[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 16599]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Medical Device
Conference (MedCon)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Cincinnati District, in
co-sponsorship with Xavier University, is announcing a public
conference entitled ``FDA/Xavier University Medical Device Conference
(MedCon).'' This 3-day public conference includes presentations from
key FDA officials and industry experts with small group break-out
sessions. The conference is intended for companies of all sizes and
employees at all levels.

DATES: The public conference will be held on May 3, 2017, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m.; May 4, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and May 5, 2017,
from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public conference will be held on the campus of Xavier
University, 3800 Victory Pkwy., Cincinnati, OH 45207,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For information regarding this notice: Gina Brackett, Food and Drug
Administration, 6751 Steger Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45237,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information regarding the conference and registration: Marla
Phillips, Xavier Health, Xavier University, 3800 Victory Pkwy.,
Cincinnati, OH 45207-5471,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit http://www.XavierMedCon.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public conference helps fulfill the
Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to
protect the public health. The conference will provide those engaged in
FDA-regulated medical devices (for humans) with information on the
following topics:
     Center Director Corner: Strategic Priorities for 2017 and
Beyond.
     European Union (EU) Regulations--Exploring the Unknown.
     Impact of the New EU Regulations on Your Global Regulatory
Strategy.
     Digital Health--Key Focus Areas for FDA and Industry.
     Office of Compliance Strategic Priorities.
     Update from the Office of Device Evaluation.
     FDA Insight on the 510(k) Modifications Guidance.
     510(k) Modifications: To submit or not to submit?
     Your Contract Manufacturer Received a Warning Letter. What
Now?
     Defending Claims for Your Device.
     The Impact of Cultural Misalignment . . . . and the Path
Forward.
     The Importance of Quality and Regulatory throughout the
Merger and Acquisition Lifecycle--Landmines or Opportunities.
     What to Expect with FDA's Program Alignment?
     Investigator Insights and Breaking News.
    FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing
community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated
drugs and devices. The conference helps to achieve objectives set forth
in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which includes working closely with stakeholders
and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to
stakeholders and the public. The conference also is consistent with the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-121) by providing outreach activities by Government Agencies to
small businesses.
    Registration: There is a registration fee. The conference
registration fees cover the cost of the presentations, training
materials, receptions, breakfasts, and lunches for the 3 days of the
conference. There will be onsite registration. The cost of registration
is as follows:

                      Table 1--Registration Fees\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Standard
                        Attendee type                             rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................................................      1,695
Small Business (<100 employees)..............................      1,200
Start-up Manufacturer........................................       $300
Academic.....................................................       $300
FDA/Government Employee......................................       Free
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following forms of payment will be accepted: American Express,
  Visa, MasterCard, and company checks.

    To register online for the public conference, please visit the
``Registration'' link on the conference Web site at http://www.XavierMedCon.com. FDA has verified the Web site address, but is not
responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.
    To register by mail, please send your name, title, firm name,
address, telephone, email, and payment information for the fee to
Xavier University, Attention: Marla Phillips, 3800 Victory Pkwy.,
Cincinnati, OH 45207-5471. An email will be sent confirming your
registration.
    Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. The
conference headquarter hotel is the Downtown Cincinnati Hilton
Netherlands Plaza, 35 West 5th St., Cincinnati, OH, 45202, 513-421-
9100. Special Conference Block rates are available through April 11,
2017. To make reservations online, please visit the ``Venue/Logistics''
link at http://www.XavierMedCon.com. If you need special accommodations
due to a disability, please contact Marla Phillips (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the conference.

    Dated: March 29, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-06699 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 119 (Friday, June 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37034-37040]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 166

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0279]
RIN 1625-AC57

Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding the possible
establishment of shipping safety fairways (``fairways'') along the
Atlantic Coast of the United States identified in the Atlantic Coast
Port Access Route Study. This potential system of fairways is intended
to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from
obstructions that could impact navigation safety.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0279 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: For information about this document
call or email George Detweiler, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
    A. Shipping Safety Fairway
    B. Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
    C. Port Approaches and International Entry and Departure Transit
Areas PARS Integral to Efficiency of Possible Atlantic Coast
Fairways
IV. Discussion of Action Under Consideration
    A. Potential Fairways Identified in the ACPARS
    B. Descriptions of Potential Fairways
    C. Study of Potential Port Approach Fairways
    D. International Entry/Departure Transit Areas
V. Information Requested

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views 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 potential 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 your comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit
your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking document (ANPRM) for alternate instructions.
Documents mentioned in this ANPRM as being available in the docket, and
all public comments, will be available in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you visit the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or if a
notice of proposed rulemaking is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and 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).
    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will
consider doing so if public comments indicate that a meeting would be
helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
AIS Automatic Identification System
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
FR Federal Register
PARS Port Access Route Study
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UNCLOS United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea

III. Background

    This advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks comments
regarding the possible establishment of shipping safety fairways
(``fairways'') along the Atlantic Coast of the United States based on
navigation safety corridors identified in the Atlantic Coast Port
Access Route Study (ACPARS). In this section, we provide background
information on fairways, ACPARS, and related port access route studies.

