[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39092-39095]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15654]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92437; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the
Rules & Procedures of National Securities Clearing Corporation in
Connection With the Implementation of Section 1446(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986

July 19, 2021.
    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 July 14, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
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 clearing agency. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') \3\ of NSCC in connection with the
implementation of section 1446(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, that was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of
2017,\4\ and the Treasury Regulations or other official interpretations
thereunder, as in effect from time to time (collectively ``Section
1446(f)''), as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \4\ Public Law 115-97 (2017), section 864(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Rules in
connection with the implementation of Section 1446(f). The proposed
rule change also includes technical changes.
(i) Background
Section 1446(f) and Section 1446(f) Withholding
    Section 1446(f) was enacted on December 22, 2017, as part of the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,\5\ and the U.S. Treasury Department
(``Treasury Department'') finalized and issued various implementing
regulations on October 7, 2020,\6\ including the tax withholding
required pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.1446(f)-4(a) \7\
upon the transfer of an interest in a publicly traded partnership
(``Section 1446(f) Withholding''). It is NSCC's understanding that
Section 1446(f) Withholding is designed to ensure any non-U.S. person
(either individual or entity) appropriately files a U.S. federal income
tax return following the sale or disposition of its interest in certain
partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Withholding of Tax and Information Reporting With Respect to
Interests in Partnerships Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business, 85 FR
76910 (Nov. 30, 2020).
    \7\ 26 CFR 1.1446-4(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1446(f) generally imposes a ten percent (10%) withholding
tax on the payment of gross proceeds arising from the sale or other
disposition by a non-U.S. person of an interest in certain partnerships
that are engaged in a U.S. trade or business.\8\ In such a case, a tax
withholding obligation is imposed on the buyer of the partnership
interest, who is required to remit the withheld tax amount to the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service (``IRS''), unless or to the extent an
applicable exception applies.\9\ The buyer obligated to withhold the
10% tax is liable for any amount that it underwithheld, plus associated
interest and penalties.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ I.R.C. Section 1446(f).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2020, the IRS and Treasury Department issued final
regulations under Section 1446(f) (the ``Final Regulations''),\11\
which require Section 1446(f) Withholding on partnerships that are
publicly traded on exchanges (``PTPs'') in respect of transfers that
occur on or after January 1, 2022. The Final Regulations provided U.S.
clearing organizations, such as NSCC, an exemption from the obligation
to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding at this time.\12\ This
exemption is premised in part on the IRS and Treasury Department's
understanding that all of NSCC's non-U.S. Members are of the types of
entities that are permitted to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding
themselves.13 14 NSCC currently clears and settles all
transactions on a netted basis. If NSCC were required to perform
Section 1446(f) Withholding, NSCC would have to clear and settle
transfers

of PTP interest on a gross basis, which may be disruptive to the
efficiency and liquidity of the trading of PTP interests in the capital
markets, as noted in the Final Regulations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 6.
    \12\ See note 6, at 76922.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ The Final Regulations provided that if a direct clearing
member of a U.S. clearing organization is not of a type of entity
permitted to perform Section 1446(f) Withholding, the IRS and
Treasury Department will issue proposed guidance that would revise
the Final Regulations to require Section 1446(f) Withholding by U.S.
clearing organization on such direct clearing member. Id.
    \15\ See note 6, at 76922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, all of NSCC's non-U.S. Members are of the types of
entities permitted to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding
themselves either because (i) they are the types of entities allowed to
perform U.S. tax withholdings pursuant to applicable Treasury
Regulations or (ii) they have entered into the requisite agreements
with the IRS that allow them to perform U.S. tax withholdings (commonly
known as the Qualified Intermediary Agreements). Nearly all such
Members have historically accepted the responsibility to perform all
U.S. tax withholdings in respect of their NSCC accounts, and it is
NSCC's understanding that they would continue do the same for Section
1446(f) Withholding.
(ii) Proposed Rule Changes
    In order to comport with the legislative understanding underlying
the Section 1446(f) Withholding exemption, NSCC is proposing amendments
to its Rules to ensure that all NSCC FFI Members that are Members would
accept the responsibility to perform the Section 1446(f)
Withholding.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ It is NSCC's understanding that, based on the types of
services that NSCC provides to Limited Members, notwithstanding any
exemption, NSCC would not need to perform Section 1446(f)
Withholding with respect to Limited Members' activities at NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions)
    NSCC is proposing to add the following terms and definitions in
Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions), as described below.
    The term ``Section 1446(f)'' would mean section 1446(f) of the Code
and the related Treasury Regulations or other official interpretations
thereof, as in effect from time to time.
    The term ``Section 1446(f) Withholding'' would mean the tax
withholding required pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.1446(f)-
4(a), upon the transfer of an interest in a publicly traded
partnership. As defined, ``Section 1446(f) Withholding'' would not
apply to any tax withholding required on distributions made by such a
partnership.
    The term ``Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent'' would mean an FFI
Member that is a Member and has certified to NSCC that Section 1446(f)
Withholding would not apply to any Gross Credit Balance of such FFI
Member by providing to NSCC a Tax Certification (as defined below and
in the proposed rule text).
    The term ``Section 1446(f) Withholding Compliance Date'' would mean
January 1, 2022 or, if the commencement of Section 1446(f) Withholding
is delayed beyond January 1, 2022 under Section 1446(f), two calendar
months plus one calendar day before such delayed effective date.
    NSCC is proposing to delete ``FATCA Certification'' and replace it
with ``Tax Certification.'' As proposed, the term ``Tax Certification''
would mean an executed copy of the relevant tax form required by the
IRS, as in effect from time to time, that each Member and Limited
Member (or applicant to become such) shall provide from time to time to
NSCC as set forth under the Rules and Procedures.
    NSCC is also proposing two technical changes. First, NSCC is
proposing to delete ``FATCA Compliance Date'' from Rule 1 because it
would no longer be used in the Rules under the proposal. Second, NSCC
is proposing to delete the definition of ``Code'' that is currently
embedded within the definition of ``FATCA'' and add it as a standalone
definition entry in Rule 1 so that it can be readily identified.
Rule 2 (Members and Limited Members)
    NSCC is proposing to retitle Section 4(iii) of Rule 2 (Members and
Limited Members) from ``FATCA'' to ``FATCA and Section 1446(f).''
    NSCC is also proposing to delete a reference to FATCA Compliance
Date in the first paragraph of Section 4(iii) of Rule 2 because it is
no longer relevant given FATCA is already in effect. In addition, NSCC
is proposing to add a paragraph to Section 4(iii) of Rule 2 to require
that, beginning on the Section 1446(f) Withholding Compliance Date,
each FFI Member that is a Member must agree not to conduct any
transaction or activity through NSCC if such FFI Member is not a
Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent, unless such requirement has been
explicitly waived in writing by NSCC with respect to the specific FFI
Member.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NSCC may waive this requirement from time to time with
respect to a specific FFI Member if the FFI Member is unable to
satisfy the requirement due to unusual and/or extraordinary
circumstances, such as an unanticipated regulatory change in the tax
withholding requirement or if the FFI Member is rectifying an
unexpected change in its tax withholding status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NSCC is proposing to revise the last two paragraphs in
Section 4(iii) of Rule 2 by changing FATCA Certification to Tax
Certification, deleting a reference to FATCA, as well as adding
references to Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent. As revised, each FFI
Member is required to certify and periodically recertify to NSCC that
such FFI Member is FATCA Compliant and/or a Section 1446(f) Withholding
Agent, as applicable, by providing to NSCC a Tax Certification. In
addition, an FFI Member shall indemnify NSCC for any loss, liability or
expense sustained by NSCC as a result of such FFI Member failing to be
FATCA Compliant or a Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent.
Rule 2A (Initial Membership Requirements)
    NSCC is proposing to revise Section 1.B and 1.C of Rule 2A (Initial
Membership Requirements) by including a reference to Section 1446(f)
Withholding Agent and replacing FATCA Certification with Tax
Certification, respectively. As proposed, Section 1.B of Rule 2A would
provide that any applicant that shall be an FFI Member must be FATCA
Compliant and/or a Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent, as applicable. In
addition, as proposed, Section 1.C of Rule 2A would provide that, as
part of its membership application, each applicant shall complete and
deliver to NSCC a Tax Certification instead of a FATCA Certification.
NSCC is also proposing a technical change by deleting an extraneous
comma from Section 1.C of Rule 2A.
Rule 2B (Ongoing Membership Requirements and Monitoring)
    NSCC is proposing to revise Section 2.B.(c) of Rule 2B (Ongoing
Membership Requirements and Monitoring) by removing a reference to
FATCA Compliance Date because it is no longer relevant given FATCA is
already in effect. NSCC is also proposing to replace FATCA
Certification with Tax Certification in Section 2.B.(c)(i) of Rule 2B
and change two days to two calendar days in that section. Lastly, NSCC
is proposing to add a new sentence to Section 2.B.(c) of Rule 2B that
provides, beginning on the Section 1446(f) Withholding Compliance Date,
each FFI Member that is a Member shall inform NSCC, both orally and in
writing, if it has reason to know that it is not, or will not be, a
Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent within two calendar days of knowledge
thereof.
Rule 53 (Alternative Investment Product Services and Members)
    NSCC is proposing to revise Sections 1(d)(iv) and 5(e)(i) of Rule
53 (Alternative Investment Product Services and Members) by replacing
references of FATCA Certification with Tax Certification. In addition,
NSCC is

