity would benefit all market
participants (including those market participants that are not
currently affiliates and/or opt not to become an Appointed party) by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange
also notes that the proposed changes are reasonable as other exchanges
have adopted similar concepts for their own affiliate-based incentive
programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposal, which would permit the opportunity for
both parties to rely upon each other's, and potentially increase,
transaction volumes, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it may encourage Market Makers to increase in
order flow, capital commitment and resulting liquidity on the Exchange
would benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity, providing
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and
equitably allocated because it is beneficial to all Exchange
Participants because it enables parties to rely upon each other's
transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase
such volumes. In turn, the potential increase in order flow, capital
commitment and resulting liquidity on the Exchange would benefit all
market participants by expanding liquidity, providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
    The proposal is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would only recognize one such
designation for each party once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), a requirement that would impose a measure of
exclusivity while allowing both parties to rely upon each other's
transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase
such volumes, again, to the benefit of all market participants.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory and facilitates trading as it
may benefit all market participants through increased order flow on the
exchange, even to those market participants that are either currently
affiliated by virtue of their common ownership or that opt not to
become an Appointed OFP or Appointed Market Maker under this proposal.
Further, as discussed herein, other exchanges have adopted similar
concepts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes are pro-competitive as they would increase
opportunities for additional firms to qualify for various rebates and
discounts, which may increase intermarket and intramarket competition
by incenting Appointed OFPs and Appointed MMs to direct their orders to
the Exchange, thereby increasing the volume of contracts traded on the
Exchange and enhancing the quality of quoting. Enhanced market quality
and increase transaction volume that results from the anticipated
increase in order flow directed to the Exchange would benefit all
market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.

    With regard to aggregating volume for Primary Improvement Orders,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will burden
competition by creating a disparity between the fees an initiator pays
and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain
Participants being unable to compete with initiators. The Exchange
believes that the differential is reasonable as responders are willing
to pay a higher fee for liquidity discovery. Further, the Exchange
believes these changes will help promote competition by providing
incentives for market participants to submit these orders, and thus
benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange
notes that other exchanges allow appointed aggregation for incentive
programs (which include transactions in their improvement mechanisms)
currently in place.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule, Affiliate
Volume Plan (``AVP'') and Volume Incentive Plan (``VIP''). On Cboe,
the Volume Incentive Program (``VIP'') credits each Trading Permit
Holder (``TPH'') the per contract amount set forth in the VIP table
for Public Customer orders (which include Simple AIM Orders, Simple
non-AIM Orders, Complex AIM Orders and Complex non-AIM Orders)
transmitted by that TPH which is executed electronically on the
Exchange, provided the TPH meets certain volume thresholds. Further,
the Affiliate Volume Plan (``AVP'') allows a Market Maker to qualify
for additional discounts on that Market Maker's LP Sliding Scale
transaction fees when the Market Maker's Affiliate or Appointed OFP
qualifies for credits under the VIP. While Cboe credits its TPHs and
their Appointed OFPs or Appointed MMs under their fee schedule, the
Exchange believes the end result is comparable to the proposed
change discussed herein. Here, the Exchange proposes to allow
Participants to aggregate volume for Primary Improvement Orders,
while Cboe allows its TPHs to aggregate volume for their AIM Orders
in order to receive a credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\17\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2019-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-07. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-07, and should be submitted on
or  before April 17, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05815 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64131-64132]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0056]

BNSF Railway Company's Request To Amend Its Positive Train
Control Safety Plan and Positive Train Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on October
5, 2022, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) submitted an updated request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plan
(PTCSP). As this RFA may involve a request for FRA's approval of
proposed material modifications to an FRA-certified positive train
control (PTC) system, FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public
comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by November 10, 2022. FRA
may consider comments received after that date to the extent
practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or
necessary modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0056. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on October 5,
2022, BNSF submitted an updated RFA to its PTCSP for its Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) and that updated RFA is
available in Docket No. FRA-2010-0056. BNSF initially submitted the RFA
to its PTCSP on September 2, 2022, and subsequently submitted an
updated version of its RFA and PTCSP on October 5, 2022, in response to
FRA's feedback, which noted the need to satisfy the RFA content
requirements under 49 CFR 236.1021(m).
    In summary, BNSF's RFA proposes two modifications to its PTCSP.
First, BNSF proposes to incorporate into its PTCSP information about
its use of its Integrated Locomotive Computer as a speed source, which
FRA already approved in a previous joint RFA on September 1, 2021.

    Second, pursuant to the authority at 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(5)(vii),
BNSF is proposing to utilize certain alternative procedures instead of
the default procedures under Sec.  236.1006(b)(5), which permits the
operation of a locomotive or train without an onboard PTC apparatus in
certain circumstances. Under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(5)(vii), FRA's
regulations permit a railroad to propose such alternative procedures in
its RFA and/or PTCSP. For example, as detailed in BNSF's updated RFA
and PTCSP, BNSF is seeking to replace the default procedures under
Sec.  236.1006(b)(5)(i) and (ii). Specifically, BNSF proposes to use
the exception under Sec.  236.1006(b)(5) to perform short freight
movements, within a single control point (measured by one home signal
to the opposing home signal) at restricted speed, where no other trains
may enter the control point during the excepted movement. In its RFA,
BNSF further discusses the existing exception requirements and
alternative procedures it will comply with when performing excepted
movements under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(5).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on BNSF's RFA to its
PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted
within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent
practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR
236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP
at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-22877 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47611-47613]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0201]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Columbia River Outfall Project, Columbia River,
Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain navigable waters of the Columbia River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Knapp, WA, at Columbia River Mile 95.8 from October 1, 2021,
through March 15, 2022. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons
and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0201 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, 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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On November 18, 2020, the Discovery Clean Water Alliance notified
the Coast Guard that it would begin construction for their Phase 5A
Project: Columbia River Outfall and Effluent Pipeline from 12:01 a.m.
on October 1, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. on March 15, 2022, to remove and
replace existing pipeline. The construction project includes the
removal and replacement of an existing navigation marker (3-pile
dolphin), installation of a 48'' pipeline in the riverbed outside the
navigation channel, and removal of an existing 30'' pipeline from the
riverbed. The scope of work may include the need to construct temporary
pile-supported work platforms, or dredge, to access shallow water
areas. Lighted barges will be used in deeper water. The Captain of the
Port Sector Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the construction project would be a safety concern for
anyone within the designated area of the Columbia River Outfall and
Effluent Pipeline construction project.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the