A. Shipping Safety Fairways

    Section 70003 of Title 46 United States Code directs the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard resides to designate
necessary fairways that provide safe access routes for vessels
proceeding to and from U.S. ports.\1\ Designation as a fairway keeps an
area free of fixed structures. This designation recognizes the
generally paramount right of navigation over other uses in the
designated areas.\2\ The Coast Guard is coordinating its possible
establishment of fairways \3\ along the Atlantic Coast, as well as
complementary port approaches and international entry and departure
zones, with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to minimize
the impact on offshore energy leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chapter 700 was added December 4, 2018, by Sec. 401 of
Public Law 115-282, 132 Stat. 4253. This fairways designation
authority was previously reflected in 33 U.S.C. 1223.
    \2\ See limitations on such designations in 46 U.S.C. 70003(b).
    \3\ A fairway or shipping safety fairway is a lane or corridor
in which no artificial island or fixed structure, whether temporary
or permanent, will be permitted. Temporary underwater obstacles may
be permitted under certain conditions described for specific areas.
Aids to navigation approved by the Coast Guard may be established in
a fairway. See 33 CFR 166.105(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 46 U.S.C. 70003, fairways are designated through federal
regulations. Regulations governing fairways in 33 CFR part 166 provide
that fixed offshore structures are not permitted within fairways
because these structures would jeopardize safe navigation. The Coast
Guard may establish, modify, or relocate existing fairways to improve
navigation safety or accommodate offshore activities such as mineral
exploitation and exploration. 46 U.S.C. 70003(e)(3); 33 CFR 166.110.
    Before establishing or adjusting fairways, 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1)
requires the Coast Guard to study potential traffic density and assess
the need for safe access routes for vessels. During this process, the
Coast Guard considers the views of the maritime community,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders to reconcile the need for
safe access routes with reasonable waterway uses. See 46 U.S.C.
70003(c)(3). The Coast Guard attempts to recognize and minimize each
identifiable cost, and balance cost impacts against the needs of safe
navigation.

B. Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study

    On May 11, 2011, the Coast Guard chartered the ACPARS workgroup to
address the potential navigational safety risks associated with
offshore developments and to support future marine planning efforts.
The workgroup analyzed the entire Atlantic Coast and focused on waters
located seaward of existing port approaches within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). The Coast Guard used Automatic Identification
System (AIS) data and information from shipping organizations to
identify traditional navigation routes.
    The Coast Guard announced the availability of the final ACPARS
report and requested public comment in the Federal Register on March
14, 2016 (81 FR 13307). After considering comments submitted in
response to that notice, the Coast Guard determined that the final
report was complete as published and announced this finding in the
Federal Register on April 5, 2017 (82 FR 16510). The final ACPARS
report is available in the docket for this rulemaking, in the docket
for the ACPARS itself (docket number USCG-2011-0351), and also at
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.
    The ACPARS workgroup identified navigation safety corridors \4\
along the

Atlantic Coast that have the width necessary for navigation and
sufficient buffer areas.\5\ The ACPARS Final Report identified deep
draft routes for navigation and recommended that they be given priority
consideration over other uses for consistency with the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).\6\ Article 78 of UNCLOS
states that, ``[t]he exercise of the rights of the coastal State over
the continental shelf must not infringe or result in any unjustifiable
interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other
States as provided for in this Convention.'' \7\ The ACPARS final
report also identified coastal navigation routes and safety corridors
of an appropriate width for seagoing tows.\8\ The report recommended
that the Coast Guard consider developing the navigation safety
corridors it identifies in its Appendix VII--which include ones for
deep draft vessels and ones closer to shore for towing vessels--into
official shipping safety fairways or other appropriate vessel routing
measures.\9\ Analysis of the sea space required for vessels to maneuver
led to the development of marine planning guidelines that were included
in the ACPARS final report and that the workgroup considered when
identifying the navigation safety corridors in its Appendix VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Navigation Safety Corridor is a term used in the ACPARS
final report for areas required by vessels to safely transit along a
customary navigation route under all situations. A navigation safety
corridor is not a routing measure and should not be confused with
fairways, two-way routes, or traffic separation schemes. The ACPARS
recommended that the identified navigation safety corridors be
considered for designation as fairways or other routing measures.
    \5\ See pages i, 11, and 12, and Appendix VII of the ACPARS
Final Report which is available in the docket.
    \6\ See page i of the ACPARS Final Report.
    \7\ Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397, 430.
    \8\ See pages i and 11, and Appendix VII (p. 7) of the ACPARS
Final Report.
    \9\ See pages 12 and 16 of the ACPARS Final Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Port Approaches and International Entry and Departure Transit Areas
PARS Integral to Efficiency of Possible Atlantic Coast Fairways

    On March 15, 2019, the Coast Guard announced a study of port
approaches and international entry and departure areas in the Federal
Register (84 FR 9541).\10\ This study will consider access routes from
ports along the Atlantic Coast to the navigation safety corridors the
ACPARS report recommended that we consider developing as fairways or
other appropriate vessel routing measures. The ports to be considered
in this study are economically important, support military operations,
or have been identified to be strategically critical to national
defense. The study will also examine areas associated with customary
international trade routes seaward of the navigation safety corridors
identified in the ACPARS. The creation of unimpeded transit lanes from
the potential fairways outlined in the ACPARS final report to ports,
and from those potential fairways to international transit areas, would
help ensure the safe and efficient flow of commerce and enhance
national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ International Entry and Departure Transit Areas are
navigation routes followed by vessels entering or departing from the
United States through an international seaport. International entry
and departure transit areas connect navigation safety corridors
identified in the ACPARS to the outer limit of the U.S. EEZ. Port
Approaches are navigation routes followed by vessels entering or
departing a seaport from or to a primary transit route. Port
approaches link seaports to navigation safety corridors identified
in the ACPARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the ACPARS methodology, AIS data and information from
shipping organizations will again be used to identify and verify the
customary navigation routes that are followed by ships in open-water
situations where no obstructions exist. This will allow the Coast Guard
to identify areas where structures could jeopardize safe navigation and
impede commerce. These studies will provide a mechanism to engage
stakeholders with potentially competing uses of the waters of the U.S.
EEZ in an effort to reduce impacts to those uses.

IV. Discussion of Action Under Consideration

    The Coast Guard is considering establishing fairways, as defined in
33 CFR 166.105, to protect maritime commerce and safe navigation amidst
extensive offshore development on the Atlantic Coast.