proposing to retitle Section 5(e) of Rule 53 as ``Tax Considerations--
AIP Settling Sub-Accounts.''
Addendum O (Admission of Non-U.S. Entities as Direct NSCC Members)
    NSCC is proposing to revise Addendum O (Admission of Non-U.S.
Entities as Direct NSCC Members) to include requirements associated
with Section 1446(f) Withholding. As proposed, NSCC would require each
non-U.S. entity that is applying to become a Member or certain Limited
Member to (i) agree not to conduct any transaction or activity through
NSCC if the non-U.S. entity is not FATCA Compliant and/or is not a
Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent, as applicable and (ii) indemnify
NSCC for any loss, liability or expense sustained by NSCC as a result
of the non-U.S. entity failing to be FATCA Compliant or a Section
1446(f) Withholding Agent. NSCC is also proposing to retitle the second
bullet in Addendum O to ``FACTA Compliance, Section 1446(f)
Withholding, and Tax Certification.'' In addition, NSCC is proposing to
remove the reference to FATCA Compliance Date from the second bullet in
Addendum O because it is no longer relevant given FATCA is already in
effect. Furthermore, NSCC is proposing to revise the second bullet in
Addendum O by (i) adding references to Section 1446(f) Withholding
Compliance Date and Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent and (ii)
replacing FATCA Certification with Tax Certification. As proposed, the
second bullet in Addendum O would provide, in part, that each non-U.S.
entity that is applying to become a Member or certain Limited Member
must be at all times FATCA Compliant and, beginning on the Section
1446(f) Withholding Compliance Date, be a Section 1446(f) Withholding
Agent, if applicable, and must certify and recertify to NSCC that it is
FATCA Compliant and/or a Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent, as
applicable, by providing to NSCC a Tax Certification, unless such
requirements have been explicitly waived in writing by NSCC.
(iii) Member Outreach
    Beginning in December 2020, NSCC conducted ongoing outreach to non-
U.S. Members that are not currently performing U.S. tax withholding in
order to provide them with notice of the proposed changes. As of the
date of this filing, no written comments relating to the proposed
changes have been received in response to this outreach. The Commission
will be notified of any written comments received.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes this proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
\18\ of the Act for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.\19\ NSCC believes that the proposed rule
change to amend the Rules in connection with the implementation of
Section 1446(f) is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
This is because the proposed rule change is designed to ensure that all
NSCC FFI Members that are Members would accept the responsibility to
perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding, consistent with the
understanding of the IRS and Treasury Department as expressed in the
Final Regulations.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See note 6, at 76922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, the Final Regulations provided NSCC an
exemption from the obligation to perform Section 1446(f) Withholding at
this time.\21\ However, the Final Regulations also provided that if a
direct clearing member of a U.S. clearing organization is not of a type
of entity permitted to perform Section 1446(f) Withholding, the IRS and
Treasury Department will issue proposed guidance that would revise the
Final Regulations to require Section 1446(f) Withholding by U.S.
clearing organization, such as NSCC, on such direct clearing
member.\22\ If the IRS and Treasury Department were to revise the Final
Regulations and revoke NSCC's exemption, NSCC would be required to
clear and settle each transfer of PTP interest on a gross basis in
order to perform Section 1446(f) Withholding on such transfer. Given
that NSCC currently clears and settles all transactions on a netted
basis, if NSCC has to clear and settle transfers of PTP interest on a
gross basis, it may be disruptive to the efficiency and liquidity of
the trading of PTP interests in the capital markets, as noted in the
Final Regulations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Supra note 14.
    \23\ See note 6, at 76922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with the understanding of the IRS and
Treasury Department which NSCC's Section 1446(f) exemption was premised
upon,\24\ NSCC is proposing that, unless waived by NSCC, beginning on
the Section 1446(f) Withholding Compliance Date, each FFI Member that
is a Member would have to agree not to conduct any transaction or
activity through NSCC if such FFI Member is not a Section 1446(f)
Withholding Agent. In addition, each FFI Member that is a Member would
have to provide periodic certifications to NSCC regarding its Section
1446(f) Withholding Agent status. Taken together, these requirements
would help to ensure that all NSCC FFI Members that are Members would
accept their responsibility to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding
(i.e., be a Section 1446(f) Withholding Agent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By ensuring that all NSCC FFI Members that are Members would accept
their responsibility to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding, NSCC
believes it would minimize the likelihood that the IRS and Treasury
Department would revise the Final Regulations to revoke NSCC's Section
1446(f) exemption. Having the IRS and the Treasury Department continue
to exempt NSCC from Section 1446(f) Withholding would enable NSCC to
continue to clear and settle all transactions (including transfers of
PTP interest) on a netted basis and avoid any potential disruption to
the efficiency and liquidity of the trading of PTP interests in the
capital market. By avoiding any potential disruption to the efficiency
and liquidity of the trading of PTP interest in the capital market, the
proposed rule change would help to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of transactions. As such, NSCC believes the
proposed rule change to amend the Rules in connection with the
implementation of Section 1446(f) is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes the proposal to make technical changes to the Rules
is also consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\26\ The
proposed technical changes to the Rules would help ensure that the
Rules remain accurate and clear to Members. Having accurate and clear
Rules would help Members to better understand their rights and
obligations regarding NSCC's clearance and settlement services. NSCC
believes that when Members better understand their rights and
obligations regarding NSCC's clearance and settlement services, they
can act in accordance with the Rules. NSCC believes that better
enabling Members to comply with the Rules would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by NSCC.
As such, NSCC believes the proposal to make technical

