[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60025-60031]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0785]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Areas; Harbor Entrances Along the Coast of
Northern California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish Regulated Navigation
Areas (RNAs) at the harbor bar entrances to Crescent City Harbor,
Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay. The proposed regulation would
create additional safety requirements for recreational and small
commercial vessels operating in these areas during periods of hazardous
conditions, such as high wind or breaking surf, as well as establish
clear procedures for restricting and closing these harbor bar entrances
in the event of unsafe conditions. The proposed regulation is necessary
to enhance mariner and vessel safety when crossing the bars exceeds
parameters, typically when breaking seas are projected to be 20-foot or
greater. The proposed rulemaking would prohibit vessels from entering
these areas during unsafe conditions unless authorized by the local
Captain of the Port or a designated representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0785 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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 Andres Ayure, Coast Guard
District 11 Waterways Office; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register
LA-LB Los Angeles-Long Beach
OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
U.S.C. United States Code
Sec.  Section

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Since 1998, Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco and COTP Los
Angeles-Long Beach (LA-LB) have issued various navigation safety
advisories and created numerous emergency safety zones to mitigate risk
to mariners and vessels transiting the Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt
Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay Harbor entrances during unsafe
conditions. These emergency safety zones included policies and
procedures for closing the bar to vessel traffic as well as vessel
escort policies and provided parameters and procedures for waiver
requests. For example, in October 2017, COTP San Francisco published a
temporary final rule to establish temporary safety zones in the
navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel in Eureka, CA;
the Noyo River Entrance Channel in Fort Bragg, CA; and the Crescent
City Harbor Entrance in Crescent City, CA to enhance navigation safety
during unsafe conditions (82 FR 53418). The use of emergency safety
zones to accomplish the required risk mitigation does not provide
consistency or predictability of Coast Guard actions to mariners. The
RNAs proposed here would define the parameters and implementation
procedures for restricting access to the applicable areas during unsafe
conditions for various types and classes of vessels.
    The current mariner rules of the road and use of emergency safety
zones governing maritime traffic operating in the vicinity of the
Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay Harbor
bar entrances are insufficient to enhance the safety of mariners and
vessels operating in those areas. Bars along the northern California
coast experience severe wave, sea, and current conditions that have
contributed to numerous marine casualties. Various Coast Guard and
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) casualty investigations
have identified a need for specific regulations to mitigate these risks
to enhance the safety of mariners and vessels operating in the vicinity
of bars. One example is the NTSB Safety Recommendation M-05-009,
available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=M-05-009.
    On October 17, 2005, in a written response to NTSB Safety
Recommendation M-05-009, the Coast Guard articulated its intention to
develop written policies for transiting west coast bars and inlets. In
July 2010, Coast Guard District Thirteen published a final rule, 74 FR
59098, amended by 75 FR 41988, to mitigate bar transit risks that
addressed NTSB Safety Recommendations M-05-009 and M-05-010. Coast
Guard District Eleven is proposing a similar rule to streamline safety
regulations and provide predictability for local mariners regarding the
conditions for the Coast Guard to regulate navigation in the vicinity
of Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay Harbor
bar entrances based on weather, sea, tide, and river conditions.
    The Coast Guard solicited public input on the potential
establishment of RNAs at these locations through the Federal Register
prior to publication of this NPRM (83 FR 5592, Feb. 8, 2018). The
comment period closed on March 12, 2018. Coast Guard District Eleven
received a request for an extension of the comment period, and after
reviewing it, reopened the public comment period to extend to March 30,
2018 (83 FR 11649). In addition to the Federal Register notices, an
extensive public outreach plan was completed by Coast Guard COTP LA-LB
and COTP San Francisco, and a press release was issued to engage all
mariner stakeholders in the local communities. Coast Guard District
Eleven recognizes the need to provide ample opportunity for public
discussion of bar crossing safety measures and seeks to acquire mariner
feedback on the proposed regulatory text.
    The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231) and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Delegation No. 0170.1(70). This authority has been re-
delegated by the Commandant to District Commanders in accordance with
33 CFR 1.05-1(e). In addition, without this rule the COTP can issue
COTP Orders under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) 46 U.S.C.
70002 to direct only a specific vessel, facility, or individual in
order to: restrict or stop vessel operations; require specific actions
to be taken; deny a vessel further entry to port until a deficiency is
corrected; or detain a vessel in port. COTP Orders cannot be issued to
``all vessels'' or a class of vessels, facilities or individuals. Where
a group or class of entities is targeted, a safety zone or RNA is more
appropriate. Due to this limitation, this rule is being established to
restrict all vessels, when the COTP determines that the on scene
conditions are unsafe. Authority to activate the proposed RNA at Morro
Bay Harbor is delegated from the District Commander to COTP LA-LB. The
authority to activate the proposed RNA at Crescent City Harbor,
Humboldt Bay, and Noyo River is delegated to COTP San Francisco. The
Designated Representative for enforcement of the proposed RNA at
Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt Bay, and Noyo River would be designated
by COTP San Francisco to Commander, Sector Humboldt Bay.