A. Potential Fairways Identified in the ACPARS

    The ACPARS identified nine primary navigation safety corridors that
may be suitable for designation as fairways.\11\ Three of these are
coastwise primary navigation safety corridors which would most likely
be used by smaller and slower moving vessels. Initial evaluations
suggest that the highest conflict between transiting vessels and
alternative undertakings in offshore regions--such as resource
exploration and development, production of renewable energy,
environmental preservation and protection, and resource conservation
and defense--are likely to occur in these near-coast regions. Six
offshore fairways were also recommended in the ACPARS final report. The
offshore fairways are most likely to be used by larger and faster-
moving deep-draft vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ United States Coast Guard, ``Atlantic Coast Port Access
Route Study: Final Report,'' July 8, 2015, p. 16 and Appendix VII,
``Identification of Alongshore Towing Vessel and Major Deep Draft
Routes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Descriptions of Potential Fairways

    The nine fairways identified by the ACPARS final report are
described as follows, all geographic points are based on North American
Datum of 1983: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) is the horizontal
and geometric control datum for the United States, Canada, Mexico,
and Central America. NAD 83 was released in 1986. A geodetic datum
or reference frame is an abstract coordinate system with a reference
surface (such as sea level) that serves to provide known locations
to begin surveys and create maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The potential St. Lucie to New York Fairway is about 1,350 miles
long, approximately 10 nautical miles wide, and includes the customary
route taken by vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port
Everglades, FL; the Port of Virginia; the Port of Baltimore, MD; the
Port of Philadelphia, PA; the Port of Wilmington, DE; and the Port of
New York and New Jersey. This potential fairway is an area enclosed by
rhumb lines joining points at:

                    The St. Lucie to New York Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]58'51'' N..........................  074[deg]00'42'' W
39[deg]17'01'' N..........................  073[deg]56'04'' W \*\
39[deg]45'42'' N..........................  073[deg]54'22'' W \*\
39[deg]45'42'' N..........................  073[deg]37'40'' W \*\
39[deg]11'38'' N..........................  073[deg]40'30'' W
38[deg]40'33'' N..........................  073[deg]54'44'' W
36[deg]42'14'' N..........................  074[deg]21'12'' W
34[deg]33'21'' N..........................  074[deg]52'32'' W
33[deg]57'08'' N..........................  075[deg]20'14'' W
32[deg]49'15'' N..........................  076[deg]06'42'' W
31[deg]37'49'' N..........................  076[deg]51'25'' W
29[deg]36'06'' N..........................  078[deg]06'19'' W
27[deg]46'56'' N..........................  079[deg]12'18'' W
27[deg]13'15'' N..........................  079[deg]31'17'' W
27[deg]23'50'' N..........................  079[deg]36'19'' W
27[deg]50'56'' N..........................  079[deg]21'12'' W
29[deg]40'10'' N..........................  078[deg]15'08'' W
31[deg]41'47'' N..........................  077[deg]00'15'' W
32[deg]53'17'' N..........................  076[deg]15'27'' W
34[deg]01'24'' N..........................  075[deg]28'48'' W
34[deg]36'25'' N..........................  075[deg]02'00'' W
36[deg]06'17'' N..........................  074[deg]40'11'' W
36[deg]43'37'' N..........................  074[deg]31'02'' W
38[deg]42'09'' N..........................  074[deg]04'30'' W
38[deg]58'51'' N..........................  074[deg]00'42'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Crosses the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway.

    2. The potential Delaware Bay Connector Fairway is about 125 miles
long, approximately 10 nautical miles wide, and includes the customary
route taken by vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port
Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; and the Port of Virginia; the Port
of Baltimore, MD; the Port of Philadelphia, PA; the Port of Wilmington,
DE; and also to the Port of

New York and New Jersey, by linking with the St. Lucie to New York
Fairway in the vicinity of Cape Henry, VA.\13\ This potential fairway
is an area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To see an illustration of this linkage, see the Mid
Atlantic Chart in the docket.

                   The Delaware Bay Connector Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]06'17'' N..........................  074[deg]40'11'' W
37[deg]52'59'' N..........................  074[deg]42'50'' W
38[deg]05'39'' N..........................  074[deg]32'53'' W
36[deg]43'37'' N..........................  074[deg]31'02'' W
36[deg]06'17'' N..........................  074[deg]40'11'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The potential St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway is
about 1,200 miles long, approximately 5 nautical miles wide, and
includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting between the
Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of
Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of
Savannah, GA; the Port of Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City,
NC; the Port of Wilmington, NC; the Port of Virginia,; and the Port of
Baltimore, MD. This potential fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb
lines joining points at:

            The St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27[deg]10'12'' N..........................  080[deg]03'04'' W
27[deg]22'58'' N..........................  080[deg]07'20'' W
27[deg]44'21'' N..........................  080[deg]10'14'' W
28[deg]38'07'' N..........................  080[deg]21'01'' W
30[deg]56'24'' N..........................  080[deg]45'09'' W
31[deg]22'43'' N..........................  080[deg]34'10'' W
31[deg]31'32'' N..........................  080[deg]29'18'' W
31[deg]49'26'' N..........................  080[deg]17'05'' W
31[deg]57'30'' N..........................  080[deg]06'05'' W
33[deg]20'02'' N..........................  077[deg]50'47'' W
33[deg]28'47'' N..........................  077[deg]35'05'' W
34[deg]18'07'' N..........................  076[deg]23'59'' W
35[deg]09'05'' N..........................  075[deg]17'23'' W
35[deg]35'43'' N..........................  075[deg]19'23'' W
36[deg]15'49'' N..........................  075[deg]35'37'' W
36[deg]35'21'' N..........................  075[deg]43'52'' W
36[deg]35'09'' N..........................  075[deg]38'39'' W
36[deg]17'21'' N..........................  075[deg]29'56'' W
35[deg]36'38'' N..........................  075[deg]13'27'' W
35[deg]07'04'' N..........................  075[deg]11'13'' W
34[deg]14'24'' N..........................  076[deg]20'01'' W
33[deg]24'47'' N..........................  077[deg]31'29'' W
33[deg]15'52'' N..........................  077[deg]47'28'' W
31[deg]53'39'' N..........................  080[deg]02'10'' W
31[deg]46'08'' N..........................  080[deg]12'24'' W
31[deg]28'58'' N..........................  080[deg]24'08'' W
31[deg]19'07'' N..........................  080[deg]30'22'' W
30[deg]55'58'' N..........................  080[deg]40'02'' W
28[deg]38'50'' N..........................  080[deg]16'06'' W
27[deg]45'00'' N..........................  080[deg]05'18'' W
27[deg]23'53'' N..........................  080[deg]02'26'' W
27[deg]11'28'' N..........................  079[deg]58'17'' W
27[deg]10'12'' N..........................  080[deg]03'04'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The potential St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway is
about 1,200 miles long, approximately 10 nautical miles wide, and
includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting between the
Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of
Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of
Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port
of Wilmington, NC; and the Port of Virginia. It is located seaward of
the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway. This potential
fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Portions of BOEM North Carolina Lease OCS-A 0508, in OCS
sub-block 6664D are located within protraction NJ18-11. This
potential fairway overlaps a portion of this sub-block by 120 meters
at its widest point. This is a renewable energy lease for wind-
generated energy. We have placed a chart in the docket that displays
specific areas where the potential St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay
Offshore Fairway overlap areas of this lease. The chart is entitled
``Chart Showing Overlap of BOEM North Carolina Lease OCS-A 0508.''

