[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63157-63160]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19843]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98335.; File No. SR-FICC-2023-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Recovery and Wind-Down Plan

September 8, 2023.
    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 September 1, 2023, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
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. NSCC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Recovery and
Wind-down Plan to reflect business and product developments that have
taken place since the time it was last amended, and make certain
changes to improve the clarity of the Plan and make other updates and
technical revisions, as described in greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD
Rules'') or the FICC Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'')
Clearing Rules (the ``MBSD Rules,'' and collectively with the GSD
Rules, the ``Rules''), available at www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures, or in the Recovery & Wind-down Plan of FICC (the ``R&W
Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
Executive Summary
    The R&W Plan was adopted in August 2018 \6\ and is maintained by
FICC for compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act.\7\ This
section of the Act requires registered clearing agencies to, in short,
establish, implement and maintain plans for the recovery and orderly
wind-down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses,
liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other
losses. The Plan is intended to be used by the Board and FICC
management in the event FICC encounters scenarios that could
potentially prevent it from being able to provide its critical services
to the marketplace as a going concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83973 (Aug. 28,
2018), 83 FR 44942 (Sep. 4, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-021); and 83954
(Aug. 27, 2018), 83 FR 44361 (Aug. 30, 2018) (SR-FICC-2017-805).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii). FICC is a ``covered clearing
agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5) under the Act and must
comply with paragraph (e) of Rule 17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The R&W Plan is comprised of two primary sections: (i) the
``Recovery Plan,'' that sets out the tools and strategies to enable
FICC to recover, in the event it experiences losses that exceed its
prefunded resources, and (ii) the ``Wind-down Plan,'' that describes
the tools and strategies to be used to conduct an orderly wind-down of
FICC's business in a manner designed to permit the continuation of
FICC's critical services in the event that its recovery efforts are not
successful.
    The purpose of the rule proposal is to amend the R&W Plan to
reflect business and product developments that have taken place since
the time it was last amended,\8\ make certain changes to improve the
clarity of the Plan and make other updates and technical revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91430 (Mar. 29,
2021), 86 FR 17432 (Apr. 2, 2021) (SR-FICC-2021-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that by helping to ensure that the R&W Plan reflects
current business and product developments, providing additional
clarity, and making necessary grammatical corrections, that the
proposed rule change would help it continue to maintain the Plan in a
manner that supports the continuity of FICC's critical services and
enables its Members and Limited Members to maintain access to FICC's
services through the transfer of its membership in the event FICC
defaults or the Wind-down Plan is ever triggered by the Board.
Background
    The R&W Plan is managed by the Office of Recovery & Resolution
Planning (referred to in the Plan as the ``R&R Team'') of FICC's parent
company, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''),\9\ on
behalf of FICC, with review and oversight by the DTCC Management
Committee and the Board. In accordance with the SEC's Approval Order
covering the Plan,\10\ the Board, or such committees as may be
delegated authority by the Board from time to time, is required to
review and approve the R&W Plan biennially and would also review and
approve any changes that are proposed to the R&W Plan outside of the
biennial review. FICC completed its most recent biennial review in
2022. The proposed rule change reflects amendments proposed to the
Plans resulting from that review, which are described in greater detail
below. None of the proposed changes modify FICC's general objectives
and approach with respect to its recovery and wind-down strategy as set
forth under the current Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DTCC operates on a shared service model with respect to FICC
and its other affiliated clearing agencies, National Securities
Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') and The Depository Trust Company
(``DTC''). Most corporate functions are established and managed on
an enterprise-wide basis pursuant to intercompany agreements under
which it is generally DTCC that provides relevant services to FICC,
NSCC and DTC (collectively, the ``Clearing Agencies'').
    \10\ Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Amendments to the R&W Plan
    FICC is proposing the changes to the following sections of the Plan
based upon business updates and product