III. Discussion of Comments

    A total of six comments were received from the published Request
for Comments. We considered four comments in drafting this proposed
rule; two comments were outside the scope of the notice or appeared to
be based on a misunderstanding of the intent of the Request for
Comments.
    One commenter stated that the Government should not regulate when
mariners can navigate a specific area. The Coast Guard has maintained a
narrow scope for the enactment of the proposed regulation in order to
minimize potential impact on navigation. The Coast Guard's goal is to
provide advance notice, consistency, and predictability for local
mariners during periods of extreme weather and sea conditions (i.e.,
unsafe conditions). The Coast Guard seeks clear communication with
local mariners and views this proposed regulation as a tool to improve
public safety, predictability, advance notice, and transparency.
    One comment questioned the ability of the Coast Guard to determine
when the bars are safe for seasoned mariners to transit versus the
judgment of professional mariners themselves. The Coast Guard drafted
the proposed RNAs as a formalization of existing best-practices already
used by prudent mariners at bar entrances along the Pacific Coast
during extreme weather and sea conditions. The proposed regulation
differentiates between a bar restriction and bar closure based on set
environmental conditions as observed by the COTP, who under 33 CFR
6.04-5, retains ultimate authority to restrict entrance to the harbor
bars in order to avoid damage or injury to a vessel or waterfront
facility. To account for the various levels of mariner knowledge and
familiarity with each bar, the draft regulation also proposes
progressive standards for recreational and professional mariners. In
addition, the proposed regulatory text establishes