          The St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway \14\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27[deg]11'28'' N..........................  079[deg]58'17'' W
27[deg]45'00'' N..........................  080[deg]05'18'' W
28[deg]38'50'' N..........................  080[deg]16'06'' W
30[deg]55'58'' N..........................  080[deg]40'02'' W
31[deg]19'07'' N..........................  080[deg]30'22'' W
31[deg]28'58'' N..........................  080[deg]24'08'' W
31[deg]46'08'' N..........................  080[deg]12'24'' W
31[deg]53'39'' N..........................  080[deg]02'10'' W
33[deg]15'52'' N..........................  077[deg]47'28'' W
33[deg]24'47'' N..........................  077[deg]31'29'' W
34[deg]14'24'' N..........................  076[deg]20'01'' W
35[deg]10'58'' N..........................  075[deg]06'08'' W
35[deg]59'41'' N..........................  075[deg]06'58'' W
36[deg]35'09'' N..........................  075[deg]38'39'' W
36[deg]38'54'' N..........................  075[deg]32'10'' W
36[deg]01'48'' N..........................  074[deg]59'01'' W
35[deg]06'32'' N..........................  074[deg]58'03'' W
34[deg]08'12'' N..........................  076[deg]13'25'' W
33[deg]18'05'' N..........................  077[deg]25'30'' W
33[deg]09'00'' N..........................  077[deg]41'48'' W
31[deg]47'03'' N..........................  079[deg]55'54'' W
31[deg]40'38'' N..........................  080[deg]04'37'' W
31[deg]24'48'' N..........................  080[deg]15'25'' W
31[deg]15'38'' N..........................  080[deg]21'14'' W
30[deg]55'07'' N..........................  080[deg]29'47'' W
28[deg]40'16'' N..........................  080[deg]06'15'' W
27[deg]13'02'' N..........................  079[deg]48'27'' W
27[deg]11'28'' N..........................  079[deg]58'17'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The potential Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway is about 400
miles long, varies from approximately 5 to 10 nautical miles wide, and
includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting between the
Port of New York and New Jersey; the Port of Philadelphia, PA; the Port
of Wilmington, DE; and the Port of Baltimore, MD. This potential
fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Portions of BOEM Maryland Lease OCS-A 0490, in the
following OCS blocks and sub-blocks are located within protraction
NI18-05: 6726K, 6726N, 6726O, 6726P, 6775, 6776, 6777E, 6777I,
6777J, 6777M, 6777N, 6825, 6826, 6827A, 6827B, 6827C, 6827E, 6827F,
6827H, 6827I, and 6827M. This is a renewable energy lease for wind-
generated energy. We have placed a chart in the docket that displays
specific areas where the potential Cape Charles to Montauk Point
Fairway overlap areas of this lease. The chart is entitled ``Chart
Showing Overlap of BOEM Maryland Lease OCS-A-0490, and New Jersey
Leases OCS-A-0498 and OCS-A-0499.''
    \16\ Portions of BOEM New Jersey Leases OCS-A 0498 and OCS-A
0499 (123 sub-blocks) were found to overlap with this potential
fairway. One hundred of these 123 sub-blocks were identified in
BOEM's ATLW-5 Final Sale Notice (FSN) as potentially being not
available for development. These are renewable energy leases for
wind-generated energy. We have placed a chart in the docket that
displays specific areas where the potential Cape Charles to Montauk
Point Fairway overlap areas of these leases. The chart is entitled
``Chart Showing Overlap of BOEM Maryland Lease OCS-A-0490, and New
Jersey Leases OCS-A-0498 and OCS-A-0499.''

             The Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway 15 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]07'24'' N..........................  075[deg]40'59'' W
37[deg]32'04'' N..........................  075[deg]25'53'' W
37[deg]50'37'' N..........................  075[deg]12'06'' W
37[deg]59'42'' N..........................  075[deg]01'23'' W
38[deg]04'21'' N..........................  074[deg]54'04'' W
38[deg]21'43'' N..........................  074[deg]41'01'' W [dagger]
38[deg]26'49'' N..........................  074[deg]37'11'' W [dagger]
38[deg]30'53'' N..........................  074[deg]34'07'' W
38[deg]44'16'' N..........................  074[deg]32'52'' W
                                             [dagger][dagger]
38[deg]50'05'' N..........................  074[deg]32'20'' W
                                             [dagger][dagger]
38[deg]58'12'' N..........................  074[deg]31'35'' W
39[deg]07'51'' N..........................  074[deg]31'24'' W
39[deg]24'49'' N..........................  074[deg]13'47'' W
39[deg]40'32'' N..........................  074[deg]02'55'' W
39[deg]45'42'' N..........................  073[deg]54'22'' W
39[deg]54'39'' N..........................  073[deg]39'43'' W
40[deg]02'33'' N..........................  073[deg]26'46'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]10'45'' N..........................  073[deg]13'18'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]21'01'' N..........................  072[deg]56'29'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]23'05'' N..........................  072[deg]53'05'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]29'17'' N..........................  072[deg]42'55'' W
40[deg]31'21'' N..........................  072[deg]39'31'' W
40[deg]51'49'' N..........................  072[deg]05'57'' W
41[deg]01'54'' N..........................  071[deg]32'17'' W
40[deg]31'42'' N..........................  072[deg]21'59'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]29'38'' N..........................  072[deg]25'24'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]23'25'' N..........................  072[deg]35'36'' W
40[deg]21'21'' N..........................  072[deg]39'00'' W [Dagger]
40[deg]05'14'' N..........................  073[deg]05'37'' W [Dagger]
39[deg]57'08'' N..........................  073[deg]19'03'' W