changes to the Rules is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change to amend the Rules in
connection with the implementation of Section 1446(f) could impose a
burden on competition because the change could impose a cost on firms
that currently do not do U.S. tax withholding by requiring them to
perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding by the Section 1446(f)
Withholding Compliance Date. However, NSCC believes any such burden is
necessary and appropriate. Specifically, NSCC believes that any burden
on competition that is created by the proposed rule change would be
necessary in furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act. As described above, the proposed rule change is designed to ensure
that all NSCC FFI Members that are Members would accept the
responsibility to perform the Section 1446(f) Withholding, consistent
with the understanding of the IRS and Treasury Department as expressed
in the Final Regulations.\28\ By ensuring that all NSCC FFI Members
that are Members would accept their responsibility to perform the
Section 1446(f) Withholding, NSCC believes it would minimize the
likelihood that the IRS and Treasury Department would revise the Final
Regulations to revoke NSCC's Section 1446(f) exemption. Having the IRS
and the Treasury Department continue to exempt NSCC from Section
1446(f) Withholding would enable NSCC to continue to clear and settle
all transactions (including transfers of PTP interest) on a netted
basis and avoid any potential disruption to the efficiency and
liquidity of the trading of PTP interests in the capital market. By
avoiding any potential disruption to the efficiency and liquidity of
the trading of PTP interest in the capital market, the proposed rule
change would help to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\29\ NSCC also believes that any burden that is created by the
proposed rule change would be appropriate. This is because the proposed
change would be limited to Section 1446(f) Withholding and associated
certification and is also consistent with the understanding of the IRS
and Treasury Department as expressed in the Final Regulations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See note 6, at 76922.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \30\ See note 6, at 76922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC does not believe the proposal to make technical changes to the
Rules would impact competition. The changes would apply equally to all
Members and would not affect Members' rights and obligations. As such,
NSCC believes the proposal to make technical changes to the Rules would
not have any impact on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

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

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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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-NSCC-2021-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-009 and should be submitted on
or before August 13, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15654 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Varies with plant species selected.  Six-inch diameter plastic pots are typical.  Flats are also encouraged
Number of seeds per test chamber (pot)
Varies with species and test chamber (pot) size
Number of replicates per test treatment
4 (minimum)
Number of seeds per test treatment
40 (minimum)
Test treatment levels
Unless performing limit test, minimum of 5 treatment levels plus appropriate controls
Test substance application method
Applied to soil surface immediately after planting seeds (i.e. within the day)
Measures of effect or measurement endpoints
EC25 and NOEC (or EC05) for each of percent emergence and percent survival
IC25 and NOEC (or IC05) for each of shoot length and shoot weight
(h) Test validity elements.  This test would be considered to be unacceptable or invalid if one or more of the conditions in Table 4 did not occur or one or more performance objectives in Table 3 were not met.  This list should not be misconstrued as limiting the reason(s) that a test could be found unacceptable or invalid.  However, except for the conditions listed in Table 4 and in OCSPP 850.4000, it is unlikely that a study will be rejected when there are slight variations from guideline environmental conditions and study design unless the control organisms are significantly affected, the precision of the test is reduced, the power of a test to detect differences is reduced, and/or significant biases are introduced in defining the magnitude of effect on measurement endpoints as compared to guideline conditions.  Before departing significantly from this guideline, the investigator should contact the Agency to discuss the reason for the departure and the effect the change(s) will have on test acceptability.  In the test report, all departures from the guideline should be identified, reasons for these changes given, and any resulting effects on test endpoints noted and discussed.
	Table 4. -- Test Validity Elements for the Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mean control seedling survival is at least 90% at test termination.

2. Control seedlings do not contain any visible phytotoxic symptoms during the test that are the same as due to the test substance.

3. For a given test species, all seeds used in the test are from the same source and lot number.

4. All test chambers (including soil medium) used for a particular species are identical.

5. A negative (untreated) control [and solvent (or vehicle) control, when a solvent was used] is included in the test.

6. The lowest test concentration level was lower than the most sensitive effect EC25 and IC25.

7.  If pesticides are used for pest control during the test, additional test data was submitted to document that the pesticide used was not toxic to the test species and that there were no synergistic or antagonistic interactions with the test substance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  The water carrier used at the time of test substance application did not excessively exceed the amount of water on the label (gallon per acre).