safety standards for operating in the RNAs during periods of unsafe
conditions and provides the opportunity for preapproved bar crossing
plans to implement supplemental safety and accessibility measures for
mariners. Unsafe conditions in this proposed rule are typically
expected to be at least 20-foot breaking seas. The bar should be
reopened at the discretion of each COTP, typically when breaking seas
are less than 20-foot and when the local Coast Guard station is able to
launch the 47-foot motor life boat to respond to search and rescue
cases. Finally, the proposed regulation establishes waiver procedures
for vessels requiring access to safe harbor during a bar restriction or
closure. We welcome further discussion on the proposed text, as the
primary focus of this NPRM is to provide an opportunity for public
comment to inform potential revisions of the proposed RNA.
    One commenter stated that such RNAs would be redundant because the
Coast Guard currently closes the entrances to all craft during unsafe
periods. The Coast Guard believes the commenter is referring to the use
of emergency safety zones. While emergency safety zones reduce the risk
for all vessels, they do not provide advance notice, consistency, or
predictability of Coast Guard actions affecting mariners, or additional
safety requirements, such as implementing bar crossing plans for small
passenger and commercial fishing vessels to mitigate risks inherent to
transits of the harbor bars. The proposed RNA negates the need to
establish emergency safety zones, and defines the parameters and
enforcement procedures for restricting access to the applicable areas
during unsafe conditions and defines safety requirements for small
passenger and commercial fishing vessels operating within the proposed
RNAs. This regulation would improve consistency of enforcement and
communication with the maritime public.
    The Coast Guard received one comment suggesting that the Coast
Guard discuss possible penalties or actions the Coast Guard will take
for violations of the proposed regulation. The Coast Guard incorporated
a reference to 46 U.S.C. 70036, which provides penalties for all
persons in violation. Per 46 U.S.C. 70036, the current civil penalty
shall not exceed $25,000 per violation. Each day of a continuing
violation shall constitute a separate violation.
    The Coast Guard utilized the comments received to draft the
proposed RNA text to be minimally disruptive to the local community and
mariners utilizing Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and
Morro Bay Harbor bar entrances outlined in this NPRM, while
acknowledging the limits of Coast Guard rescue assets and the need for
additional safety measures. In the sections below, we outline a
comprehensive proposed regulation of RNAs for public comment.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish RNAs at the harbor bar
entrances to Crescent City Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro
Bay. The proposed regulation would create additional safety
requirements for recreational and small commercial vessels operating in
these areas during periods of hazardous conditions, such as high wind
or breaking surf, as well as establish clear procedures for restricting
and closing these harbor bar entrances in the event of hazardous
conditions. The proposed regulation is necessary to enhance mariner and
vessel safety when crossing the bars exceeds parameters, typically when
breaking seas are projected to be 20-foot or greater. The COTP or a
designated representative would determine whether an unsafe condition
exists for restricting or closing the bar entrances, meaning that the
wave height within an RNA is equal to or greater than the maximum wave
height as defined by the formula L/10 + F = W. In the formula ``L'' is
the overall length of a vessel, ``F'' is the minimum freeboard when
measured in feet from the lowest point along the upper strake edge to
the surface of the water and ``W'' is the maximum wave height in feet.
The COTP will also utilize their professional maritime experience and
knowledge of local environmental conditions in making their
determination. Factors that will be considered include, but are not
limited to: Size and type of vessel, sea state, winds, wave period, and
tidal currents. The proposed rulemaking would also prohibit vessels
from entering these areas during hazardous conditions unless authorized
by Commander, District Eleven, the local Captain of the Port, or a
designated representative.
    In the proposed rule, the operation of recreational and uninspected
passenger vessels in the RNA is prohibited during bar restrictions and
bar closures unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. The operator of any recreational or uninspected
passenger vessel operating in an activated RNA shall ensure that all
persons located in any unenclosed areas of the recreational vessel are
wearing lifejackets, and that lifejackets are readily accessible for/to
all persons located in any enclosed area of the vessel.
    The proposed rule would also prohibit small passenger vessels and
commercial fishing vessels from crossing the bars located in the RNAs
during a bar closure, unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.
    The master or operator of any small passenger vessel operating in
an activated RNA shall ensure that all persons located in any
unenclosed areas of the small passenger vessel are wearing lifejackets
and that lifejackets are readily accessible for/to all persons located
in any enclosed areas of the vessel. The aforementioned requirement may
be waived if the operator of the small passenger vessel pre-establishes
a bar crossing plan with the Coast Guard OCMI with responsibility for
the bar they intend to cross that will include outlining a
communication plan and safety equipment to be set out during the
crossing. Operators intending to cross the Crescent City Harbor,
Humboldt Bay, and Noyo River bars should contact Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco and operators intending to cross the Morro Bay Harbor
entrance should contact Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach.
    The master or operator of any commercial fishing vessel operating
in an activated RNA shall ensure that all persons located in any
unenclosed areas of commercial fishing vessel are wearing lifejackets
or immersion suits and that lifejackets or immersion suits are readily
accessible for/to all persons located in any enclosed spaces of the
vessel.
    For bars having deep draft vessel access, the COTP will consult
with the local pilots association, when practicable, prior to closing
the affected bar.
    A similar RNA program has been tested and used along the Northern
Pacific Coast with limited burden to local mariners while improving
vessel safety during unsafe conditions. The Coast Guard believes that
implementing a standard protocol along the Pacific Coast will improve
our service to the maritime community and minimize the unpredictability
of emergency safety zones. Conditions that exceed operating parameters
for the Coast Guard's primary rescue asset, the 47-foot motor lifeboat
with an operating limit of 20-foot breaking seas, will be the threshold
for COTP activation of the proposed RNA. In addition, the proposed RNA
will provide predictability of closures, improve vessel transit plans
during extreme weather conditions, and strengthen communications
between the

