[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41077-41078]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1592]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for
Industry: Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0797.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10a.m.-12
midnight, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guidance for Industry: Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic
Drug Development

OMB Control Number 0910-0797--Extension

    This information collection supports the above captioned Agency
guidance. FDA has agreed to specific program enhancements and
performance goals specified in the Generic Drug User Fee
Reauthorization (GDUFA II) Commitment Letter. One of the performance
goals applies to controlled correspondence related to generic drug
development. The GDUFA II Commitment Letter includes details on FDA's
commitment to respond to questions submitted as controlled
correspondence within certain timeframes. To support these program
goals, we have developed the guidance entitled ``Controlled
Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development.'' The guidance
document is intended to facilitate FDA's prompt consideration of
controlled correspondence and to assist in meeting the prescribed
timeframes by providing procedural recommendations to include the
following information in the inquiry: (1) Name, title, address, phone
number, and entity of the person submitting the inquiry; (2) a letter
of authorization, if applicable; (3) the FDA-assigned control number
and submission date of any previous, related controlled correspondence
that was accepted for substantial review and response, if any, as well
as a copy of that previous controlled correspondence and FDA's
response, if any; (4) the relevant reference listed drug(s), as
applicable, including the application number, proprietary (brand) name,
manufacturer, active ingredient, dosage form, and strength(s); (5) a
statement that the controlled correspondence is related to a potential
abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) submission to the Office of
Generic Drugs and the ANDA number, if applicable; (6) a concise
statement of the inquiry; (7) a recommendation of the appropriate FDA
review discipline; and (8) relevant prior research and supporting
materials.
    The GDUFA II Commitment Letter also includes details on FDA's
commitment to respond to requests to clarify ambiguities in FDA's
controlled correspondence response within certain timeframes. To
facilitate FDA's prompt consideration of the request and to assist in
meeting the prescribed timeframes, the guidance document recommends
including the following information in the inquiry: (1) Name, title,
address, phone number, and entity of the person submitting the inquiry;
(2) a letter of authorization, if applicable; (3) the FDA-assigned
control number, submission date of the controlled correspondence on
which the requestor is seeking clarification, a copy of that previous
controlled correspondence, and FDA's response to the controlled
correspondence; and (4) the clarifying questions and the corresponding
section(s) of FDA's controlled correspondence response on which the
requestor is seeking clarification.
    In the Federal Register of May 22, 2018, (83 FR 23692), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of

information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
              Submission of controlled correspondence                   Number of      responses per    Total  annual   Average  burden    Total  hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic drug manufacturers, related industry, and representatives..             390              3.8            1,496                5            7,480
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    This is the first extension of the information collection. We base
our estimate on a review of Agency data of Fiscal Year submissions for
2014, 2015, and 2016, which reflects an increase in submissions that we
attribute to an increase in generic drug development. Accordingly, we
estimate 390 generic drug manufacturers and related industry (e.g.,
contract research organizations conducting bioanalytical or
bioequivalence clinical trials) or their representatives will each
submit an average of 3.8 inquiries annually for a total of 1,496
inquiries [1,496 / 390 = 3.8]. Information submitted with each inquiry
varies widely in content, depending on the complexity of the request.
Inquiries that are defined as controlled correspondence may range from
a simple inquiry on generic drug labeling to a more complex inquiry for
a formulation assessment for a specific proposed generic drug product.
As a result, these inquiries can vary between 1 and 10 burden hours.
    Because the content of inquiries considered controlled
correspondence is widely varied, we are providing an average burden
hour for each inquiry. We estimate that it will take an average of 5
hours per inquiry for industry to gather necessary information, prepare
the request, and submit the request to FDA. As a result, we estimate
that it will take an average of 7,480 hours annually for industry to
prepare and submit inquiries considered controlled correspondence.

    Dated: August 10, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17787 Filed 8-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7429-7430]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9774-9]

Adequacy Status of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Reasonable Further
Progress 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation
Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that it has found that the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (DFW)
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted on January 17, 2012 by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the DFW area must use these
budgets for future conformity determinations.

DATES: These budgets are effective February 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The essential information in this
notice will be available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. You may also
contact Mr. Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refers to EPA. The word ``budget(s)'' refers to the mobile
source emissions budget for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the
mobile source emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NOX).
    On January 17, 2012, we received a SIP revision from the TCEQ. This
revision consisted of an RFP SIP for the DFW ozone nonattainment area.
This submission established MVEBs for the DFW area for the years 2011
and 2012. The MVEB is the amount of emissions allowed in the state
implementation plan for on-road motor vehicles; it establishes an
emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. The MVEBs
are provided in Table 1:

Table 1--Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonable Further Progress NOX and VOC MVEBs
                      [Summer season tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2011         2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................       197.05       195.39
VOC...........................................        89.54        82.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 27, 2012, EPA posted the availability of the DFW area
MVEBs on EPA's Web site for the purpose of soliciting public comments,
as part of the adequacy process. The comment period closed on March 28,
2012, and we received no comments.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has
already made. EPA Region 6 sent a letter to TCEQ on December 27, 2012,
finding that the MVEBs in the DFW RFP SIP, submitted on January 17,
2012 are adequate and must be used for transportation conformity
determinations in the DFW area. This finding has also been announced on
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 93, requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do so. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEB is
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). We have also described the process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, final rulemaking
entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes'' (69 FR 40004). Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the DFW RFP SIP revision submittal.
Even if EPA finds the budgets adequate, the DFW RFP SIP revision
submittal could later be disapproved.

    Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the DFW-
area transportation partners, such as the North Central Texas Council
of Governments, will need to demonstrate conformity to the new MVEBs if
the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).

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

    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. 2013-02219 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23531-23533]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09205]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77633; File No. SR-ICC-2016-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Update and Formalize the ICC Stress
Testing Framework

April 15, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 31, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to update and
formalize ICC's Stress Testing Framework.

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

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

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

    ICC proposes to update and formalize its Stress Testing Framework.
The Stress Testing Framework sets forth stress testing practices
instituted by ICC, which are focused on ensuring the adequacy of
systemic risk protections. The framework is designed to: Articulate the
types of stress tests executed and the main purpose of each type of
test; describe how stress tests are conducted; define the actual test
scenarios currently executed; outline the range of remedial actions
available (which, depending on the results, may include enhancements to
the risk methodology or certain Clearing Participant (``CP'') specific
action); and explain how stress test results are used in the governance
process.
    ICC continues to evolve its stress testing practices for many
reasons, including an increase in the number and type of instruments
eligible for clearing, and evolution of the CDS market and the cleared
portfolios themselves. The stress testing framework helps ICC identify
potential weaknesses in the risk management methodology currently used.
As such, the framework allows

ICC to identify potential model enhancements to the Initial Margin and
Guaranty Fund models, as well as identify the need to exercise short
term remedies based upon specific CP positions and risk of exposure
prior to introduction of model enhancements.
    The framework outlines the stress test methodology employed by ICC.
During the execution of stress testing, the ICC Risk Department (``Risk
Department'') applies the standard set of pre-defined Stress Test
Scenarios (as defined on the next page) against actual portfolios,
sample portfolios derived from currently cleared positions, and
expected future portfolios, as appropriate, to generate hypothetical
profits or losses. The Risk Department compares the hypothetical losses
to the available funds from the Initial Margin requirements and
Guaranty Fund contribution related to the selected portfolios. A
scenario deficiency is identified in the event that the hypothetical
loss exceeds the protection provided by the available collateral assets
and mutualization funds. Depending on the plausibility of the stress
scenarios and the frequency and severity of any resulting deficiencies,
the Risk Department may recommend enhancements to the risk methodology.
    ICC utilizes certain predefined scenarios for its stress testing,
which fall into three standard categories: (i) Historically observed
extreme but plausible market scenarios; (ii) historically observed and
hypothetically constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible
market scenarios with a baseline credit event; and (iii) extreme model
response tests (collectively, ``Stress Test Scenarios''). Discordant
scenarios (i.e. scenarios under which selected risk factors move in
opposite directions; commonly the behavior deviates from historically
observed behavior) are applied to certain instruments to account for
discordant price moves.
    ICC applies the Stress Test Scenarios to a variety of portfolios.
Specifically, ICC applies the Stress Test Scenarios to all currently
cleared portfolios. The Risk Department may also apply the Stress Test
Scenarios to sample portfolios obtained from currently cleared
portfolios. The Risk Department may also apply the Stress Test
Scenarios to staff-constructed, expected future portfolios, as
appropriate, to mimic expected future portfolios upon the launch of new
services. In this case, the stress test analysis is presented to and
reviewed by the Risk Committee prior to the launch of the new clearing
services. ICC may design specific portfolio sets to test the validity
of certain model/system assumptions. The stress test results from such
expected future portfolio executions are reviewed and analyzed
internally, and may be used to support future model initiatives.
    ICC also designs stress test analysis directed toward the
identification of wrong-way risk in cleared portfolios. For every
cleared portfolio, all positions in index risk factors and single name
risk factors that exhibit high degree of association with the
considered CP are used to create a sub-portfolio which will be
subjected to additional stress test analysis. The constructed sub-
portfolio is subjected to the same Stress Test Scenarios utilized by
ICC.
    The framework also describes ICC's reverse stress testing (Guaranty
Fund Adequacy Analysis) practices. The purpose of the adequacy analysis
is to provide estimates for the level of protection achieved by the
clearinghouse via its Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund models. In
performing its analysis, ICC considers a combination of adverse price
realizations and idiosyncratic credit events associated with reference
obligations on which the stress tested CP sold protection. The Stress
Testing Framework also describes the correlation sensitivity analysis
performed by ICC, based on Monte Carlo simulations, as well as the
additional recovery rate sensitivity analysis.
    The framework also details how stress testing is utilized in ICC's
governance process. ICC maintains a framework to ensure that the Risk
Committee and Board are provided the appropriate level of transparency
into the Risk Department's stress test results and contemplated
methodology changes. Stress testing results are reviewed, at a minimum,
by the Risk Department weekly. Additionally, stress testing results are
provided to the Risk Committee weekly and a report of such results is
presented to the Risk Committee on a monthly basis. Ad hoc reviews of
the stress testing results may be undertaken at the discretion of the
Chief Risk Officer.
    In the event of any deficiencies noted upon stress testing, the
Risk Department must report such deficiencies to ICC senior management
and the Risk Committee, and either (a) provide analysis that the
results do not highlight a significant weakness in the stress testing
or risk methodology; or (b) recommend enhancements to the stress
testing or risk methodology. ICC senior management and the Risk
Committee will review and recommend any stress testing or risk
methodology enhancements to the Board, who is responsible for approval.
The Risk Department may also choose to add new scenarios and portfolios
in response to deficiencies noted upon stress testing; in this case,
the Risk Department will discuss with the Risk Committee, who will
recommend to the Board, who is responsible for approval.
    The Risk Department maintains a standard set of Stress Scenarios
and portfolios (namely actual portfolios, sample portfolios derived
from currently cleared portfolios, and expected future portfolios) that
are executed on a regular basis. In the event that a scenario or
portfolio in the standard set is no longer applicable, or has been
superseded by new scenarios or portfolios, the Risk Department may wish
to retire or modify the outdated scenario or portfolio. In this case,
the Risk Department consults with ICC senior management; conducts
analysis to support the recommendation; discusses the analysis and
obtains a recommendation from the Risk Committee; and presents the
final analysis to the Board approval. In the interest of prudent risk
management, the Risk Department may wish to add scenarios and/or
portfolios to the standard set; Risk Committee or Board approval is not
required unless such scenarios and/or portfolios are added in response
to stress testing deficiencies, as described above.
    Previous versions of the framework included the Risk Working Group
in the governance structure, as ICC consulted with the Risk Working
Group as it worked to develop its initial stress testing approach and
appropriate scenarios. As ICC now has a fully developed approach,
stress testing remains focused on data analysis and reporting results,
which are addressed at the Risk Committee and Board level. Thus, to
reflect current governance practices, references to the Risk Working
Group have been removed.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F), \4\ because ICC believes that the proposed rule changes