(i) Reporting--
      (1) Background information.  Background information to be supplied in the report consists at a minimum of those background information items listed in paragraph (j)(1) of OCSPP 850.4000.
      (2) Guideline deviations.  Provide a statement of the guideline or protocol followed.  Include a description of any deviations from the test guideline or any occurrences which may have influenced the results of the test.
	(3) Test substance.
            (i) Identification of the test substance:  common name, IUPAC and CAS names, CAS number, structural formula, source, lot or batch number, chemical state or form of the test substance, and its purity (i.e. for pesticides, the identity and concentration of active ingredient(s)).
            (ii) Storage conditions of the test chemical or test substance and stability of the test chemical or test substance under storage conditions if stored prior to use.
            (iii) Methods of preparation of the test substance and the treatment doses used in the range-finding and definitive test, or limit test.
            (iv) If a vehicle (e.g., solvent) is used to prepare stock or test substance provide: the name and source of the vehicle, the nominal concentration(s) of the vehicle in stock solutions or mixtures, and the vehicle dose(s) used in the treatments.
	(4) Plant test species.
      (i) Scientific and common name, plant family, and variety.
		(ii) Test date of germination rating and germination percentage.
            (iii) History of the seed: source, name of supplier, seed year or growing season collected, batch or lot number, seed treatment(s), and storage conditions.
		(iv) Seed size class.
		(v) Description of handling and processing of seeds before use in test.
      (5) Test system and conditions.  Description of the test system and conditions used in the definitive or limit test, and any preliminary range-finding tests.
            (i) Location of testing, and if not a field plot study the type of growth chamber or greenhouse.
      	(ii) For small field plot testing describe the plot design: size of field plots, number of control and experiment plots, the number of plots per treatment and control, the plot lay-out, the number of seeds in each plot.
      	(iii) For greenhouse or growth chambers the description of pots/flats: type, material, and dimensions.
      	(iv) Number of seeds per pot/flat.
      	(v) Number of pots or flats per replicate, and number of replicates per treatment level.
      	(vi) Description of the support medium: source, soil type designation, pH, percent organic matter, type and amounts of soil amendments.
      	(vii) Volume of soil per pot or test container.
      	(viii) Methods used for treatment randomization and impartial assignment of seeds to test plots, pots, and/or flats.
      	(ix) Method of test substance application: equipment type, equipment design, method for calibrating the application equipment, dose levels, volume of dosing solution applied.
      	(x) Date of test substance application and test duration.
      	(xi) Culture practices during the test such as cultivation, pest control, and irrigation practices (type and watering schedule or regime).
      	(xii) The photoperiod and light source.
      	(xiii) Methods and frequency of environmental monitoring performed during the definitive or limit study for air temperature, humidity, and light intensity and additionally for field plot tests rainfall and cloud cover.
      	(xiv) For the definitive, or limit test, all analytical procedures should be described.  The accuracy of the method, method detection limit, and limit of quantification should be given.
	(6) Results.
            (i) Environmental monitoring data results (air temperature, humidity and light intensity) in tabular form (provide raw data for measurements not made on a continuous basis), and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
      	(ii) For preliminary range-finding tests, if conducted, the number of emerged seedlings, survival, and shoot length and weight, if measured, at each dose level and in the control(s).  A description and count of plants with visual phytotoxic effects, if recorded, at each dose level and in the control(s).
      	(iii) For a limit test, tabulate for the limit concentration and the control by replicate, the number of seeds exposed at test initiation, the number of emerged seedlings, the number of surviving and number of dead emerged seedlings at each observation time, and the shoot length for each individual plant and biomass at test termination (provide the raw data).
      	(iv) For the definitive test, tabulation by treatment and replicate of the number of emerged seedlings, number of surviving and number of dead emerged seedlings, plant length for each individual plant and total plant biomass (provide the raw data).
      	(v) For the limit and definitive tests, tabulation by treatment of the percent reduction in mean length, biomass, and survival as compared to control plants at test termination.
      	(vi) For the limit and definitive test, a description of visual (morphological) signs of phytotoxicity including: time of onset, duration, severity (e.g. rank), and number affected at each dose level and control(s) (provide the raw data).  A description of the phytotoxicity rating system used should be included.
      	(vii) Graphs of the dose-response data for percent emerged, percent survival, shoot length and weight at test termination.
      	(viii) For a limit test, provide the results of hypothesis tests.
      	(ix) For the limit test, provide a description of the statistical methods used including software package, and the basis for the choice of method.
      	(x) For the definitive study and for those effect measures (emerged, survival, shoot length and weight) with data sufficient to fit a concentration-response relationship, tabulation of the slope of the dose-response curve and its standard error and 95% confidence limits and any goodness of fit results.
      	(xi) For the definitive test, provide table of EC25 values for percent emergence and percent survival and IC25 values for plant length and plant biomass.
      	(xii) For the definitive test, a tabulation of the NOEC and LOEC for each measure of effect (percent emergence, percent survival, plant length, and plant biomass).  The EC05 or IC05 should be reported for effect measure data where an NOEC could not be determined.
      	(xiii) Description of statistical method(s) used for point estimates, including software package, for determining EC25 and IC25 values, fitting the dose-response model, and the basis for the choice of method.  Provide results of any goodness-of-fit tests.
      	(xiv) Description of statistical method(s) used for NOEC and LOEC determination, including software package, and the basis for the choice of method.  If an EC05 or IC05 value is used in place of a NOEC provide a description of statistical method(s) used for point estimates, including software package, for determining EC05 and IC05 values, fitting the dose-response model, and the basis for the choice of method.  Provide results of any goodness-of-fit tests.
(j) References.  The following references should be consulted for additional background material on this test guideline.
	(1) American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 1963-02. Standard guide for conducting terrestrial plant toxicity tests. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.  Current edition approved December 10, 2002.
	(2) Bruce, R.D. and D.J. Versteeg. 1992. A statistical procedure for modeling continuous toxicity data.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:1485-1494.
	(3) Gulley, D.D. et al., 1989. Toxstat Release 3.0. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
	(4) Hatzios, K.K. and D. Penner, (1985). Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1-63.
	(5) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  2006.  New Test Guideline (Section 2- Effects On Biotic Systems), 227, Terrestrial Plant Test: Vegetative Vigour Test, 21pp.; Revised Test Guideline (Section 2), 208, Terrestrial Plant Test: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test, 21pp.  Both guidelines adopted on 19 July 2006 and published as part of the 17th Addendum to the OECD Guidelines For the Testing of Chemicals, 972006131, ISBN 92-64-01553-1.
	(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982.  Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision J Hazard Evaluation: Nontarget Plants.  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.  EPA 540/9-82-020, October 1982.
	(7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.  Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure, Nontarget Plants: Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence - Tiers 1 and 2.  Office of Pesticides Programs, Washington, D.C.  EPA 540/9-86-132, June 1986.
	(8) VanEwijk, P.H. and J.A. Hoekstra, 1993. Calculation of the EC50 and its confidence interval when a subtoxic stimulus is present.  Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 25:25-32.
(k) References to Table 2.  The references in this section are cited in Table 2 in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this guideline.  (Table 2 and the references are from Annex 3 in references given in paragraph (j)(5) of this guideline.)
	(1) Baskin, C.C. & Baskin, J.M.  1998.  Seeds.  Academic Press, Toronto
	(2) Blackburn, L.G. & Boutin, C.  2003.  Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically modified crops: a case study with glyphosate (Round-Up).  Ecotoxicology, 12:271-285.
	(3) Boutin, C., Lee, H-B., Peart, T., Batchelor, P.S., & Maguire, R.J.  2000.  Effects of the sulfonylurea herbicide metsulfuron methyl on growth and reproduction of five wetland and terrestrial plant species.  Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 19(10):2532-2541.
	(4) Boutin, C., Elmegaard, N., & Kjaer, C.  2004.  Toxicity testing of fifteen non-crop  plant species with six herbicides in a greenhouse experiment: implications for risk assessment.  Ecotoxicology, 13:349-369.
	(5) Breeze, V., Thomas, G., & Butler, R.  1992.  Use of a model and toxicity data to predict the risks to some wild plant species from drift of four herbicides.  Annals of Applied Biology, 121:669-677.
	(6) Brown, R.A., & Farmer, D.  1991.  Track-sprayer and glasshouse techniques for terrestrial plant bioassays with pesticides.  In:  Plants for toxicity assessment: 2nd volume.  ASTM STP 1115, J.W. Gorsuch, W.R. Lower, W.Wang, & M.A. Lewis, eds.  American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia.  pp 197  -  208.
	(7) Buhler, D.D. & Hoffman, M.L.  1999.  Anderson's guide to practical methods of propagating weeds and other plants.  Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, K.
	(8) Clapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G., & Warburg, E.F.  1981.  Excursion flora of the British Isles, 3rd ed.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
	(9) Clay, P.A. & Griffin, J.L.  2000.  Weed seed production and seedling emergence response to late-season glyphosate applications.  Weed Science, 48:481-486.
	(10) Cole, J.F.H. & Canning, L.  1993.  Rationale for the choice of species in the regulatory testing of the effects of pesticides on terrestrial non-target plants.  BCPC  -  Weeds.  pp. 151  -  156.
	(11) Fiely, M. (Ernst Conservation Seeds).  2004.  Personal communication. (www.ernstseed.com)
	(12) Fletcher, J.S., Johnson, F.L., & McFarlane, J.C.  1990.  Influence of greenhouse versus filed testing and taxonomic differences on plant sensitivity to chemical treatment.  Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 9:769-776.
	(13) Fletcher, J.S., Pfleeger, T.G., Ratsch, H.C., & Hayes, R.  1996.  Potential impact of low levels of chlorsulfuron and other herbicides on growth and yield of nontarget plants.  Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 15(7):1189-1196.
	(14) Flynn, S., Turner, R.M., and Dickie, J.B.  2004.  Seed Information Database (release 6.0, Oct 2004)  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/data/sid
	(15) Franzaring, J., Kempenaar, C., & van der Eerden, L.J.M.  2001.  Effects of vapors of chlorpropham and ethofumesate on wild plant species.  Environmental Pollution, 114:21-28.
	(16) Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A.  1991.  Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd ed.  New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY
	(17) Grime, J.P.  1981.  The role of seed dormancy in vegetation dynamics.  Annals of Applied Biology, 98:555-558.
	(18) Grime, J.P., Mason, G., Curtis, A.V., Rodman, J., Band, S.R., Mowforth, M.A.G., Neal, A.M., & Shaw, S.  1981.  A comparative study of germination characteristics in a local flora.  Journal of Ecology, 69:1017-1059.
	(19) Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G., & Hunt, R.  1988.  Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species.  Unwin Hyman Ltd., London
	(20) Kjaer, C.  1994.  Sublethal effects of chlorsulfuron on black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus L.).  Weed Research, 34:453-459.
	(21) Klingaman, T.E., King, C.A., & Oliver, L.R.  1992.  Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity.  Weed Science, 40:227-232.
	(22) Marrs, R.H., Williams, C.T., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A.  1989.  Assessment of the effects of herbicide spray drift on a range of plant species of conservation interest.  Environmental Pollution, 59:71-86.
	(23) Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A.  1991.  Effects of herbicide spray drift on selected species of nature conservation interest: the effects of plant age and surrounding vegetation structure.  Environmental Pollution, 69:223-235.
	(24) Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., & Plant, R.A.  1991.  Effects of mecoprop drift on some plant species of conservation interest when grown in standardized mixtures in microcosms.  Environmental Pollution, 73:25-42.
	(25) Marrs, R.H., Frost, A.J., Plant, R.A., & Lunnis, P.  1993.  Determination of buffer zones to protect seedlings of non-target plants from the effects of glyphosate spray drift.  Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment, 45:283-293.
	(26) Marrs, R.H. & Frost, A.J.  1997.  A microcosm approach to detection of the effects of herbicide spray drift in plant communities.  Journal of Environmental Management, 50:369-388.
	(27) Marshall, E.J.P. & Bernie, J.E.  1985.  Herbicide effects on field margin flora.  BCPC  -  Weeds.  pp.  1021-1028.
	(28) McKelvey, R.A., Wright, J.P., & Honegger, J.L.  2002.  A comparison of crop and non-crop plants as sensitive species for regulatory testing.  Pest Management Science, 58:1161-1174.
	(29) Morton, S.  (Herbiseed).  2004.  Personal communication.  (www.herbiseed.com)
	(30) USDA, NRCS.  2004.  The Plants Database, version 3.5.  (http://plants.usda.gov).  National Plant Data Centre, Baton Rouge, LA  70874-4490 USA
	(31) USEPA.  1999.  One-Liner Database. [U.S. E.P.A./Office of Pesticides Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Epidemiology Branch].
	(32) Webster, R.H.  1979.  Technical Report No. 56: Growing weeds from seeds and other propagules for experimental purposes.  Agricultural Research Council Weed Research Organization, Oxford.
	(33) White, A. & Boutin, C.  (National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment Canada).  2004.  Personal communication.
	(34) Zwerger, P. & Pestemer, W.  2000.  Testing the phytotoxic effects of herbicides on higher terrestrial non-target plants using a plant life-cycle test.  Z.  PflKrankh.  PflSchutz, Sonderh., 17:711-718.