Coast Guard and the maritime community. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

V. 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that: (1)
The proposed regulation does not require vessel operators affected by
the regulation to purchase additional equipment; (2) the restriction
and/or closure of the bars are temporary and will only occur when
necessary due to unsafe conditions; (3) the maritime public will be
advised of bar restrictions and/or closures via one or more of the
following methods: Broadcast Notice to Mariners, local government
partners, bar warning lights and/or publication in the Local Notice to
Mariners; and (4) vessels may be allowed to enter the proposed RNA when
a bar restriction and/or closure is in place on a case-by-case basis
with permission of the COTP or a designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the
vicinity of the RNA at times when the RNA has been activated. This rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons: (1) The proposed regulation
does not require vessel operators affected by the regulation to
purchase additional equipment; (2) the restriction and/or closure of
the bars are temporary and will only occur when necessary due to unsafe
conditions; (3) the maritime public will be advised of bar restrictions
and/or closures via one or more of the following methods: Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, local government partners, bar warning lights and
publication in the Local Notice to Mariners; and (4) vessels may be
allowed to enter the proposed RNA when a bar restriction or closure is
in place on a case-by-case basis with permission of the COTP or a
designated representative.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this 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 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guides 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 RNAs that
would prohibit the transit of maritime traffic in times of unsafe
conditions. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under L60[a] in Table 3-

1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

VI. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  [thinsp]165.1196 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1196   Regulated Navigation Areas; Harbor Entrances along the
Coast of Northern California.