39[deg]45'42'' N..........................  073[deg]37'40'' W
                                             [Dagger][Dagger]
39[deg]38'23'' N..........................  073[deg]54'48'' W
                                             [Dagger][Dagger]
39[deg]36'12'' N..........................  073[deg]59'57'' W
39[deg]22'41'' N..........................  074[deg]09'36'' W
39[deg]06'27'' N..........................  074[deg]26'26'' W
38[deg]58'02'' N..........................  074[deg]26'35'' W
38[deg]50'42'' N..........................  074[deg]27'16'' W
                                             [dagger][dagger]
38[deg]43'39'' N..........................  074[deg]27'56'' W
                                             [dagger][dagger]
38[deg]29'41'' N..........................  074[deg]29'14'' W
38[deg]23'38'' N..........................  074[deg]33'47'' W [dagger]
38[deg]18'03'' N..........................  074[deg]37'58'' W [dagger]
38[deg]01'44'' N..........................  074[deg]50'13'' W
37[deg]56'49'' N..........................  074[deg]57'58'' W
37[deg]48'15'' N..........................  075[deg]08'04'' W
37[deg]30'12'' N..........................  075[deg]21'28'' W
37[deg]05'38'' N..........................  075[deg]36'30'' W
37[deg]07'24'' N..........................  075[deg]40'59'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Crosses the Off Delaware Bay Southern Approach Cutoff Fairway.
[dagger][dagger] Crosses the Off Delaware Eastern Approach Cutoff
  Fairway.
[Dagger] Crosses Traffic Separation Scheme.
[Dagger][Dagger] Crosses the St. Lucie to New York Fairway.

    6. The potential Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach
Cutoff Fairway is about 200 miles long, approximately 10 nautical miles
wide, and includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting
between the Port of Virginia; the Port of Baltimore, MD; the Port of
Philadelphia, PA; and the Port of Wilmington, DE. This potential
fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:

   The Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach Cutoff Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]57'07'' N..........................  075[deg]35'54'' W
37[deg]04'32'' N..........................  075[deg]29'41'' W
38[deg]04'39'' N..........................  074[deg]43'07'' W
38[deg]14'35'' N..........................  074[deg]35'05'' W *
38[deg]20'25'' N..........................  074[deg]30'22'' W *
38[deg]41'54'' N..........................  074[deg]13'57'' W
38[deg]42'09'' N..........................  074[deg]04'30'' W
38[deg]05'39'' N..........................  074[deg]32'53'' W
37[deg]52'59'' N..........................  074[deg]42'50'' W
37[deg]19'37'' N..........................  075[deg]08'42'' W
36[deg]52'24'' N..........................  075[deg]34'11'' W
36[deg]57'07'' N..........................  075[deg]35'54'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Crosses the Off Delaware Bay Southern Approach Cutoff Fairway.

    7. The potential Off Delaware Bay: Southern Approach Cutoff Fairway
is about 20 miles long, approximately 10 nautical miles wide, and
includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting between the
Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; and the
Port of Virginia; the Port of Baltimore, MD; the Port of Philadelphia,
PA; and the Port of Wilmington, DE, by linking with the St. Lucie to
New York Fairway in the vicinity of Cape Henlopen, DE.\17\ This
potential fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ To see an illustration of this linkage, see the Northern
Area Chart in the docket.

         The Off Delaware Bay: Southern Approach Cutoff Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]14'35'' N..........................  074[deg]35'05'' W
38[deg]18'03'' N..........................  074[deg]37'58'' W
38[deg]21'43'' N..........................  074[deg]41'01'' W
38[deg]27'00'' N..........................  074[deg]45'24'' W
38[deg]28'48'' N..........................  074[deg]39'18'' W
38[deg]23'38'' N..........................  074[deg]33'47'' W
38[deg]20'25'' N..........................  074[deg]30'22'' W
38[deg]14'35'' N..........................  074[deg]35'05'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The potential Off Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach Cutoff Fairway
is about 50 miles long, approximately 10 nautical miles wide, and
includes the customary route taken by vessels transiting between the
Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; by linking
the St. Lucie to New York Fairway in the vicinity of Cape May, NJ; or
the Port of Virginia and the Port of Baltimore, MD; and the Port of
Philadelphia, PA; and the Port of Wilmington, DE, by linking with the
Chesapeak Bay to Delaware Bay Eastern Approach Cutoff in the vicinity
of Cape May.\18\ This potential fairway is an area enclosed by rhumb
lines joining points at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ To see an illustration of this linkage, see the Northern
Area Chart in the docket.

          The Off Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach Cutoff Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]41'54'' N..........................  074[deg]13'57'' W
38[deg]43'39'' N..........................  074[deg]27'56'' W *
38[deg]44'16'' N..........................  074[deg]32'52'' W *
38[deg]44'27'' N..........................  074[deg]34'21'' W
38[deg]50'05'' N..........................  074[deg]32'20'' W
38[deg]50'42'' N..........................  074[deg]27'16'' W
38[deg]53'30'' N..........................  074[deg]04'39'' W
38[deg]58'51'' N..........................  074[deg]00'42'' W
38[deg]42'09'' N..........................  074[deg]04'30'' W
38[deg]41'54'' N..........................  074[deg]13'57'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Crosses the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway.