navigable waters within the designated area of the Columbia River
Outfall and Effluent Pipeline construction project. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from October 1,
2021, through March 15, 2022. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at the shoreline at
45[deg]43'57.0'' N/122[deg]45'21.0'' W, west to 45[deg]43'58.0'' N/
122[deg]45'33.0'' W, south to 45[deg]43'39.0'' N/122[deg]45'35.0'' W,
thence east to 45[deg]43'39.0'' N/122[deg]45'21'' W, and along the
shoreline back to the beginning point. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
while the pipeline construction is underway. No vessel or person would
be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf, or a Federal, State,
and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port
Sector Columbia River in the enforcement of the safety zone. Vessel
operators desiring to enter or operate with the safety zone would
contact the COTP's on-scene designated representative by calling (503)
209-2468 or the Sector Columbia River Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-
FM. Those in the safety zone would comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
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-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Columbia River during the
construction project. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Notice to
Mariners about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

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
proposed rule would 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
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 166 days that would prohibit vessel traffic to

transit the area during construction operations. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary 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. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts,
you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is
published.

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
proposing to amend 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,
Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0201 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0201  Safety Zones: Safety Zone; Columbia River Outfall
and Effluent Pipeline Construction Project, Columbia River, Vancouver,
WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at the shoreline at
45[deg]43'57.0'' N/122[deg]45'21.0'' W, west to 45[deg]43'58.0'' N/
122[deg]45'33.0'' W, south to 45[deg]43'39.0'' N/122[deg]45'35.0'' W,
thence east to 45[deg]43'39.0'' N/122[deg]45'21'' W, and along the
shoreline back to the beginning point.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River (COTP)
to act on his behalf, or a Federal, State, and local officer designated
by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate with the safety
zone may contact the COTP's on-scene designated representative by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River Command Center on
Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This safety zone is in effect from 12:01
a.m. on October 1, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. on March 15, 2022. It will
be subject to enforcement this entire period unless the Captain of the
Port, Sector Columbia River determines it is no longer needed. The
Coast Guard will inform mariners of any change to this period of
enforcement via Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: August 17, 2021.
M. Scott Jackson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2021-18388 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55316-55318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21932]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70314; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

September 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 22, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 10 of the Fees Schedule to

state that contract volume resulting from any of the strategies defined
in Footnote 13 will apply towards reaching the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale (the ``LP Sliding Scale'') volume thresholds.\3\ This
will put the strategy executions on the same footing as other
transactions that count towards the LP Sliding Scale. Further, the
Exchange believes this change will encourage the transaction of
strategy executions. This would result in increased volume and provide
greater liquidity, which would benefit all market participants (who
could trade on the other side of these orders). While CBOE's previous
practice had been to not apply contract volume resulting from any of
the strategies defined in Footnote 13 towards the LP Sliding Scale (as
such transactions apply towards fee caps on strategy executions as
described in Footnote 13), the Exchange now believes that the incentive
that such application would provide to Market-Makers to transact
strategy executions outweighs any countervailing reasoning, as the
Exchange recognizes that such transactions would provide greater
liquidity for all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The strategies defined in Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule
are merger strategies, short stock interest strategies, reversals,
conversions and jelly roll strategies. See Footnote 13 for
definitions of each strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which provides that
Exchange rules may provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its TPHs and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to
include contract volume resulting from strategy executions in the
calculation of the LP Sliding Scale is reasonable because it will allow
qualifying market participants who execute strategy transactions to
benefit from the LP Sliding Scale for doing so. The Exchange believes
that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply to all market participants who qualify for the LP Sliding Scale.
While the LP Sliding Scale only applies to Market-Makers, those market
participants take on obligations, such as quoting obligations, that
some other market participants do not take on. Further, the Exchange
believes that this will incentivize qualifying market participants to
engage in such strategy executions, and the resulting increase in
volume will benefit all market participants. Finally, this will put the
strategy executions on the same footing as other transactions that
count towards the LP Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed changes to include contract volume resulting from
strategy executions in the calculation of the LP Sliding Scale will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because they will
apply to all market participants who qualify for the LP Sliding Scale.
While the LP Sliding Scale only applies to Market-Makers, those market
participants take on obligations, such as quoting obligations, that
some other market participants do not take on. Further, the Exchange
believes that this will incentivize qualifying market participants to
engage in such strategy executions, and the resulting increase in
volume will benefit all market participants. The Exchange does not
believe that this will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because it only affects trading on CBOE. Further, to the extent
that these changes may make CBOE a more attractive trading venue for
market participants on other exchanges, such market participants may
elect to become CBOE market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19-4 \7\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-084 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-084. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2013-084, and should be submitted on or before October 1, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21932 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P