    (a) Regulated navigation areas. Each of the following areas is a
regulated navigation area (RNA):
    (1) Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel: The navigable waters shoreward
of a line drawn from Humboldt Bay Entrance Light 4 to Humboldt Bay
Entrance Light 3, in Eureka, CA.
    (2) Noyo River Entrance Channel: The navigable waters of the Noyo
River Entrance Channel as defined by the area contained seaward of the
Line of Demarcation, with the northern boundary of the line originating
in approximate position 39[deg]25'41'' N, 123[deg]48'37'' W and
extending 4 nautical miles at bearing 290[deg] T, and the southern
boundary of the line originating in approximate position 39[deg]25'38''
N, 123[deg]48'36'' W and extending 4 nautical miles at 281[deg] T, in
Fort Bragg, CA.
    (3) Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel: The navigable waters of
the Crescent City Harbor Entrance Channel, as defined by the area
contained seaward of the line originating in approximate position
41[deg]44'36'' N, 124[deg]11'18'' W bearing 237[deg] T and extending
out to 1 nautical mile from the Line of Demarcation, in Crescent City,
CA.
    (4) Estero-Morro Bay Harbor Entrance Channel: The navigable waters
of the Morro Bay Harbor Entrance Channel, as defined by the area
contained seaward of the Line of Demarcation, with the northern
boundary of the line originating from the seaward extremity of the
Morro Bay East Breakwater to the Morro Bay West Breakwater Light
35[deg]21'46'' N, 120[deg]52'11'' W in Morro Bay, CA.
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Bar closure means that the operation of any vessel within an
RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section has been prohibited by
the Coast Guard.
    (2) Bar crossing plan (also known as a Go/No-Go plan) means a plan,
developed by local industry, in coordination with Coast Guard, for a
bar within an RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section and
adopted by the master or operator of a small passenger vessel or
commercial fishing vessel to guide his or her vessel's operations on
and in the vicinity of that bar.
    (3) Bar restriction means that operation of a recreational,
uninspected passenger, small passenger, and commercial fishing vessel
within an RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section has been
prohibited by the Coast Guard.
    (4) Commercial fishing industry vessel means a fishing vessel, fish
tender vessel, or a fish processing vessel.
    (5) COTP designated representative means any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, civilian or petty officer that has been
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) to act on his or her
behalf in the enforcement of the RNA.
    (6) Fish processing vessel means a vessel that commercially
prepares fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating,
gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling.
    (7) Fish tender vessel means a vessel that commercially supplies,
stores, refrigerates, or transports fish, fish products, or materials
directly related to fishing or the preparation of fish to or from a
fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessel or a fish processing
facility.
    (8) Fishing vessel means a vessel that commercially engages in the
catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can
reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting
of fish.
    (9) Operator means a person who is an owner, a demise charterer, or
other contractor, who conducts the operation of, or who is responsible
for the operation of a vessel.
    (10) Readily accessible means equipment that is taking out of
stowage and is available within the same space as any person for
immediate use during an emergency.
    (11) Recreational vessel means any vessel manufactured or used
primarily for non-commercial use or leased, rented, or chartered to
another for non-commercial use. It does not include a vessel engaged in
carrying paying passengers.
    (12) Small passenger vessel means a vessel inspected under 46 CFR
subchapter T or 46 CFR subchapter K.
    (13) Uninspected passenger vessel means an uninspected vessel--
    (i) Of at least 100 gross tons;