developments that have occurred since the Plan was last amended.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2.3 (MBSD) describes the way in which TBA transactions are
processed by FICC. For purposes of completeness, the proposed rule
change would augment the existing description to add that the
processing consists of the following steps: trade matching, novation,
the Do Not Allocate (``DNA'') process, TBA Netting, electronic pool
notification (``EPN'') allocation, pool comparison, Pool Netting, pool
conversion and settlement. Similarly, in the paragraph of this section
that describes the TBA Netting process,\12\ the description would be
expanded to include that net positions created by the TBA Netting
process are referred to as the settlement balance order (``SBO'')
position,\13\ which constitutes settlement obligations against which
Members will submit pool information for the Pool Netting process or
offset such SBO position with other SBO position or trade-for-trade
transaction, as applicable, through the DNA process.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MBSD Rule 6 (TBA Netting).
    \13\ The term ``SBO'' means the settlement balance orders that
constitute the net positions of a Clearing Member as a result of the
TBA Netting process.
    \14\ The DNA process gives Members the ability to offset TBA
obligations with other TBA obligations meaning that, SBO positions
and/or trade-for-trade transactions may be offset with other SBO
positions and/or trade for-trade transactions, as applicable,
subject to certain restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2.4 (Intercompany Arrangements) describes how corporate
support services are provided to FICC from DTCC and DTCC's other
subsidiaries, through intercompany agreements under a shared services
model. This section includes a table, (Facilities, Table 2-B), that
lists each of the DTCC facilities utilized by the Clearing Agencies and
indicates whether the facility is owned or leased. FICC proposes to
update this table to add Washington DC, London, UK, and McLean,
Virginia as additional DTCC facility locations.
    Section 2.5 (FMI Links) \15\ describes some of the key financial
market infrastructures (``FMIs''), both domestic and foreign, that FICC
has identified as critical ``links.'' \16\ As set out in this section
of the Plan, the inventory of FICC's links is maintained by DTCC's
Systemic Risk Office (``SRO'') and the SRO has set forth a set of
practices and protocols for managing and reviewing the various risks
and controls associated with clearing agency links. Based on a change
to the SRO Clearing Agency Links-Risk Review Procedures, the proposal
would clarify that in addition to approval by the Chief Systemic Risk
Officer, the inventory of clearing agency links is also subject to the
approval of a Deputy General Counsel of the General Counsel's Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of consistency, under the proposed rule change
all references to ``FMI Links'' would be revised to refer to these
as ``Clearing Agency Links.''
    \16\ As defined in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(8) under the Act, a link
``means, for purposes of paragraph (e)(20) of Rule 17Ad-22, a set of
contractual and operational arrangements between two or more
clearing agencies, financial market utilities, or trading markets
that connect them directly or indirectly for the purposes of
participating in settlement, cross margining, expanding their
services to additional instruments or participants, or for any other
purposes material to their business.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3 (Critical Services) defines the criteria for classifying
certain of FICC's services as ``critical,'' \17\ and identifies such
critical services and the rationale for their classification. The
identification of FICC's critical services is important for evaluating
how the recovery tools and the wind-down strategy would facilitate and
provide for the continuation of FICC's critical services to the markets
it serves. Included in this section are two tables (Table 3-B: GSD
Critical Services and Table 3-C: MBSD Critical Services) that list each
of the services, functions or activities that FICC has identified as
``critical'' based on the applicability of the criteria. The proposed
rule change would update Table 3-B to enhance the description of the