will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions. ICC's Stress Testing Framework describes ICC's stress
testing practices, which are designed to ensure the adequacy of
systemic risk protections. The Stress Testing Framework sets forth the
methodology by which ICC evaluates potential portfolio profits/losses,
compared to the Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund funds maintained, in
order to identify any potential weakness in the risk methodology. As
such, the proposed rule changes are designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions within the meaning
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \5\ of the Act. The proposed changes will also
satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ In particular, the Stress
Testing Framework contains stress testing practices designed to ensure
that ICE Clear Credit maintains sufficient financial resources to
withstand a default by the CP family to which it has the largest
exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions, and that as a
registered clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for
security-based swaps, ICC shall maintain additional financial resources
sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two CP families
to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market
conditions,\7\ consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ Pursuant to confirmation via email with ICC on April 13,
2016, staff in the Division of Trading and Markets modified this
sentence to add the reference to ICC maintaining sufficient
financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, the default by the
two CP families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but
plausible market conditions to conform to the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. To the extent the Stress
Testing Framework impacts CPs, the Stress Testing Framework applies
uniformly across all CPs. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed
rule changes impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2016-005 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-ICC-2016-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2016-005
and should be submitted on or before May 12, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09205 Filed 4-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70909-70910]
[DOCID:fr13de07-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56928; File No. SR-Amex-2007-133]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Reduce Certain Clearing Fees

December 7, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 30, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which
renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the clearing charge for an order in
equities or ETFs routed to and executed on another market center from
$0.07 to $0.04 per hundred shares.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex's
principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.amex.com
.

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

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

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

(1) Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Equity Fee Schedule and its
Exchange Traded Funds and Trust Issued Receipts Fee Schedule to reduce
from $0.07 to $0.04 per hundred shares (or $0.0004 per share) the
clearing charge for an Amex member order in equities or ETFs routed to
and executed on another market center, thereby reducing overall
transaction fees for such order routed away from $0.37 to $0.34 per
hundred shares (including the $0.30 per hundred routing fee). This fee
applies to Amex members only, and the Exchange's goal is to reduce cost
disincentives to its members placing orders for Amex-listed securities
on the Amex book.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The proposed fee change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \5\ regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among exchange members for the following reasons. The
reduction of the clearing charge does not discriminate among Amex
members, as it is applicable to all Amex members. Further, the proposed
fee change will serve to make the Amex more competitive for order flow
by bringing its overall fees for routing orders to away markets for
execution closer in line with the fees charged by the away markets for
similar services. Currently, competitive market centers charge between
$0.26 and $0.30 per hundred shares (with the exception of NYSE Arca
which charges $0.40 per hundred) \6\ to route trades of Amex-listed
securities to the Amex itself for execution, and the new Amex aggregate
transaction fee of $0.34 per hundred to route orders to away markets
for execution (down from $0.37 per hundred as a function of the instant
reduction of the clearing fee) places Amex more competitively within
that spectrum of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Rule 7018(a) ($0.26-$0.30 per hundred,
depending on volume); NYSE Price List 2007, http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/2007pricelist.pdf
, at page 3 ($0.30 per hundred); NYSE Arca

Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services, http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSEArca_Equities_Fees.pdf
, at page 1 ($0.40 per

hundred).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \8\ because it

establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a
member imposed by a self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2007-133 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2007-133. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site at 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2007-133 and should be
submitted on or before January 3, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24118 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6961-6964]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0079]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Delaware River, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone
within portions of the Delaware River, and Schuylkill River, for the
protection of Very Important Persons (VIP) who arrive or depart from
Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA. This permanent
rule will allow for the expedited enforcement of the security zone when
short notice is received by the Coast Guard regarding such travel
arrangements. The security zone will be enforced only during times of a
protected VIP transit to or from the airport and will restrict vessel
traffic while the zone is being enforced. Only vessels or people
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or
designated representative, may enter or remain in the regulated area.

DATES: This rule is effective March 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0079 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On occasion, protected VIPs will arrive or depart Philadelphia
International Airport, Philadelphia, PA, which is located within the
Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. These
visits require the implementation of heightened security measures for
protection of VIPs who may travel over or on portions of the Delaware
River or Schuylkill River on their route to or from the airport. The
purpose of this rulemaking is to protect the VIP and the public from
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other
malicious or potential terrorist acts. This rule will allow expedited
enforcement of the security zone for protected VIPs traveling to or
from Philadelphia International Airport when short notice is provided
to the COTP.
    On May 15, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Security Zone; Delaware River, Schuylkill
River, Philadelphia, PA'' (82 FR 22301). There we stated why we issued
the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to this proposed permanent security zone. During the comment
period that ended June 14, 2017, we received one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing this rulemaking under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect VIPs and
the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive
acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

A. Discussion of Comments

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published May
15, 2017. The comment had seven questions regarding establishment of
the permanent security zone.
    1. Necessity of zone. The commenter asked about the relevance of
the security zone and requested that the Coast Guard provide assurance
that the implementation of the security zone is necessary.
    Response: The Coast Guard has historically implemented security
zones of this general size in this general location when notified by
the U.S. Secret Service that a protected VIP will be transiting to or
from the Philadelphia International Airport. Often, there has been
little advanced notice to the Coast Guard associated with these
requests. The security zone itself is a necessary tool to protect
traveling VIPs and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist
acts. No specific threats have been identified; however, the airport's
proximity to the Delaware River and Schuylkill River expose it to some
waterborne risks. Although permanent, the security zone will only be
enforced during times a VIP is arriving or departing from the
Philadelphia International Airport. The security zone can only be used
for this specific purpose. Any further restrictions or events that may
require a security zone, not related to the movement of VIPs to or from
the airport, will be conducted through separate rulemaking action.
    In the past, similar temporary security zones in this general area
have been established in order to provide protection for traveling
VIPs. The creation of security zones in this manner, by necessity, has
limited opportunity to the public for advanced notification of
establishment and enforcement procedures and intentions. While this
rule does not provide the exact times and dates that the security zone
will be enforced, the resulting public awareness better serves the
maritime community and industry operating on this portion of the
Delaware River by establishing a pre-determined location and guidelines
in the event of activation. The establishment of this permanent
security zone provides the best opportunity for public awareness and
notification. This regulatory text has been amended to include this
limitation.
    2. Advance notification of enforcement. The commenter asked how
much advanced notice the Coast Guard anticipates giving the maritime
community prior to enforcing the security zone.
    Response: The Coast Guard will enforce this security zone for the
protection of VIPs. The details of a protected VIP's movements are of
national security significance and therefore cannot be publicized in
advance. The Coast Guard will give as much on-scene notice as possible
to allow the maritime community to make changes to their schedules.
Advance on-scene notice under this permanent security zone will be
consistent with past temporary security zones for VIP travel. On-scene
notification will be made to the local maritime community by issuance
of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine
Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) as well as actual notice.
Additionally, law enforcement vessels enforcing the security zone will
be operating with rotating blue lights which will indicate activation
of the security zone; the blue