    9. The potential Long Island Fairway is about 150 miles long,
approximately 5 nautical miles wide, and includes the customary route
taken by vessels transiting between the Long Island Sound Eastern
Entrances; the Port of Groton, CT; the Port of New Haven Harbor, CT;
and the Port of New York and New Jersey. This potential fairway is an
area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:

                         The Long Island Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]28'15'' N..........................  073[deg]38'59'' W
40[deg]31'52'' N..........................  073[deg]39'54'' W
40[deg]35'59'' N..........................  073[deg]11'39'' W
41[deg]06'36'' N..........................  071[deg]30'06'' W
41[deg]03'06'' N..........................  071[deg]28'15'' W
40[deg]32'12'' N..........................  073[deg]11'28'' W
40[deg]28'15'' N..........................  073[deg]38'59'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You can find three charts depicting and labelling the locations of
these potential fairways in the docket. The Northern Area chart
illustrates all nine. As numbered in the tables above, the Mid-Atlantic
Area chart illustrates potential fairways 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, and the
Southern Area chart illustrates potential fairways 1, 3, and 4. These
charts only show the portion of the potential fairway in the area
covered by the chart. Additionally, two charts depicting and labelling
the locations of overlaps between the proposed fairways and existing
BOEM leases are contained in the docket: Chart Showing Overlap of BOEM
Maryland Lease OCS-A-0490, and New Jersey Leases OCS-A-0498 and OCS-A-
0499; and Chart Showing Overlap of BOEM North Carolina Lease OCS-A
0508.

C. Study of Potential Port Approach Fairways

    As announced in the Federal Register on March 15, 2019, the Coast
Guard is also conducting Port Access Route Studies in accordance with
46 U.S.C. 70003(c) to determine whether or not fairways should be
established or whether other routing measures for existing port
approaches would be more appropriate. 84 FR 9541. These port approach
fairways would provide access to the potential fairways identified in
the ACPARS final report and in this ANPRM, would be important to the
safe and efficient movement of ships and cargo, and would be critical
to sustaining interstate and international commerce.
    Each Coast Guard district commander will study the ports in their
district that are economically significant, support military
operations, or are critical to national defense. For an example of this
multi-Coast Guard District effort, see a recent notice announcing PARS
for approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia (84 FR 65398, November
27, 2019). Results of each PARS will be published separately in the
Federal Register by the district commander.
    Like the ACPARS, these PARS will use AIS data and information from

stakeholders to identify and verify customary navigation routes. Each
PARS will identify potential conflicts involving alternative activities
in the studied area, such as wind energy generation and offshore
mineral exploration and exploitation.
    The following 23 U.S. ports are initially under consideration for
PARS:

                   Ports Under Consideration for PARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennebec River/Bath, ME.
Port of Portland, ME.
Port of Portsmouth, NH.
Port of New Bedford, MA.
Port of Boston, MA.
Narragansett Bay, RI.
Long Island Sound Eastern Entrances.
Port of Groton, CT.
Port of New Haven, CT.
Port of New York and New Jersey, including Port Elizabeth and Newark.
Port of Philadelphia, PA, including Camden-Gloucester City, NJ, Port of
 Wilmington, DE.
Port of Baltimore, MD.
Port of Virginia, including Norfolk, Newport News and Hampton Roads, VA.
Port of Morehead City, NC.
Port of Wilmington, NC.
Port of Charleston, SC.
Port of Savannah, GA.
Port of Brunswick, GA.
Kings Bay, GA.
Port of Jacksonville, FL.
Port Canaveral, FL.
Port Everglades, FL.
Port of Miami, FL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. International Entry and Departure Transit Areas

    We also announced studies related to international entry and
departure transit areas seaward of the potential fairways in the U.S.
EEZ. 84 FR 9541. International entry and departure transit areas are
integral to the safe, efficient, and unimpeded flow of ships. Fairways
established based on the studies of international entry and departure
transit areas would be used by vessels coming from a foreign port and
transiting to a coastwise or offshore fairway or directly to a port
approach leading to a U.S. port. It is important that fairways for
regions of the U.S. EEZ between principal international ports and the
United States are considered to ensure the safe and direct movement of
ships and cargo between international origins and destinations. Each
route or fairway would be a link in a chain connecting ports in the
United States and abroad, and each link should be as robust and
effective as the routes identified in the ACPARS.

V. Information Requested

    Public participation will help the Coast Guard decide whether to
establish coastwise and offshore fairways and, if so, how to balance
ship routing with offshore development activities and other uses. The
Coast Guard seeks public comments, positive or negative, on the impacts
that the nine potential fairways under consideration may have on
navigational safety and on other activities in these offshore areas to
aid us in developing a proposed rule and the supporting analyses. Where
possible and pertinent, please provide sources, citations and
references to back up or justify your responses. Also, for all
pertinent responses, please provide a detailed explanation of how you
arrived at this conclusion and the underlying assessment that supports
your conclusion. Finally, for all numerical responses please provide us
with sufficient information to recreate your calculations.
    We seek public feedback on the following questions:
    1. Do the nine potential fairways provide safe and efficient routes
for vessels transiting to and from international ports to the United
States? Why or why not? If not, what would you recommend instead?
    2. Are the ACPARS-potential fairways described in this ANPRM, or
similar ones, necessary for ensuring a safe and orderly passage for
vessels transiting among U.S. domestic ports of call? Why or why not?
Please explain your answer, including your specific comments on how the
fairways described in this ANPRM would affect maritime traffic
patterns, navigational safety and access to ports.
    3. Are there any positive or negative impacts of not establishing
the nine fairways noted in this ANPRM? If so, please describe them.
    4. If these potential fairways are established, what persons,
entities, or organizations would be positively or negatively impacted?
In other words, which groups of people, businesses, or industries
(maritime and non-maritime) would be positively or negatively impacted
by these potential fairways?
    5. What other offshore uses may be positively or negatively
affected by the potential fairways? Please include specific locations,
potential impact, and associated costs or benefits. Please also
describe the safety significance of the potential fairways on the
activity.
    6. Do the nine potential fairways unduly limit offshore
development? If so, is there a cost model or structure that should be
considered for analysis? What are the limitations of the cost model? If
so, why do you believe the proposal would limit offshore development
and what specific development would it limit?
    7. From an environmental perspective, would the potential fairways
described in this ANPRM negatively impact living marine resources? If
so, which marine resources would be impacted and how? What measures
within the Coast Guard's jurisdiction should be considered to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate any such impacts?
    8. Beyond the environmental impacts mentioned in question 7, are
there any other positive or negative environmental impacts from these
potential fairways? If so, please provide detail as to how and what
would be impacted. To the degree possible, please provide the data,
impact assessments, and other pertinent background information
necessary to understand and reproduce your results.
    9. What mitigation measures within the Coast Guard's jurisdiction
could be used to relieve the economic and safety impacts of the
potential fairways on other offshore uses? What are the expected costs
and associated benefits of the suggested mitigation measures?
    10. Are there additional measures that should be considered to
improve safety or relieve an economic burden imposed by these potential
fairways? What are the expected costs and associated benefits of the
suggested additional measures?
    11. Are there other variables that should be considered in
developing this system of potential fairways? If so, please indicate
particular issues and the specific areas to which they pertain.
    13. Besides the Coast Guard's noted intention and purpose of this
rulemaking, what positive aspects would this proposal produce for the
safety of maritime transportation?
    14. Have there been any offshore developments built or installed in
the past 10 years that have impacted traffic patterns, navigational
safety, or maritime commerce? If so, were the net impacts positive or
negative? Please provide a detailed explanation of how you arrived at
this conclusion.
    15. Please offer any other comments or suggestions that may improve
this initiative.
    Please submit comments or concerns you may have in accordance with
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section above.