GSD's ``Sponsored Membership Service'' by adding at the end of the
description that this service is comprised of two available offerings,
the Sponsored DVP service and the Sponsored GC Service.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The criteria that is used to identify a FICC service or
function as critical includes consideration as to whether (1) there
is a lack of alternative providers or products; (2) the inability of
FICC to act as a central counterparty through either Division would
increase Members' credit risk and disrupt their ability to initiate
new transactions; (3) the failure or disruption of the multilateral
netting performed by each FICC Division could materially and
negatively impact the volume of financial transactions and the
liquidity of the U.S. Fixed Income markets; and (4) the service is
interconnected with other participants and processes within the U.S.
financial system (for example, with other FMIs, settlement banks,
broker-dealers, and exchanges).
    \18\ FICC's Sponsored DVP service offers eligible clients the
ability to lend cash or eligible collateral via FICC-cleared DVP
repo transactions in U.S. Treasury and Agency Securities on an
overnight and term basis, as well as outright purchases and sales of
such securities, to be settled on a Delivery-vs-Payment (DVP) basis.
FICC's Sponsored General Collateral service offers eligible clients
the ability to execute general collateral repo transactions (in the
same asset classes currently eligible for Netting Members to
transact in via FICC's existing GCF Repo[supreg] Service) with each
other and settle such repo transactions on the tri-party repo
platform of BNY Mellon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5.2.4 (Recovery Corridor and Recovery Phase) outlines the
early warning indicators to be used by FICC to evaluate its options and
potentially prepare to enter the ``Recovery Phase,'' which phase refers
to the actions to be taken by FICC to restore its financial resources
and avoid a wind-down of its business. This section contains
descriptions of potential stress events that could lead to recovery,
and several early warning indicators and metrics that FICC has
established to evaluate its options and potentially prepare to enter
the Recovery Phase. These indicators, which are referred to in the
Recovery Plan as recovery corridor indicators (``Corridor Indicators''
or ``Indicator(s)''),\19\ are calibrated against FICC's financial
resources and are designed to give FICC the ability to replenish
financial resources, typically through business-as-usual tools applied
prior to entering the Recovery Phase. Included in this section is a
table (Table 5-A: Corridor Indicators) that identifies for each
Indicator (i) how it is measured, (ii) the basis for the evaluation of
the status of the Indicator, (iii) the type of metrics used for
determining the status of the deterioration or improvement of the
Indicator, and (iv) ``Corridor Actions & Escalation,'' which are those
steps that may be taken to improve the status of the Indicator and the
management escalations required to authorize those steps. The proposed
rule change would make the following clarifications to Table 5-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The majority of the Corridor Indicators, as identified in
the Recovery Plan, relate directly to conditions that may require
FICC to adjust its strategy for hedging and liquidating a defaulting
Member's portfolio, and any such changes would include an assessment
of the status of the Corridor Indicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, for purposes of providing additional context on the
applicable measurement, the proposed rule change would clarify the
``Hedge Effectiveness'' Indicator \20\ set out in Table 5-A.
Specifically, the language in the measurement column for this Indicator
would be revised to clarify that if the hedge effectiveness measures
are outside of the designated metrics due to certain types of factors
(e.g., mismatch in portfolio profit and loss (``P&L'') and hedge P&L
due to timing of initiating the hedge or the portfolio), management
would document the performance and only escalate to the Board Risk
Committee and Management Risk Committee if the measurement status
deteriorates in a material respect. Second, for the ``Retirements/Trade
Volume Reductions'' Indicator,\21\ a