lights will be turned off to notify public of deactivation of the
security zone. We have amended the regulatory text for additional
clarity in regards to how notification will be provided.
    3. Average time of enforcement. The commenter asked about the
average length of enforcement.
    Response: In the past, similar temporary security zones in this
area have been established in order to provide protection for traveling
VIPs. These previously established security zones have historically
lasted anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours from start to finish.
Although we cannot predict the length of the enforcement of the
permanent security zones during each activation, we expect that length
of time for enforcement of the security zone will stay within the 15
minute to 2 hours time frame.
    4. Notification of enforcement period. The commenter requested that
the Coast Guard's notification to the public of the security zone
include the duration of the enforcement and that Coast Guard issue
separate communication to the public when the enforcement period is
over.
    Response: The Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay Command Center will
provide a notice of the enforcement of the security zone via marine
broadcast. On scene, the Patrol Commander will notify the maritime
community of the time periods for the enforcement of the security zone
via marine broadcast and other means as needed per 33 CFR 165.7.
    5. Access while the zone is in effect. The commenter asked the
Coast Guard to indicate those critical criteria that would preclude a
vessel from remaining in or transiting through the zone while the zone
is being enforced and to outline the process for gaining approval to
remain in or transit through the security zone.
    Response: The Coast Guard will assess a vessel wishing to remain in
or transit through the security zone on a case by case basis. Vessel
details, such as location, size, cargo, and transit history, will be
evaluated to determine who may or may not remain in or transit through
the security zone. The Coast Guard will evaluate this information
internally and give direction to the Patrol Commander enforcing the
security zone. Vessels wishing to transit or remain in the zone must
contact and request permission from the Patrol Commander via VHF-FM
channel 13 or 16.
    6. Ships/barges at the berth or anchorage for cargo and/or
bunkering operations. The commenter asked that the Coast Guard continue
to allow vessels anchored or at berth to continue to conduct cargo and
bunkering operations while the Coast Guard is enforcing the security
zone. Historically, cargo and bunkering operations have been allowed
during the implementation and enforcement of this temporary security
zone.
    Response: The Coast Guard does not anticipate requiring ships or
barges at berths or anchorages within the security zone to stop cargo
or bunkering operations during the enforcement of the security zone
unless the transfer operations pose a hazard during the enforcement
period.
    7. Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit (MTSRU). The
commenter asked the Coast Guard to stand up the Maritime Transportation
System Recovery Unit (MTSRU) to mitigate any issues and have a
standardized location for communication.
    Response: The Coast Guard does not intend to stand up the MTSRU
when enforcing the security zone because historically enforcement
periods have been so short that MTSRU is not required. If an event
significantly disrupts traffic, the Coast Guard will establish a MTSRU.
Otherwise, Sector Delaware Bay's Command Center, manned 24 hours, is
the point of contact for any issues regarding vessel intentions and
traffic management issues, and can address emergent traffic or
operations issues.

B. Changes From the NPRM

    We made four changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM. First, we noted that the coordinates listed
in paragraph (a), Location, use North American Datum 83. Second, we
made stylistic changes to the format of the contents of paragraph (b),
Definitions. Third, within paragraph (b), Definitions, we defined the
meanings and intent of the term Very Important Person (VIP). Fourth, we
have amended paragraph (d), Enforcement, to specifically state that the
security zone can only be used in relation to the movement of VIPs to
or from the Philadelphia International Airport.

C. The Rule

    This rule establishes a permanent security zone on all waters of
the Delaware River in the vicinity of Philadelphia International
airport, within an area bound to the west by a line drawn from the New
Jersey shoreline at Thompson Point, latitude 39[deg]50'37'' N,
longitude 75[deg]18'23'' W, thence northwest to the Pennsylvania
shoreline at latitude 39[deg]51'45'' N, longitude 75[deg]18'46'' W;
thence up river and bound shoreline to shoreline; bound to the east by
a line drawn from the New Jersey shoreline at latitude 39[deg]52'28''
N, longitude 75[deg]11'14'' W, and thence northwest to the Pennsylvania
shoreline near the eastern side of mouth to the Schuylkill River at
latitude 39[deg]53'05'' N, longitude 75[deg]11'34'' W; the security
zone extends north into the waters of Schuylkill River, bound from
shoreline to shoreline, including the waters of Schuylkill River
adjacent to the Navy Yard Reserve Basin Bridge, and terminates along a
line drawn from latitude 39[deg]54'04'' N, longitude 75[deg]12'56'' W,
thence eastward across the Schuylkill River to latitude 39[deg]54'07''
N, longitude 75[deg]12'48'' W, located approximately 500 yards
northwest and parallel with the George C. Platt Memorial--Penrose
Avenue lift-bridge. This security zone will be enforced with actual
notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as
other methods listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action is based on the security zone's size,
location, and duration. Although the security zone area covers a large
portion of the navigable waterways, mariners may request permission
from COTP Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay or the designated
representative to transit or remain in the security zone. Furthermore,
the duration of the security zone would not significantly impact
vessels because of the small amount of time it takes for protected VIP
to transit to or from the airport. Advance notifications will be made
to the local

maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, and MSIB so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received one comment from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a security zone generally lasting no more than 2 hours,
which will restrict vessels from anchoring or transiting in portions of
the Delaware River while protected VIPs arrive or depart from the
Philadelphia International Airport. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.558 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.558  Security Zone; Delaware River, and Schuylkill River,
Philadelphia, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
the Delaware River in the vicinity of Philadelphia International
Airport, within an area bound to the west by a line drawn from the New
Jersey shoreline at Thompson Point, latitude 39[deg]50'37'' N,
longitude 75[deg]18'23'' W, thence northwest to the Pennsylvania
shoreline at latitude 39[deg]51'45'' N, longitude 75[deg]18'46'' W;
thence up river and bound shoreline to shoreline; bound to the east by
a line drawn from the New Jersey shoreline at latitude 39[deg]52'28''
N, longitude 75[deg]11'14'' W, and thence northwest to the Pennsylvania
shoreline near the eastern side of mouth to the Schuylkill River at
latitude 39[deg]53'05'' N, longitude 75[deg]11'34'' W; the security
zone extends north into the waters of Schuylkill River, bound from
shoreline to shoreline, including the waters of Schuylkill River
adjacent to the Navy Yard Reserve Basin Bridge, and terminates along a
line drawn from latitude 39[deg]54'04'' N, longitude 75[deg]12'56'' W,
thence eastward across the Schuylkill River to latitude 39[deg]54'07''
N, longitude 75[deg]12'48'' W, located approximately 500 yards
northwest and