    This notice is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70003 and 5
U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: June 10, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-12910 Filed 6-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32227-32229]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86232; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2019-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.;
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fee Schedule
Assessed on Members To Establish a Monthly Trading Rights Fee

June 28, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On May 2, 2019, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change (File Number SR-CboeBYX-2019-009) to amend the BYX
fee schedule to establish a monthly Trading Rights Fee to be assessed
on Members.\3\ The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon
filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 16, 2019.\5\ The Commission has received no
comment letters on the proposal. Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\6\ the Commission is hereby: (i) Temporarily suspending the
proposed rule change; and (ii) instituting proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange initially filed the
proposed rule change on April 29, 2019 (SR-CboeBYX-2019-006). On May
2, 2019, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted the present
proposal (SR-CboeBYX-2019-009).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85841 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 22199 (``Notice'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Membership Fees section of the
BYX fee schedule to establish a monthly Trading Rights Fee, which would
be assessed on Members that trade more than a specified volume in U.S.
equities.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge Members a
Trading Rights Fee of $250 per month for the ability to trade on the
Exchange. A Member would not be charged the monthly Trading Rights Fee
if it meets one of the following exceptions: (1) The Member has a
monthly ADV \8\ of less than 100,000 shares, or (2) at least 90% of the
Member's orders submitted to the Exchange per month are retail
orders.\9\ The proposed Trading Rights Fee also would not be charged to
new Members for the first three months of their membership.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 22199. The Commission notes
that the Exchange's affiliates, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc., and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., each also filed a
proposed rule change to amend their fee schedules to establish a
monthly Trading Rights Fee to be assessed on Members: CboeBZX-2019-
041, CboeEDGA-2019-011, and CboeEDGX-2019-029, respectively.
    \8\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADV is calculated on
a monthly basis. See Notice, supra note 5, at 22199 n.4.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 22199.
    \10\ For any month in which a firm is approved for Membership
with the Exchange, the monthly Trading Rights Fee would be pro-rated
in accordance with the date on which Membership is approved. Notice,
supra note 5, at 22199-22200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\11\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') 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.
As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary suspension of
the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the
Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposed Trading Rights Fee ``is
reasonable because it will assist in funding the overall regulation and
maintenance of the Exchange.'' \13\ The Exchange also asserts that the
proposed Trading Rights Fee is reasonable because the ``cost of this
membership fee is generally less than the analogous membership fees of
other markets.'' \14\ The Exchange states that it believes the proposed
Trading Rights Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it will apply equally to all Members that do not meet the requirements
of the exceptions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 22200.
    \14\ See id. The Exchange notes, for example, that the
Exchange's proposed Trading Rights Fee of $250 a month is
``substantially lower'' than the monthly $1,250 monthly Trading
Rights Fee that Nasdaq assesses on its members. Id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to the proposed exceptions pursuant to which Members
would not be charged the Trading Rights Fee, the Exchange states that
it believes that both exceptions are reasonable. Specifically, the
Exchange states that the proposed exception for Members that trade less
than a monthly ADV of 100,000 shares is reasonable because it would
allow such smaller Members to continue to trade at a lower cost.\16\ In
addition, the Exchange states the exception is reasonable because such
firms consume fewer regulatory resources.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.?>[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES][NOTICE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also states that the second exception for Members that
submit 90% or more of their orders per month as retail orders is
reasonable because it would ensure that ``retail broker members can
continue to submit orders for individual investors at a lower cost,
thereby continuing to encourage retail investor participation on the
Exchange.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally the Exchange states that it believes that not charging a
Trading Rights Fee for new Members is reasonable because it will
incentivize firms to become Members of the Exchange and ``bring
additional liquidity to the market to the benefit of all market
participants.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\20\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \21\ See id.