[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 35730]
[DOCID:fr21jn06-167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-53937; File No. S7-10-06]
RIN 3235-AJ56

Amendments to Plan of Organization and Operation Effective During
Emergency Conditions

Correction

    In rule document 06-5232 beginning on page 33384 in the issue of
Friday, June 9, 2006, make the following correction:

Sec.  200.200  [Corrected]

    On page 33386, in the third column, in Sec.  200.200, in amendatory
instruction b, in the first and second lines ````to read'' ``emergency
conditions,'''' should read ````a national emergency'' to read
``emergency conditions,''''.

[FR Doc. C6-5232 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31872-31879]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0054]
RIN 1625-AA97

Waiver for Marking Sunken Vessels With a Light at Night

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rulemaking would revise Coast Guard regulations
to

implement section 301 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2004. This Act authorized the Commandant to waive the statutory
requirement to mark sunken vessels with a light at night if the
Commandant determines that placing a light would be impractical and
waiving the requirement would not create an undue hazard to navigation.
The Commandant has delegated to the Coast Guard District Commander in
whose district the sunken vessel is located the authority to grant this
waiver.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before July 29, 2013
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by Coast Guard docket number
USCG-2012-0054 and may be submitted using any one of the following
methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Waiver of Lighted Buoy Provision
    B. Organizational and Clarifying Edits
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0054), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide the reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2012-0054'' in the ``Search'' box. Locate this notice in
the results, click on ``Submit a Comment,'' and follow the instructions
to submit your comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] 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.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert ``USCG-2012-0054'' in the ``Search'' box, and locate this notice
in the search results. Use the filters on the left side of the page to
view comments and other documents. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise its regulations in 33 CFR part
64, which prescribe rules relating to the marking of structures, sunken
vessels and other obstructions for the protection of maritime
navigation. These regulations apply to all sunken vessels in the
navigable waters or waters above the continental shelf of the United
States. Current regulations in 33 CFR 64 require an owner of a vessel,
raft, or other craft that is wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel to
immediately mark it with a buoy or a beacon during the day and a light
at night, and maintain the markings until the wreck is removed.
(Current wording uses the phrase ``buoy or daymark,'' which we are
replacing with ``buoy or beacon'' in this subpart. This is a more
precise phrase encompassing floating and fixed aides to navigation.)
There are no provisions for exemptions to this regulation. However, if,
due to conditions of the waterway, the Coast Guard determines that
marking the wreck with a light is impracticable and that not marking
the