clarification would be made to identify Client Account Management and
FICC Global Business Operations as the internal groups responsible for
measurement of the applicable deterioration and improvement Indicator
metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Hedging is a risk management strategy that would be
employed when executing the liquidation of a defaulting Member's
portfolio to potentially help reduce the risk of loss of an existing
position.
    \21\ The Retirements/Transaction Reductions indicator measures
Member terminations or curtailment of transactions that impact the
financial viability of FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other Updates, Clarifications and Technical Revisions
    FICC is also proposing to make other updates and technical
revisions to the Plan. These technical revisions would, for example,
make grammatical corrections, update the names of certain FICC internal
groups, and clarify the description of internal organizations, without
changing the substantive statements being revised.
    For example, in Section 2.4, Table 2-A (SIFMU Legal Entity
Structure and Intercompany Agreements), for purposes of clarifying the
full scope of services provided by FICC's affiliate, DTC, the
description of DTC's services would be revised from ``Underwriting,
Securities Processing, Corporate Actions,'' to ``Asset Services.'' Some
other examples include: (i) a revision would be made throughout the
Plan to reflect an internal name change from DTCC's ``Operational Risk
Management'' to ``Operational Risk,'' and add a new internal
organization, ``Embedded Risk Management,'' \22\ (ii) all references to
``FMI Links'' would be revised to refer to these as ``Clearing Agency
Links,'' and (iii) in the section covering DTCC facilities, the name of
the DTCC legal entity that is the holder of the lease for the Manila
location would be changed from ``DTCC'' to ``DTCC Manila.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Embedded Risk Management group supports the R&R Team.
For example, they may assist in the identification of new
initiatives, processes, or product developments that may impact
FICC's R&W Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes the proposed updates and technical revisions would
improve the clarity and accuracy of the Plan and, therefore, would help
facilitate the execution of Plan, if necessary.
2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
registered clearing agency. In particular, FICC believes that the
amendments to the R&W Plan are consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act \23\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act \24\ for the
reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of FICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions. As described above, the proposed
rule change would update the R&W Plan to reflect business and product
developments and make certain technical corrections. By helping to
ensure that the R&W Plan reflects current business and product
developments, and providing additional clarity, FICC believes that the
proposed rule change would help it continue to maintain the Plan in a
manner that supports the continuity of FICC's critical services and
enables its Participants and Pledgees to maintain access to FICC's
services through the transfer of its membership in the event FICC
defaults or the Wind-down Plan is ever triggered by the Board. Further,
by facilitating the continuity of its critical clearance and settlement
services, FICC believes the Plan and the proposed rule change would
continue to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed
amendments to the R&W Plan are consistent with the requirements of
section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act requires FICC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by the covered clearing agency, which includes plans for the
recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency
necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from
general business risk, or any other losses.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Recovery Plan defines the risk management
activities, stress conditions and indicators, and tools that FICC may
use to address stress scenarios that could eventually prevent it from
being able to provide its critical services as a going concern. Through
the framework of the Crisis Continuum, the Recovery Plan addresses
measures that FICC may take to address risks of credit losses and
liquidity shortfalls, and other losses that could arise from a
Participant default. The Recovery Plan also addresses the management of
general business risks and other non-default risks that could lead to
losses. The Wind-down Plan would be triggered by a determination by the
Board that recovery efforts have not been, or are unlikely to be,
successful in returning FICC to viability as a going concern. Once
triggered, the Wind-down Plan sets forth clear mechanisms for the
transfer of FICC's membership and business and is designed to
facilitate continued access to FICC's critical services and to minimize
market impact of the transfer. By establishing the framework and
strategy for the execution of the transfer and wind-down of FICC in
order to facilitate continuous access to its critical services, the
Wind-down Plan establishes a plan for the orderly wind-down of FICC.
    As described above, the proposed rule change would update the R&W
Plan to reflect business and product developments and make certain
technical corrections. By ensuring that material provisions of the Plan
are current, clear, and technically correct, FICC believes that the
proposed amendments are designed to support the maintenance of the Plan
for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency
necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from
general business risk, or any other losses, and, as such, meets the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act.\26\ Therefore,
the proposed changes would help FICC to maintain the Plan in a way that
continues to be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. FICC does not anticipate
that the proposal would affect its day-to-day operations under normal
circumstances, or in the management of a typical Member default
scenario or non-default event. The R&W Plan was developed and
documented in order to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, as
discussed above. The proposal is intended to enhance and update the
Plan to ensure it is clear and remains current in the event it is ever
necessary to be implemented. The proposed revisions would not affect
any changes to the overall structure or operation of the Plan or FICC's
recovery and wind-down strategy as set forth under the current Plan. As
such, FICC believes the proposal would not have any impact, or impose
any burden, on competition.