parallel with the George C. Platt Memorial--Penrose Avenue lift-bridge.
These coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on
his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official
patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via
VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessel assigned or approved
by the COTP.
    Very important person (VIP) means any person for whom the United
States Secret Service requests implementation of a security zone in
order to supplement protection of said person(s).
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations
contained in Sec.  [thinsp]165.33, entry into or movement within this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Sector Delaware Bay,
or designated representative.
    (2) Only vessels or people specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Delaware Bay, or designated representative, may enter or
remain in the regulated area. To request permission to enter or remain
in the regulated area contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on
VHF-FM channel 13 or 16. Vessel operators and persons within the
security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. No person may
swim upon or below the surface of the water of this security zone
unless authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the
designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other
means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to
comply with lawful direction may result in expulsion from the regulated
area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (d) Enforcement. This security zone will be enforced with actual
notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as
other methods listed in Sec.  165.7. The Coast Guard will enforce the
security zone created by this section only when it is necessary for the
protection of VIPs traveling to or from the Philadelphia International
Airport. The U.S. Coast Guard may be additionally assisted in the
patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.

    Dated: February 9, 2018.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2018-03217 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61779-61780]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0178, SEC File No. 270-173]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Extension:
    Rule 31a-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension.
    Rule 31a-1 (17 CFR 270.31a-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled ``Records to be
maintained by registered investment companies, certain majority-owned
subsidiaries thereof, and other persons having transactions with
registered investment companies.'' Rule 31a-1 requires registered
investment companies (``funds''), and every underwriter, broker,
dealer, or investment adviser that is a majority-owned subsidiary of a
fund, to maintain and keep current accounts, books, and other documents
which constitute the record forming the basis for financial statements
required to be filed pursuant to section 31 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-
30) and of the auditor's certificates relating thereto. The rule lists
specific records to be maintained by funds. The rule also requires
certain underwriters, brokers, dealers, depositors, and investment
advisers to maintain the records that they are required to maintain
under federal securities laws.
    There are approximately 3,964 investment companies registered with
the Commission, all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-1.
For purposes of determining the burden imposed by rule 31a-1, the
Commission staff estimates that each fund is divided into approximately
four series, on average, and that each series is required to comply
with the recordkeeping requirements of rule 31a-1. Based on
conversations with fund representatives, it is estimated that rule 31a-
1 imposes an average burden of approximately 1,750 hours annually per
series for a total of 7,000 annual hours per fund. The estimated total
annual burden for all 3,964 funds subject to the rule therefore is
approximately 27,748,000 hours. Based on conversations with fund
representatives, however, the Commission staff estimates that even
absent the requirements of rule 31a-1, 90 percent of the records
created pursuant to the rule are the type that generally would be
created as a matter of normal business practice and to prepare
financial statements. Thus, the Commission staff estimates that the
total annual burden associated with rule 31a-1 is 2,774,800 hours.