    (A) Carrying not more than 12 passengers, including at least one
passenger-for-hire; or
    (B) That is chartered with the crew provided or specified by the
owner or the owner's representative and carrying not more than 12
passengers; or
    (ii) Of less than 100 gross tons;
    (A) Carrying not more than six passengers, including at least one
passenger-for-hire; or
    (B) That is chartered with the crew provided or specified by the
owner or the owner's representative and carrying not more than six
passengers.
    (14) Unsafe condition exists when the wave height within an RNA
identified in paragraph (a) of this section is equal to or greater than
the maximum wave height determined by the formula L/10 + F = W where:
    L = Overall length of a vessel measured in feet in a straight
horizontal line along and parallel with the centerline between the
intersections of this line with the vertical planes of the stem and
stern profiles excluding deckhouses and equipment.
    F = The minimum freeboard when measured in feet from the lowest
point along the upper strake edge to the surface of the water.
    W = Maximum wave height in feet to the nearest highest whole
number.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1)(i) Bar restrictions. The COTP or a designated representative
will determine when to restrict passage for recreational and
uninspected passenger vessels across the bars located in the RNAs
established in paragraph (a) of this section. In making this
determination, the COTP or a designated representative will determine
whether an unsafe condition exists for such vessels as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section. Additionally, the COTP or a designated
representative will use his or her professional maritime experience and
knowledge of local environmental conditions in making his or her
determination. Factors that will be considered include, but are not
limited to: Size and type of vessel, sea state, winds, wave period, and
tidal currents. When a bar is restricted, the operation of recreational
and uninspected passenger vessels in the RNA established in paragraph
(a) of this section in which the restricted bar is located is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (ii) Bar closure. The bars located in the RNAs established in
paragraph (a) of this section will be closed to all vessels whenever
environmental conditions exceed the operational limitations of the
relevant Coast Guard Search and Rescue resources as determined by the
COTP. When a bar is closed, the operation of any vessel in the RNA
established in paragraph (a) of this section in which the closed bar is
located is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. For bars having deep draft vessel access,
the COTP will consult with the local pilots association, when
practicable, prior to closing the affected bar.
    (iii) The Coast Guard will notify the public of bar restrictions
and bar closures via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM Channel
16 and 22A. Additionally, Coast Guard personnel may be on-scene to
advise the public of any bar restrictions or closures. In some
locations, the Coast Guard may use bar warning lights to provide a
visual indication of unsafe conditions to the public. Monitoring
cameras and associated websites may also provide mariners with
additional information in some locations.
    (2) Safety requirements for recreational vessels. The operator of
any recreational vessel operating in an RNA established in paragraph
(a) of this section shall ensure that all persons located in any
unenclosed areas of the recreational vessel are wearing lifejackets;
and that lifejackets are readily accessible for/to all persons located
in any enclosed area of the recreational vessel:
    (A) When crossing the bar and a bar restriction exists or
    (B) Whenever the recreational vessel is being towed or escorted
across the bar.
    (3) Safety requirements for uninspected passenger vessels (UPVs).
(i) The master or operator of any uninspected passenger vessel
operating in an RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section shall
ensure that all persons located in any unenclosed areas of their vessel
are wearing lifejackets and that lifejackets are readily accessible
for/to all persons located in any enclosed areas of their vessel
uninspected passenger vessel:
    (A) When crossing the bar and a bar restriction exists or
    (B) Whenever the uninspected passenger vessel is being towed or
escorted across the bar.
    (ii) The master or operator of any uninspected passenger vessel
operating in an RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section during
the conditions described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section
shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM Channel 16 prior to crossing
the bar. The master or operator shall report the following:
    (A) Vessel name,
    (B) Vessel location or position,
    (C) Number of persons onboard the vessel and
    (D) Vessel destination.
    (4) Safety Requirements for Small Passenger Vessels (SPV). (i) The
master or operator of any small passenger vessel operating in an RNA
established in paragraph (a) of this section shall ensure that all
persons located in any unenclosed areas of the small passenger vessel
are wearing lifejackets and that lifejackets are readily accessible
for/to all persons located in any enclosed areas of the vessel:
    (A) Whenever crossing the bar and a bar restriction exists or
    (B) Whenever their vessel is being towed or escorted across the
bar.
    (ii) Small passenger vessels with bar crossing plans that have been
reviewed by and accepted by the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection
(OCMI) are exempt from the safety requirements described in paragraph
(c)(4)(i) of this section during the conditions described in paragraph
(c)(4)(i)(A) of this section so long as when crossing the bar the
master or operator ensures that all persons on their vessel wear
lifejackets in accordance with their bar crossing plan. If the vessel's
bar crossing plan does not specify the conditions when the persons on
their vessel shall wear lifejackets, however, then the master or
operator shall comply with the safety requirements provided in
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section in its entirety.
    (iii) The master or operator of any small passenger vessel
operating in an RNA established in paragraph (a) of this section during
the conditions described in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A) of this section
shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM Channel 16 prior to crossing
the bar. The master or operator shall report the following:
    (A) Vessel name,
    (B) Vessel location or position,
    (C) Number of persons on board the vessel and
    (D) Vessel destination.
    (5) Safety Requirements for Commercial Fishing Vessels (CFV).
    (i) The master or operator of any commercial fishing vessel
operating in an RNA described in paragraph (a) of this section shall
ensure that all persons located in any unenclosed areas of commercial
fishing vessel are wearing lifejackets or immersion suits and that
lifejackets or immersion suits are readily accessible for/to all
persons located in any enclosed spaces of the vessel:
    (A) Whenever crossing the bar and a bar restriction exists or
    (B) Whenever the commercial fishing vessel is being towed or
escorted across the bar.