wreck does not pose an undue hazard to navigation, the Commandant is
authorized by statute to grant a waiver from the lighting requirement.
Such a waiver could save owners the cost of marking sunken vessels with
a light without jeopardizing navigational safety.
    For that reason, the primary purpose of this proposed rulemaking is
to add to the regulations a provision in section 301 of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (``the Act'') (Pub. L. 108-
293), codified at 33 U.S.C. 409, that authorizes the Commandant to
waive the requirement to mark a sunken vessel, raft, or other craft
with a light at night if the Commandant determines it would be
``impracticable and granting such a waiver would not create an undue
hazard to navigation.'' The Commandant has delegated to the District
Commander the authority to grant this waiver. (See Aids to Navigation
Manual-Administration (COMDTINST M16500.7A)).
    In addition, the Coast Guard believes that this rulemaking is a
good opportunity to make editorial and organizational changes to 33 CFR
part 64 subpart B to make the regulations clearer to the regulated
industry.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing two different areas of changes to 33
CFR part 64. The first change, discussed above, is the addition of a
provision allowing owners of sunken vessels, rafts, and other craft to
request a waiver from the requirement to mark the sunken vessel with a
light at night. Additionally, we are proposing some organizational and
clarifying edits to 33 CFR 64.11 to improve readability.

A. Waiver of Lighted Buoy Provision

    Under the current requirement in 33 CFR 64.11(a) (and 64.16), all
owners and operators of vessels sunk in navigational channels must
place and maintain either a lighted buoy or a fixed light over the
wreck until the wreck is removed. However, this requirement has created
some problems for owners and operators of sunken vessels in the past.
In certain waterways, particularly in the Western rivers, the light may
become disabled repeatedly due to environmental conditions or the
conditions of the waterway, forcing the owner or operator of the sunken
vessel to undertake multiple maintenance trips to repair the light
before the wreck is removed, which can become costly. Furthermore, as a
lighted buoy is generally heavier than an unlighted one, the presence
of the light can actually increase the probability that the buoy
becomes submerged, negating its effectiveness both by day and night.
Similarly, fixed lights marking the wreck can be damaged by
environmental conditions. Being able to grant waivers for the lighting
requirement, in cases where installing a lighted buoy or fixed light
would be impracticable, would provide a relief of burden for owners and
operators of sunken vessels without posing undue hazards to navigation.
    Given that the Coast Guard now has the statutory authority to do so
based on Section 301 of the Act, we are proposing to amend the
regulations in 33 CFR 64.11 and 64.13 to include provisions for
requesting and granting such a waiver for marking a sunken vessel,
raft, or other craft.
    We propose to add in paragraph (a) of 33 CFR 64.13 a provision that
an owner and/or operator of a sunken vessel seeking a waiver of the
requirement to mark a wreck with a light at night may make a request to
the District Commander in whose district the sunken vessel is located.
Similarly, paragraph (b) would be added to allow the District Commander
to waive the marking of a wreck with a light at night. As per the
requirements of Section 301 of the Act, the District Commander would
have to determine that marking the sunken vessel with a lighted buoy or
a fixed light would be impractical, and that granting a waiver from
that requirement would not cause an undue hazard to navigation. A
reference to the waiver provision would also be added to 33 CFR
64.11(a). We are also including information about how to contact the
District Commander.

B. Organizational and Clarifying Edits

    In order to improve readability, the Coast Guard proposes some
additional minor wording and organizational edits to 33 CFR 64.11 and
64.13.
     As stated above, we propose to place the waiver provisions
in Sec.  64.13. To accommodate that, we propose to redesignate existing
paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec.  64.13 as (g) and (h), respectively, in
Sec.  64.11. This will locate all of the marking requirements in Sec.
64.11.
     We are breaking the existing Sec.  64.11(a) into two
paragraphs to reflect its two components. The first sentence, relating
to vessels sunk in navigable channels, remains as Sec.  64.11(a), and
now includes a reference to the waiver provision.
     The second sentence of the current Sec.  64.11(a) would be
designated as Sec.  64.11(b), which relates to the marking of sunken
vessels outside of navigable channels that still pose a hazard to
navigation.
     We are moving the reportable information requirements from
Sec.  64.11(b) to Sec.  64.11(c) and (d), which relate to any
information about sunken vessels or obstructions reported to the Coast
Guard, and clarifying them. The Coast Guard proposes to slightly amend
the four reporting requirements relating to sunken hazards to be more
specific about the information they require. For example, in proposed
Sec.  64.11(c)(1) instead of merely requiring a ``name and
description,'' we are proposing to require ``name and description, . .
. including type and size.'' The existing and proposed citation for
each of the requirements is listed in Table 1 below.

                            Table 1--Existing and Proposed Requirements and Citations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Proposed reporting
   Current reporting requirement        Existing  citation            requirement           Proposed  citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and description of the sunken   64.11(b)(1)............  Name and description of     64.11(c)(1).
 vessel.                                                       the sunken vessel, raft,
                                                               or other craft, including
                                                               type and size.
Accurate description of the          64.11(b)(2)............  Accurate description of     64.11(c)(2).
 location of the vessel.                                       the location of the
                                                               sunken vessel, raft, or
                                                               other craft, including
                                                               how the position was
                                                               determined.
Depth of water over the vessel.....  64.11(b)(3)............  Water depth...............  64.11(c)(3).
Location and type of marking         64.11(b)(4)............  Location and type of        64.11(c)(4).
 established, including color and                              marking established,
 shape of buoy or other daymark and                            including color and shape
 characteristic of the light.                                  of buoy or other beacon
                                                               and characteristic of the
                                                               light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Paragraphs (c) and (d) in Sec.  64.11 have been
redesignated to (e) and (f), respectively.
     We are substituting the term ``owners and/or operators''
for the term ``owners'' in the proposed regulations with regard to
sunken vessels. We believe that this would help to ensure full and
prompt compliance with the regulations in the event that a non-owner is
operating the vessel at the time of sinking.
     We are substituting the term ``vessel, raft, or other
craft'' for the term ``vessel'' to ensure that all sunken craft are
accounted for.
     We are replacing instances of the word ``shall'' with
``must'' to improve readability.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on statutes and executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    A draft regulatory assessment follows: Current regulations in 33
CFR 64.11(a) require an owner of a vessel, raft, or other craft that is
wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel to immediately mark it with a
buoy or a beacon during the day and a light at night, and maintain the
markings until the wreck is removed. There are no provisions for
exemptions to this regulation. However, if the Coast Guard determines
that marking the wreck with a light at night is impracticable and does
not pose an undue hazard to navigation, the Commandant is authorized to
grant a waiver from the lighting requirement. Such a waiver would
benefit owners of sunken vessels without jeopardizing navigational
safety. Table 2 summarizes the cost and benefits of the proposed rule.