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

    Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which
requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \22\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \23\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether assessing the proposed monthly
Trading Rights Fee on certain Members is consistent with the statutory
requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the
Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed
rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules
thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings to Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(C) \27\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \28\ to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution
of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\29\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national
market system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers,'' \31\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).?>[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][NOTICES][NOTICE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/
AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal imposes a new monthly Trading Rights
Fee on certain Members. The Commission notes that the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposed rule change are general in nature
and lack detail and specificity. For example, the Exchange asserts
broadly that the proposed fee will fund overall regulation and
maintenance of the Exchange, but does not explain why this increase in
funding is necessary at this time or what is covered under this broad
umbrella of ``overall regulation and maintenance.'' \33\ Further, the
rationale provided does not address how the proposed fee is an
equitable allocation of fees, other than to note simply that it applies
to all Members who do not qualify for an exception. Under the
Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to demonstrate that a
proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the
rule change.'' \34\ The description of a proposed rule change, its
purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its
consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,\35\
and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 22200.
    \34\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated; be designed to perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and the national market system, protect investors and
the public interest, and not be unfairly discriminatory; or not impose
an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by July 26, 2019. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by August 9, 2019. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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-CboeBYX-2019-009 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-CboeBYX-2019-009. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2019-009 and should be submitted
on or before July 26, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
August 9, 2019.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\39\ that File Number SR-CboeBYX-2019-009 be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14282 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P?>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52318-52319]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20894]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-18-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA's) approval of the State of Arizona's request to revise/modify
certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective October 3, 2014 for the State of
Arizona's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency, and on September 3, 2014 for the State of
Arizona's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government

will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, Sec.
3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special
procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic
reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local
government in place of procedures available under existing program-
specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the
subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local
government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic
reporting components of the programs covered by the application and
will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable
subpart D requirements.
    On January 14, 2010, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted an application titled ``AZ ADEQ SmartNOI/SDWIS
Lab to State'' for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized
programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed ADEQ's request to revise/
modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA
determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Arizona's request to revise/modify its following
EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR
parts 122 and 141 is being published in the Federal Register: Part
123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System; and Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation.
    ADEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Arizona's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a
hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in
EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a
hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA
to consider when determining whether to grant the request; (3) The
signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's request to revise its
part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days
after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section
3.1000(f)(4).

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Matthew Leopard,
Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2014-20894 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25452-25453]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11802]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440; FRL-9978-73-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI
Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the
following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): ``Plant-Incorporated Protectants;
CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting'' (EPA ICR No.
1693.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0142). This is a request to renew the
approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through May
31, 2018. EPA did not receive any public comments in response to the
previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal
Register of September 13, 2017. With this submission to OMB, EPA is
providing an additional 30 days for public review and comment. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0440, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
     To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and
     To OMB via email to [email protected]. Address
comments to the OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryne Yarger, Field and External
Affairs Division, 7506P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-605-
1193; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR addresses the two information collection
requirements contained in the regulations codified in 40 CFR part 174
pertaining to pesticidal substances that are produced by plants (plant-
incorporated protectants, or PIPs). A PIP is defined as ``the
pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a
living plant and the genetic material necessary for the production of
such a substance.'' Many, but not all, PIPs are exempt from
registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
    CBI is protected by FIFRA and generally cannot be released to the
public. For most pesticide registration applications, the current CBI
regulations at 40 CFR part 2 require that claimants substantiate their
CBI claims for their own records when the claim is made, and
subsequently provide the substantiation to EPA only if requested.
However, under 40 CFR part 174, whenever a registrant claims that
information submitted to EPA in support of a PIP registration
application contains CBI, the registrant must substantiate such claims
to EPA when they are made. In addition, 40 CFR part 174 also requires
manufacturers of PIPs that are otherwise exempted from registration
requirements to report any adverse effects of the PIP to the Agency
within 30 days of when the information is first obtained. Such
reporting will allow the Agency to determine whether further action is
needed to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the
environment.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR include producers and importers of PIPs. The North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for respondents under
this ICR include: 325320 (Pesticide and other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing), 325414 (Biological Products (except Diagnostic)
Manufacturing), 422910 (Farm Supplies Wholesalers), 422930 (Flower,
Nursery Stock, and Florist's Suppliers), 541710 (Research and
Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences), and
611310 (Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 24 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 518 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $41,892 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 86 hours in the
total

estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates for this
collection based upon historical information on the number of CBI
substantiations per year. Based upon revised estimates, the number of
CBI substantiations per year has increased from 20 to 24, with a
corresponding increase in the associated burden. This change is an
adjustment.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-11802 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16280-16281]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0036]
RIN 2127-AL05

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notification of availability of technical reports.

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

SUMMARY: This notification announces the availability of documents
supplementing NHTSA's March 2015 Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages.'' The SNPRM proposed
an alternative test procedure that would maintain the current FMVSS No.
210 body blocks and specify zones for the placement of the blocks at
preload. The agency has conducted additional research since the
publication of the SNPRM. This notification announces the docketing and
availability of this research.

DATES: The documents referenced in this notification will be available
in the docket as of April 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should state the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register notice published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Mr. John Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    On March 30, 2012, the agency published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 19155) that proposed to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, ``Seat
belt assembly anchorages,'' to replace the current pelvic body block
and the upper torso body block with a new Force Application Device
(FAD). The rationale provided for the proposal included the FAD's ease
of use, that it is representative of the human form, and that it
provides a consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt
assembly anchorages without affecting the stringency of the compliance
test.
    The agency received a number of comments on the NPRM that raised
issues concerning the feasibility of the FAD proposal. In light of
those comments, NHTSA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) on March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11148). The SNPRM proposed,
as an alternative to the FAD proposed in the NPRM, to maintain the
current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and specify ``zones'' for the preload
placement of the body blocks. In the SNPRM, the agency noted that it
had initiated research to aid in the development of the zones bounding
the initial placement for the current body blocks. This research has
now been completed.
    The agency is docketing a variety of research reports. This
research falls into three categories. The first category is additional
research tests on passenger vehicles in order to evaluate the
performance of the FAD in comparison to the body blocks in the same
vehicle. The second category is research and testing performed to
establish practical, repeatable, and validated zones for initial
positioning (at preload) of the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks
(``Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body Blocks'').
The third category is testing of the proposed FAD on buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds)
(Report Nos. 207/210-MGA-2013-001 and 207/210-MGA-2013-002). The
objective of this testing was to determine whether the proposed FAD
affects the stringency of FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests on heavy duty
vehicle seats and to assess how the FAD performs in these tests.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish DOT's Docket Management Facility to notify you upon its
receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in
the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments,
the Docket Management Facility will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments at DOT's Docket Management Facility at
the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the facility are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

    Authority: delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-07132 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P