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

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, FICC will amend
this filing to publicly file such comments as an Exhibit 2 to this
filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting written comments are cautioned that, according
to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the
General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters
should submit only information that they wish to make available
publicly, including their name, email address, and any other
identifying information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on How to Submit Comments, available at www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General questions regarding
the rule filing process or logistical questions regarding this filing
should be directed to the Main Office of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FICC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) \27\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \28\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-FICC-2023-013 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-FICC-2023-013. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 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). Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2023-013 and should be submitted on
or before October 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19843 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31753-31756]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-3]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0096; FRL-8362-8]

2-Oxepanone, homopolymer; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-oxepanone, homopolymer; (CAS Reg. No.
24980-41-4) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requesting an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-oxepanone,
homopolymer.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 4, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 4, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0096. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Samek, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document

through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, you may
access this ``Federal Register'' document electronically through the
EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing
Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0096 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before August 4, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0096, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL-8354-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of
a pesticide petition (PP 8E7321) by Solvay Chemicals, Inc., 3333
Richmond Avenue, Houston, TX., 77098. The petitioner requested that 40
CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-oxepanone, homopolymer;
CAS Reg. No. 24980-41-4. That notice included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner. There were no comments in response to the
Notice of Filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,'' and specifies
factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers that should present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Oxepanone, homopolymer conforms to
the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers:
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
     7. The polymer's number average MW of 52,000 daltons is greater
than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 2-oxepanone, homopolymer meets all the criteria for a polymer
to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-
oxepanone, homopolymer.

V. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-oxepanone, homopolymer could be
present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking
water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The
number average MW of 2-oxepanone, homopolymer is 52,000 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2-
oxepanone, homopolymer conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk
polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential
exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has
determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health.

VI. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA does not
have, at this time, available data to determine whether 2-oxepanone,
homopolymer has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to 2-oxepanone, homopolymer and
any other substances and 2-oxepanone, homopolymer does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
2-oxepanone, homopolymer has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VII. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and
Children

    Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for pre-natal and post-natal toxicity and
the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the
expected low toxicity of 2-oxepanone, homopolymer, EPA has not used a
safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the
additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VIII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-oxepanone, homopolymer.

IX. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 2-
oxepanone, homopolymer nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)
been established for any food crops at this time.

X. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-oxepanone,
homopolymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec. 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
2-oxepanone, homopolymer, minimum number    24980-41-4
 average molecular weight (in amu) 52,000.
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-11980 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48354-48357]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0154]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River, Mile Markers 12 to 85
Above Head of Passes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend anchorage regulations for
the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) between mile markers (MM) 12 and 85
Above Head of Passes (AHP). This action would modify nine anchorages
and establish one new anchorage grounds. The rule would increase the
available anchorage areas necessary to accommodate vessel traffic,
promote navigational safety, provide for the overall safe and efficient
flow of vessel traffic and commerce, and bolster the economy through
increased anchorage capacity. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0154 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Thao Nguyen,
Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AHP Above Head of Passes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority
CRPPA Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LDB Left Descending Bank
LMR Lower Mississippi River
MM Mile Marker
MNSA Maritime Navigation Safety Association
NOI Notice of Inquiry
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RDB Right Descending Bank
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed
rulemaking are found in 46 U.S.C. 70006, 33 CFR 109.05, 33 CFR 1.05-1,
and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.
Under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sec.  109.05,
U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders are delegated the authority to
establish anchorage grounds by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard established Anchorage Grounds under Title 33 CFR
110.1(b), Subpart B (32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by 52 FR
33811, Sept. 8, 1987; 63 FR 5526, June 30, 1998).
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend nine existing anchorage grounds;
Boothville Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(4)), Magnolia Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(7)), Davant Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)), Wills Point
Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)), Cedar Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)), Belle Chasse Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(13)), Lower
12 Mile Point Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(14)), Lower 9 Mile Anchorage
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)), Point Michel Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(35)), and to establish one new anchorage grounds--Phoenix
Anchorage at 33 CFR 110.195(a)(37).
    The project to modify or establish multiple anchorage grounds along
the LMR was initiated in 2019. From 2019 through 2021, certain port
stakeholders, (including Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
(CRPPA), Maritime Navigation Safety Association (MNSA), Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) and United States Coast
Guard (USCG)) worked to determine if the proposed modifications were
necessary and in suitable locations with consideration given to, among
other things, environmental factors.
    The Coast Guard published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 85 FR 61671,
on September 30, 2020. The NOI solicited comments from maritime
stakeholders on the proposal to amend ten existing anchorage grounds
and to establish two new anchorage grounds. At the end of the comment
period, ending on November 30, 2020, we received a total of nine
comments. The Coast Guard addresses the comments below.
    Seven of the nine comments supported the proposed modifications of
existing or establishment of new anchorage grounds along the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR); one comment opposed several of the proposed
modifications of existing or establishment of new anchorage grounds
along the LMR (detailed below), and one comment was outside of the
scope of the NOI as it related to change in presidency.
    One commenter objected to the following modifications/new
anchorages:
    (1) 0.6 miles establishment of Phoenix Anchorage located at Mile
Marker (MM) 57.82-58.42. The justification provided was that the
anchorage could conflict with a borrow source identified for marsh
restoration.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
    (2) 0.3 miles expansion of Davant Anchorage located at MM 52.8-
53.9. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
    (3) 0.1 miles expansion of Magnolia Anchorage located at MM 45.5-
47.6. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
    (4) 0.95 miles expansion of Boothville Anchorage located at MM
13.0-18.5. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with
a borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
    (5) 0.2 miles expansion of Alliance Anchorage located at MM 63.8-
65.8. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely

occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage grounds and
impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow site, are
minimal.
    (6) 0.2 miles shift upriver and 0.15 miles expansion of Wills Point
Anchorage currently located at MM 66.5-67.6. The proposed location
would be MM 66.7-67.9. The provided justification was twofold. First,
the shift upriver would directly overlap with the footprint of the Mid-
Breton Sediment Diversion intake structure located at MM 68 that is
intended to convey sediment, fresh water, and nutrients from the
Mississippi River into Mid-Breton Sound Basin to reduce coastal land
loss and sustain surrounding wetlands. Second, the anchorage could
conflict with a borrow source for marsh restoration.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the proposed shift upriver and
expansion of the anchorage could pose negative impacts to the Mid-
Breton sediment Diversion intake structure. The Coast Guard does not
agree with second part of the objection. Operations routinely occur
along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow site, are minimal.
    (7) 0.5 miles establishment of Bertrandville Anchorage located at
MM 68.5-69.0. The justification was that the anchorage, being directly
upriver of the Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion intake structure, would
obstruct the intake flowline and could pose a navigational safety
concern.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the proposed establishment of an
anchorage grounds at this location could pose negative impacts to the
Mid-Breton sediment Diversion intake structure.
    Note: The following anchorages were mentioned in the opposition
comment but are not locations that are being considered for amendment
by this rulemaking at this time: Myrtle Grove anchorage and Point
Celeste Anchorage.
    In March 2021, two additional comments were received from
stakeholders. Although these comments were received outside of the NOI
comment period, the Coast Guard chose to consider them. In one new
comment, the commenter that submitted the opposing comments above
withdrew their opposing comments on items 1-4 listed above (Phoenix,
Davant, Magnolia, and Boothville Anchorages), but maintained the
objections raised in items 5-7 to the expansions of Wills Point
Anchorage and Alliance Anchorage and the establishment of Bertrandville
Anchorage. The second new comment proposed to remove the establishment
of Bertrandville Anchorage from consideration to expand Wills Point
Anchorage from MM 66.5-67.9 and decrease the width of the anchorage to
500 feet.
    After considering the stakeholder comments, the Coast Guard has
decided that: (1) The width reduction at Wills Point Anchorage will be
added to this proposed rulemaking, (2) the length expansions and shift
at Wills Point Anchorage and the length expansion at Alliance Anchorage
would not be further pursued at this time, and (3) the establishment of
a new anchorage ground at Bertrandville would not be further pursued at
this time.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve navigational
safety, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel
traffic and commerce, and bolster the economy through increased
anchorage capacity, thus streamlining vessel throughput and increasing
ship to port interactions.
    The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70006.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Commander of Coast Guard District Eight proposes to establish
one new anchorage ground and amend nine existing anchorage grounds
along the LMR, ranging from MM 12 to MM 85 AHP. There are not currently
adequate anchorage grounds along the river system to facilitate the
safe anchorage of shallow and deep draft vessels along the LMR. This
proposed action would ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation of
vessels transiting in and out of the LMR. The specific anchorage
boundaries are described in detail in the proposed regulatory text at
the end of the document. In general, this proposed rule will have the
following effects:
    1. Increase the length of the Boothville Anchorage from 5.5 miles
to 6.45 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(4)).
    2. Increase the length of the Magnolia Anchorage from 2.1 miles to
2.2 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(7)).
    3. Increase the lengh of the Davant Anchorage from 1.1 miles to 1.4
miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)).
    4. Decrease the width of the Wills Point Anchorage from 600 feet to
500 feet (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)).
    5. Add a note to the text of the Cedar Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)).
    6. Increase the length of the Belle Chasse Anchorage from 2.1 miles
to 2.15 miles, and decrease the width from 575 feet to 500 feet (33 CFR
110.195(a)(13)).
    7. Add a Note to the text of the Lower 12 Mile Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(14)).
    8. Increase the length of the Lower 9 Mile Anchorage from 2.3 miles
to 2.4 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)).
    9. Increase the length of the Point Michel Anchorage from 1.4 miles
to 2.2 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(35)).
    10. Add a new anchorage, the Phoenix Anchorage, to include the
area, 0.6 miles in length, along the left descending bank of the river
extending from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above Head of Passes. The width
of the anchorage is 400 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a
line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into
the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet from the
water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This proposed regulatory action is based on minimal impact to
routine navigation. The proposed anchorage areas would not restrict
traffic as they are located well outside the established navigation
channel. Vessels would still be able to maneuver in, around and through
the anchorages.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
anchorage grounds may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of one new anchorage grounds and the modification of nine
existing anchorage grounds along the LMR. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE GROUNDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C 2071, 46 U.S.C. 70006, 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.195 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (7), (9), (11)
through (15), and 35, and adding paragraph (a)(37) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.195  Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South
and Southwest Passes.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Boothville Anchorage. An area, 6.45 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river extending from mile 12.05 to mile
18.5 Above Head of Passes. The width of the