                 Table 2--Summary of Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                          Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..........................  Owner/operator of a vessel sunk
                                          in navigable channels that
                                          request a waiver from the
                                          requirement to provide a
                                          lighted marker if providing an
                                          unlighted marker does not
                                          create a hazard to navigation.
Affected population....................  6 sunken vessels per year.
Industry Annualized costs (7% discount   $217 per year.
 rate).
Government Annualized Costs (7%          $1,140 per year.
 discount rate).
Total Annualized Cost of the Proposed    $1,357 per year.
 Rule (7% discount).
Benefits...............................  Cost savings due to waiver of
                                          requirement that the marker
                                          have a light. Improved clarity
                                          and readability for existing
                                          information requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Baseline Industry Behavior
    The Coast Guard proposes to revise its regulations requiring the
owner of a wrecked vessel to mark the vessel with a light at night.
Existing regulations require an owner of a vessel, raft, or other craft
that is wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel to immediately mark it
with a buoy or a beacon during the day and with a light at night, and
maintain the markings until the wreck is removed.
    The proposed revision would implement a provision in the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 that authorizes the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, under certain circumstances, to waive
the requirement to mark wrecked vessels with a light at night. The
proposed change would permit a waiver to be granted if the District
Commander determines the placement of a light would be impractical and
granting a waiver will not create an undue hazard to navigation. The
proposed rule also makes certain edits in order to improve readability
and clarify existing information requirements.
    During the period from 2004 to 2011, the Coast Guard has received
an annual average of 13 reports of sunken vessels that would be subject
to the marking requirements in this rule.\1\ Under the proposed rule,
the owners or operators of these sunken vessels would be able to apply
for a waiver of the requirement to mark the wreck with a light at
night. If this proposed rule is finalized and the Coast Guard grants
waivers to owners or operators who have already marked a wreck in
accordance with the existing requirements, those owners or operators
will have the option \2\ to remove the lights from the buoy or beacon
marking the sunken vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Coast Guard Office of Navigation Systems has provided
information regarding these reports and has estimated an annual
average of 13 vessels per year during this time.
    \2\ The term ``option'' is used, because vessel owners or
operators that have not been granted a waiver approval at the time
of the incident would have to deploy their buoy with a light. If the
waiver is granted after the buoy has been deployed, the owner or
operator of the buoy may elect not to maintain the lighting system,
thereby causing it to become inoperable, which is equivalent to
removing the light under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Costs
    Owners or operators of sunken vessels that voluntarily request a
waiver would make the request to the District Commander of the District
in which the vessel sunk. We anticipate that owners or operators
requesting waivers would first initiate contact with the District
Commander via voice communication (i.e., radio or cell phone) to report
the location of the sinking along with the proposed information
requirements in 33 CFR 64.11(c)(1) through (4) and request a waiver
from the lighting requirements under 33 CFR 64.13. After this initial
communication, vessel owners or operators formally submit to the
District Commander, in writing, the information requirements under
proposed Sec.  64.11(c).\3\ We note that while

there are some changes to the wording of the information reqirements in
proposed Sec.  64.11(c) (modifications from the existing text in Sec.
64.11(b)), these changes are clarifying in nature and there is no
change in the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Specific procedures for submission of waiver requests are
not prescribed in this proposed rule but would be left to be decided
by the individual District Commanders. However, we anticipate that
any submission to the USCG would have cost associated with
processing/reviewing a report. Therefore, this process would carry a
cost which is estimated in the body of this regulatory assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Records compiled by the Coast Guard Office of Navigation Systems,
which are composed from data collected by the various Coast Guard
Districts, show an annual average of 13 vessels that are sunk in
navigable channels and marked under the current regulatory scheme.
During the period of 2004 until 2011, a total of five requests for
waivers were made to the Coast Guard and all had been approved.
Although this would indicate less than one waiver request per year, the
Coast Guard believes that an established process in the CFR would cause
additional requests for waivers. Many within the industry may not be
aware that waivers can be requested. Therefore, by establishing a
waiver regime in the CFR, we anticipate a wider audience would have
knowledge about petitioning the USCG for a waiver. Based on responses
from Coast Guard districts, the Coast Guard estimates that slightly
less than 50 percent, or six vessel owners and operators, would request
a waiver from the lighted buoy requirement per year.
    As such, we estimate that six vessel owners and/or operators per
year would request waivers from a District Commander. It is estimated
that it would take an owner or operator approximately 15 minutes to
report the incident to the Coast Guard, via voice communication, and
informally request a waiver for their marker. The loaded hourly wage
rate of a Captain, Mate and Pilot of a Water Vessel (NAICS 53-5021) is
$48.30.\4\ Therefore, the estimated cost of the initial reporting, per
incident, is $12.07 = ($48.30 * .25). We also estimate that it would
take approximately 30 minutes, per waiver, to write up and submit a
formal request to the District Commander. Therefore, the cost of
submitting a request is $24.15 = ($48.30 * .5), and the total cost for
each occurrence is $36.22 = ($12.07 + $24.15). Table 3 shows the total,
10-year cost of six affected vessels to be $1,526 discounted at 7
percent and annualized cost of $217.32 discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oes_nat.htm, then scroll
down and click 53-0000 ``Transportation And Material Moving
Occupations'', then click 53-5021. Mean hourly wage for Captains,
Mates and Pilots of Water Vessels. In addition, the cost reported in
the analysis is based on the loaded wage rate, which is the reported
BLS wage rate multiplied by the load rate of 1.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The organizational and clarifying edits in the proposal would not
result in additional costs to industry.

                                     Table 3--Total 10 Year Cost to Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 Undiscounted         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................          217.32            $203            $211
2...............................................................          217.32             190             205
3...............................................................          217.32             177             199
4...............................................................          217.32             166             193
5...............................................................          217.32             155             187
6...............................................................          217.32             145             182
7...............................................................          217.32             135             177
8...............................................................          217.32             126             172
9...............................................................          217.32             118             167
10..............................................................          217.32             110             162
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................        2,173.20        1,526.36           1,854
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          217.32          217.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Government Cost:
    The District Commander could grant a waiver if the waiver would not
create an undue hazard to navigation. We estimate that all waiver
requests would be submitted in writing, including instances where oral
waivers were requested at the time of the vessel sinking. For the
purpose of this analysis, we assume that all waiver approvals (or
disapprovals) would be determined once written notice has been received
by the District Commander.\5\ We anticipate a Coast Guard Commander (O-
5) will review the waiver requests and make the determination of
whether to grant the waiver. As previously stated, it is projected that
six waiver requests per year would be submitted for review. We estimate
that each waiver review would take approximately two hours.\6\
Therefore, the government economic burden of reviewing a written waiver
request is $190 ($95.00 at an O-5 wage rate \7\ * 2 hours) per waiver,
and estimated annual burden of $1,140 per year ($190 per waiver * 6
waivers). Table 4 shows total government 10-year cost at $8,007, and
annualized cost at $1,140, both discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We believe that it would take less time to approve the paper
work for a waiver that was granted over the phone during the time of
the vessel sinking than for those vessels that were not granted a
waiver at the time of sinking.
    \6\ We estimate that it would take Coast Guard personnel
approximately 2 hours to review and grant a waiver.
    \7\ Wage rate for an O-5 comes from COMDTINST 7310.1M. Feb 2011.