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. 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.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden(s)
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 24, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21541 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73395-73398]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0064; Notice 2]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (collectively,
``Mercedes-Benz'' or ``Petitioner'') have determined that certain model
year (MY) 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 motor vehicles do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, Power-
operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed
a noncompliance report dated May 11, 2020, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 3, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces the denial of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Smith, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2020
Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 motor vehicles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S6(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 118, Power-operated
Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems (49 CFR 571.118). Mercedes-
Benz filed a noncompliance report dated May 11, 2020, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 3, 2020, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on October 23, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85 FR 67604). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0064.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Mercedes-Benz stated that it determined that
22 MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 motor vehicles manufactured between
February 8, 2019, and September 20, 2019, do not meet the requirements
of FMVSS No. 118, S6(a)(1).
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance
is that the automatic reversal systems and actuation devices for the
sunroofs in the subject vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S6(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 118. Specifically, when the vehicle's ``car wash
mode'' is activated by using the central touch display in the center
console, the sunroof may close automatically.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 118 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. An actuation device must
not cause a window, partition, or roof panel to begin to close from any
open position when tested using a stainless steel sphere having a
surface finish between 8 and 4 micro inches and a radius of 20 mm
 0.2 mm, when the surface of the sphere is placed against
any portion of the actuation device.
    V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section are the views and arguments
provided by Mercedes-Benz and do not reflect the views of NHTSA.
Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Mercedes-Benz offers the following
reasoning:
    1. Mercedes-Benz alleges that ``due to their specific operating
parameters, even though the buttons used to activate car wash mode do
not meet the performance requirement of paragraph S6(a), the condition
does not create an increased safety risk.''
    2. First, Mercedes-Benz states, ``the car wash mode feature must
first be activated by the user. Car wash mode is not automatically
enabled unless and until the operator activates the feature by
affirmatively accepting the option and turning the feature on. Thus,
unless car wash mode is already active within the vehicle, the
condition described above cannot occur.''
    3. Mercedes-Benz further states, ``[o]nce the vehicle has
initialized car wash mode, the feature can only be activated through a
series of steps using either the vehicle's central touch display or
from a touchpad located in the center console. Activating car wash mode
is a multi-step process and the process varies depending on the current
menu contained on the display screen. For example, if car wash mode has
been programmed by the user inside the ``favorites'' menu, then a
series of two touches is needed to activate car wash mode. In all other
cases, the operator would first need to change the display screen to
the vehicle menu first and from there, navigate to the car wash mode
icon. In either case, car wash mode will not become active unless each
of these steps is executed in the corresponding order. Because of the
complexity involved in navigating through the required sequence of
events there is an extremely low likelihood of the car wash mode being
inadvertently activated in the first place.''
    4. Further, Mercedes-Benz claims ``the sunroofs in the subject
vehicles contain an auto-reverse feature. Upon detecting an object or
obstruction inside the sunroof, it will automatically stop and reverse
course and fully retract. While the sunroofs do not meet the
requirements of paragraph S5, Mercedes-Benz states that they are
certified to the European standard UN-R-21. The European standard
incorporates many of the performance features included in the automatic
reversal function contained in FMVSS No. 118, paragraph S5. The
sunroofs in the subject vehicles will automatically reverse prior to
exerting 100 Newtons of pinch force, and consistent with the options
provided at paragraph S5.2, the sunroof will either retract to a
position at least as wide as the initial position before closing or
will allow a 200-mm rod to be inserted in the gap.''
    5. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA ``has previously granted petitions
for inconsequential treatment for FMVSS No. 118 involving similar
circumstances and vehicle features. NHTSA granted a petition by General
Motors involving a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 118, paragraph S4(e),
where for 60 seconds after the vehicles are started, an issue with the
sunroof module would allow the sunroof to close via the control button
if the engine is turned off and a front door is opened. In that
instance, in order to activate the sunroof, a series of specific steps
must be taken in order and the steps must be completed within a 60-
second time frame. See General Motors Corporation, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 73 FR 22459 (April 25,
2008). In granting the petition, the Agency found that the potential
for entrapment in a power operated sunroof presented less of a risk of
entrapment than power-operated windows because, in general, sunroofs
are less physically accessible than power-operated windows. The
decision also focused on the presence of an auto-reverse feature, which
would reverse the movement of the sunroof before it exerted a pressure
of 100 Newtons. In granting the petition, the Agency noted the presence
of this auto-reverse feature as one that would further reduce the risk
of entrapment.''
    6. Mercedes-Benz further asserts that ``much like the conditions
present in the General Motors Corporation vehicles,

the noncompliance in the car wash mode feature of the subject vehicles
similarly does not create an increased safety risk. Assuming that the
function has been initialized by the operator, a series of specific and
coordinated steps must occur in order to activate car wash mode. If
those steps are not carried out in the precise order required, then the
car-wash mode program will not be activated. Even in the unlikely event
that the car wash mode function is inadvertently activated, there is no
enhanced risk of injury because of the sunroof auto-reverse feature.''
    Mercedes-Benz concludes by again contending that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, NHTSA has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has reviewed the Mercedes-Benz inconsequentiality petition
and does not concur with Mercedes-Benz's conclusion that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and is denying
Mercedes-Benz's petition.
    FMVSS 118 S6 sets performance requirements intended to mitigate the
potential for injury from a window or sunroof being inadvertently
closed when a person is in its path. Under the standard, the operating
controls may not allow a window, sunroof or partition to close when a
test sphere (simulating a child's knee) is pressed against the control.
Specifically, FMVSS No. 118 S6(a)(1) requires that ``an actuation
device must not cause a window, partition, or roof panel to begin to
close from any open position when tested . . . [u]sing a stainless
steel sphere having a surface finish between 8 and 4 micro inches and a
radius of 20 mm  0.2 mm, place the surface of the sphere
against any portion of the actuation device.''
    According to the Mercedes-Benz petition, ``the actuation devices
used to engage car wash mode do not meet the inadvertent activation
provisions of FMVSS No. 118 S6(a)(1).'' However, Mercedes-Benz argues
activating car-wash mode is a multi-step process and the process varies
depending on the current menu contained on the display screen of a
particular vehicle. After considering information provided by Mercedes-
Benz and from online descriptions of the system, NHTSA believes there
is a minimal level of complexity involved in navigating through the
required sequence of events to actuate and close the sunroof. The
controls at issue include those located on the console between the
front seats where a child could easily stand or kneel. Given the
unpredictable behavior of an unattended child, inadvertent selection of
the ``Quick Access'' or ``Favorite'' hard buttons, where the ``Car Wash
Mode'' icon can be located, is a foreseeable and appreciable risk. Car
Wash Mode can be programmed as the only selectable icon within the
``Favorite'' menu, increasing its susceptibility to accidental
engagement.
    In their petition, Mercedes-Benz states, ``the sunroofs in the
subject vehicles contain an auto-reverse feature. Upon detecting an
object or obstruction inside the sunroof, it will automatically stop
and reverse course and fully retract. While the sunroofs do not meet
the requirements of S5, they are certified to the European standard UN-
R-21. The European standard incorporates many of the performance
features included in the automatic reversal function contained in FMVSS
118, S5.'' NHTSA acknowledges that the sunroofs in the Mercedes-Benz
vehicles in question are compliant with UN-R-21, but Mercedes-Benz
concedes they do not comply with FMVSS 118 S5, NHTSA's regulations
governing automatic reversal systems. While UN-R-21 does provide a
level of safety, FMVSS 118 S5 provides a greater level of protection
from pinching injuries, particularly to smaller appendages like a
child's fingers.
    Finally, in the petition Mercedes-Benz claims the circumstances
here are analogous to the circumstances in a previous NHTSA
determination that