anchorage is 750 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet from the water's edge into the
river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is
a line parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet from the water's edge
into the river as measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
    (7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river extending from mile 45.4 to mile
47.6 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 700 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water's edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
    (9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4 miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9
Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 800 feet.
* * * * *
    (11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area, 1.1 miles in length, along the
left descending bank of the river extending from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6
Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 200
feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.
The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
    (12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area, 1.34 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 69.56 to
mile 70.9 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet.
The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 200 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12):  Jesuit Bend Revetment extends/runs
adjacent to the lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are urged
to use caution in this anchorage.

    (13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area, 2.15 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 73.05 to
mile 75.2 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet.
The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 375 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 875 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
    (14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length,
along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 78.6
to mile 80.8 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500
feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 300 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel
to the nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14):  English Turn Revetment extends/
runs adjacent to the lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.

    (15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area, 2.4 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 82.6 to mile
85.0 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
300 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *
    (35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 40.0 to mile
42.2 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
325 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 825 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *
    (37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6 miles in length, along the
left descending bank of the river extending from mile 57.82 to mile
58.42 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 400 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 19, 2021.
Richard V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2021-18467 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59847-59848]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0026]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on September 14, 2020. The
exemptions expire on September 14, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0026 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On August 7, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 11 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR
48065). The public comment period ended on September 8, 2020, and no
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Ymarc Anthony Ancheta (CT)
Victor Contreras (IL)
Chauncey Crawford (OH)
Jonathan Kelly (TX)
Robert King (MI)
Steven Levine (MN)
Eddie Martinez (TX)
Willie Miller (IA)
John Racine (NC)
Mark Slieter (KS)
Keith Soch (TX)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-20962 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P