                                         Table 4--Total Government Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Year                               Undiscounted           7%                3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................            $1,140         $1,065.42         $1,106.80
2.........................................................             1,140            995.72          1,074.56
3.........................................................             1,140            930.58          1,043.26
4.........................................................             1,140            869.70          1,012.88
5.........................................................             1,140            812.80            983.37
6.........................................................             1,140            759.63            954.73

7.........................................................             1,140            709.93            926.92
8.........................................................             1,140            663.49            899.93
9.........................................................             1,140            620.08            873.72
10........................................................             1,140            579.52            848.27
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................            11,400          8,006.88          9,724.43
    Annualized............................................  ................          1,140.00          1,140.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total 10-year (industry and government) cost of the proposed rule
are estimated at $13,573.20 (undiscounted) and $9,533.25 discounted at
7 percent. The annualized cost of the rule is $1,357.32 discounted at 7
percent. These figures assume that slightly less than half of the
owners and operators of sunken vessels, wrecked and sunk in navigable
channels, request a waiver. The total cost could be lower if more
vessel owners choose not to request them.
Discussion of Benefits
    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is that it provides a
regulatory efficiency benefit. Currently, ship operators may not be
aware that waivers from the lighting requirement may be requested. By
establishing a waiver provision in the CFR, we anticipate a wider
audience would have knowledge about petitioning the Coast Guard for a
waiver. This would allow vessel owners or operators whose sunken
vessels would not cause an undue navigational hazard if not marked with
a light at night to be granted a waiver for the lighting requirement if
the District Commander determines placing the light would be
impractical. Under the current Coast Guard regulations, a lighting
system must be installed on a sunken vessel's marker(s), whether the
wreck is determined to pose a hazard to navigation or not. The granting
of a waiver would remove the burden associated with the probable
maintenance of a lighted marker such as a buoy,\8\ without imposing
additional safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Probable cost saving is difficult to determine. The amount
of time a vessel remains sunken varies. Therefore, determining the
amount of maintenance required on lighting hardware is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we believe that the clarifications to the regulations
could improve the efficiency of data collection regarding vessel
sinking by clarifying the information required (such as specifying that
vessel type and size should be included in the description of a sunken
vessel).

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 fewer than
50,000 people.
    The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule could impact a
maximum of six small entities per year at a cost of $36 per waiver per
entity, which we assume would have a cost impact of less than one
percent of annual revenue per affected entity.
    In addition, the proposed waiver provision is voluntary. There are
no mandatory costs associated with this proposed rule. As previously
discussed, some affected entities may incur cost savings for waivers
from lighting requirements.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why
you think your business or organization qualifies, as well as how and
to what degree this rule will economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
    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).

D. Collection of Information

    As noted previously, we estimate that there would be fewer than 10
respondents affected in any given year. Therefore, this proposed rule
would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), since the estimated number
of respondents is less than the threshold of 10 respondents per 12-
month period for collection of information reporting purposes under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. This
proposed rule would merely permit owners and operators of vessels sunk
in navigable channels to request a waiver from the existing Coast Guard
requirement to mark the wreck with a light at night.
    It is well-settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well-settled
that the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's

obligations, are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States
or local governments. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). The Coast Guard believes
the Federalism principles articulated in Locke apply to this proposed
rule since it would only affect an area regulated exclusively by the
Coast Guard.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by
Executive Order 13563, and is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated
it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule would not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. This rule falls under section
2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), (b) and (i). This proposed rule
involves regulations which are editorial, regulations delegating
authority, and regulations in aid of navigation such as vessel traffic
services and marking of navigation systems. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 64

    Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MARKING OF STRUCTURES, SUNKEN VESSELS AND OTHER
OBSTRUCTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 33 U.S.C. 409, 1231; 42 U.S.C. 9118;
43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  64.11 to read as follows:

Sec.  64.11  Marking, notification, and approval requirements.

    (a) The owner and/or operator of a vessel, raft, or other craft
wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel must mark it immediately with a
buoy or beacon during the day and with a light at night. The
requirement to mark the vessel, raft, or other craft with a light at
night may be waived by the District Commander pursuant to Sec.  64.13
of this subpart.
    (b) The owner and/or operator of a sunken vessel, raft, or other
craft that constitutes a hazard to navigation must mark it in
accordance with this subchapter.
    (c) The owner and/or operator of a sunken vessel, raft, or other
craft must promptly report to the District Commander, in whose
jurisdiction the vessel, raft, or other craft is located, the action
they are taking to mark it. In addition to the information required by
46 CFR 4.05, the reported information must contain--
    (1) Name and description of the sunken vessel, raft, or other
craft, including type and size;
    (2) Accurate description of the location of the sunken vessel,
raft, or other craft, including how the position was determined;
    (3) Water depth; and
    (4) Location and type of marking established, including color and
shape of buoy or other beacon and characteristic of the light, if
fitted.
    (d) The owner and/or operator of a vessel, raft, or other craft
wrecked and sunk in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States or sunk

on the high seas, if the owner is subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, must promptly report to the District Commander, in whose
jurisdiction the obstruction is located, the action they are taking to
mark it in accordance with this subchapter. The reported information
must contain the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section,
including the information required by 46 CFR 4.05.
    (e) Owners and/or operators of other obstructions may report the
existence of such obstructions and mark them in the same manner as
prescribed for sunken vessels.
    (f) Owners and/or operators of marine pipelines that are determined
to be hazards to navigation must report and mark the hazardous portion
of those pipelines in accordance with 49 CFR parts 192 or 195, as
applicable.
    (g) All markings of sunken vessels, rafts, or crafts and other
obstructions established in accordance with this section must be
reported to and approved by the appropriate District Commander.
    (h) Should the District Commander determine that these markings are
inconsistent with part 62 of this subchapter, the markings must be
replaced as soon as practicable with approved markings.
0
3. Revise Sec.  64.13 to read as follows:

Sec.  64.13  Approval for waiver of markings.

    (a) Owners and/or operators of sunken vessels, rafts or other craft
sunk in navigable waters may apply to the District Commander, in whose
jurisdiction the vessel, raft, or other craft is located, for a waiver
of the requirement to mark them with a light at night as required under
Sec.  64.11(a) of this subpart. Information on how to contact the
District Commander is available at http://www.uscg.mil/top/units.
    (b) The District Commander may grant a waiver if it is determined
that--
    (1) marking the wrecked vessel, raft or other craft with a light at
night would be impractical, and
    (2) the granting of such a waiver would not create an undue hazard
to navigation.

    Dated: May 21, 2013.
Dana A. Goward,
Director, Maritime Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-12545 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P