noncompliance was inconsequential. NHTSA considers each petition on its
own merits and the prior decision cited by the Petitioner has limited
applicability in this case. NHTSA believes the circumstances for
accidental window/sunroof closure involved in the cited General Motors
(GM) petition are significantly different than those required under
Mercedes-Benz current petition. In granting the GM petition, the agency
was persuaded that the high level of complexity involved in navigating
through the required sequence of events effectively eliminated any
entrapment risk, particularly the limited timeframe within which the
events would have to occur. Specifically, NHTSA stated, ``[i]t is very
unlikely that the entire sequence of events--starting the engine,
turning the engine off, opening a front door, a person becoming
positioned in the sunroof opening, and pushing the sunroof close
button--will occur in less than 60 seconds from the time the ignition
is turned off and the vehicle operator has exited the vehicle and left
the immediate area.'' General Motors, Decision Granting Petition for
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 73 FR 22459 (April 25, 2008). In
contrast, the noncompliance in the Mercedes-Benz petition does not
involve as great a level of complexity in the required sequence of
events that would lead to sunroof engagement. The Mercedes-Benz
petition states, in the subject vehicles, as few as two inputs to the
centralized control devices is sufficient to actuate and close the
sunroof, i.e., with Car Wash Mode included in the ``Favorites'' menu.
Furthermore, the touch screens at issue here remain activated
indefinitely until the vehicle is turned off or a user activates a
command. NHTSA therefore does not agree that the prior determination in
the GM case is analogous or persuasive here.
    Therefore, Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion and
for the reasons described herein NHTSA does not find that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis,
NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 118 noncompliance at issue is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby denied and
Mercedes-Benz is consequently obligated to provide notification of, and
a free remedy for, the noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Cem Hatipoglu,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-23528 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13489-13490]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0071]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption
Application From Waymo LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from Waymo
LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc. (Waymo/Aurora) for a 5-year exemption
from the required placement of warning devices around stopped
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs); the requirement that lamps for
warning devices be steady-burning; and the utilization of a warning
device for stopped vehicles not currently allowed by Agency rules. The
exemption sought would allow Waymo and Aurora to operate CMVs operated
by a Level 4 automated driving system (ADS) equipped with warning
beacons mounted on the truck cab in lieu of traditional warning devices
placed around a stopped autonomous CMV, as required by current
regulations. FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request
for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2023-0071 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
(FMCSA-2023-0071) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets
Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its exemption process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the
system of records notice DOT/ALL 14--FDMS, which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy, the comments are searchable by
the name of the submitter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards, FMCSA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2023-0071), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number ``FMCSA-2023-0071'' in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button, and type your
comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third
party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA
will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with
the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted,
the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The
notice must specify the effective period and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

III. Applicant's Request

    Waymo and Aurora seek an exemption from the regulations that
require specific placement of warning devices around a stopped CMV.
Waymo and Aurora believe it is possible to achieve the safety purpose
of the warning device in an alternative way by using forward- and
rearward-facing amber flashing lights mounted on the cab at a height
above the upper edge of the sideview mirrors. Waymo and Aurora each
separately tested variants of such devices and have concluded that the
use of the cab-mounted warning devices was equally or more effective in
enabling road users to recognize and react to the potential hazard
presented by the stopped CMV.
    Waymo and Aurora therefore request an exemption from the warning
device placement requirements of 49 CFR 392.22(b), the utilization of a
warning device that does not meet the steady-burning lamp requirement
of 49 CFR 393.25(e), and the utilization of a warning device for
stopped vehicles that is not currently identified in 49 CFR 393.95(f).
The exemption sought would allow motorcarriers to operate Waymo and
Aurora autonomous CMVs which come to a stop upon the traveled portion
or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic
stops, to utilize a warning device consisting of forward- and rearward-
facing cab mounted flashing amber lamps mounted at a height above the
upper edge of the sideview mirrors in lieu of the currently allowed
warning devices placed around the CMV, as described in 49 CFR
392.22(b).
    A copy of Waymo/Aurora's application for exemption and supporting
documentation is available for review in the docket for this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on Waymo and Aurora's application
for a 5-year exemption from the warning device placement requirements
of 49 CFR 392.22(b), the requirement that warning devices be steady
burning (49 CFR 393.25(e)), and the requirement that warning devices
comply with 49 CFR 393.95(f). All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this
notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the
docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed
in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-04385 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P