    (ii) The master or operator of any commercial fishing vessel
operating in an RNA described in paragraph (a) of this section during
the conditions described in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(A) of this section
shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM Channel 16 prior to crossing
the bar. The master or operator shall report the following:
    (A) Vessel name,
    (B) Vessel location or position,
    (C) Number of persons on board the vessel and
    (D) Vessel destination.
    (6) Penalties. All persons and vessels within the RNAs described in
paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with orders of Coast Guard
personnel. Coast Guard personnel includes commissioned, warrant, petty
officers, and civilians of the United States Coast Guard. Any person
who fails to comply with this regulation is subject to civil penalty in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 70036.

    Dated: October 21, 2019.
Peter W. Gautier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard District Eleven.
[FR Doc. 2019-23968 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36006-36008]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15364]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75193; File No. 4-668]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to the
National Market System Plan Governing the Process of Selecting a Plan
Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail by
BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC,
C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX
Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc.,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

June 17, 2015.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 Thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that,
on March 6, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., BOX
Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini,
LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock
Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'' or ``Participants''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a proposal to
amend the Plan Governing the Process of Selecting a Plan Processor and
Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``Selection
Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On September 3, 2013, the SROs filed for approval the Selection
Plan \3\ to govern how the SROs would proceed

with formulating and submitting a national market system (``NMS'') plan
to create, implement, and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT
NMS Plan'').\4\ The Selection Plan sets forth the process for the SROs
to review, evaluate, and narrow down the Bids submitted in response to
the SROs' request for proposals (``RFP'') for a Plan Processor to
build, operate, administer, and maintain the consolidated audit trail,
and ultimately for the SROs to select the Plan Processor.\5\ The
Selection Plan was approved on February 21, 2014.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70892 (Nov. 15,
2013), 78 FR 69910 (Nov. 21, 2013) (Notice of Selection Plan).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18,
2012), 77 FR 45722 (Aug. 1, 2012) (Rule 613 Adopting Release).
    \5\ See Notice of Selection Plan, supra note 3.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71596 (Feb. 21,
2014), 79 FR 11152 (Feb. 27, 2014) (Selection Plan Approval Order).
On December 12, 2014, the SROs filed a proposed amendment to the
Selection Plan, which was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on February 11, 2015, to allow the SROs to accept
revised Bids prior to Commission approval of the CAT NMS Plan, and
to narrow the list of Shortlisted Bidders prior to Commission
approval of the CAT NMS Plan (``Amendment No. 1''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74223 (Feb. 6, 2015), 80 FR 7654 (Feb. 11,
2015) (Notice of Amendment No. 1 to the Selection Plan). The
Commission is separately issuing an approval order for Amendment No.
1 concurrently with this Notice. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 75192 (June 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SROs now propose to amend the Selection Plan to require an SRO
that is a Bidding Participant \7\ to be recused from voting in any
round by the Selection Committee to select the Plan Processor in which
a Bid from or including such Bidding Participant or its Affiliate is
being considered. A copy of the proposed amendment to the Selection
Plan (``Amendment No. 2'') is attached as Exhibit A hereto. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from
interested persons on proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Selection Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Selection Plan defines ``Bidding Participant'' as a
Participant that: (1) Submits a Bid; (2) is an Affiliate of an
entity that submits a Bid; or (3) is included, or is an Affiliate of
an entity that is included, as a Material Subcontractor as part of a
Bid. See Notice of Selection Plan, supra note 3, Exhibit A at 2. The
Selection Plan defines ``Participant'' as a party to the Selection
Plan (i.e., an SRO). See id., Exhibit A at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Plan

    Set forth in this Section III is the statement of the purpose of
Amendment No. 2 to the Selection Plan, along with the information
required by Rule 608(a)(4) and (5) under the Exchange Act,\8\ prepared
and submitted by the SROs to the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
    \9\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated March 4, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    The Selection Plan, filed with the Commission on September 3,
2013,\10\ and approved on February 21, 2014,\11\ governs the process
for Participant review and vote for Bids for the role of Plan Processor
for the CAT NMS Plan.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Selection Plan, supra note 3.
    \11\ See Selection Plan Approval Order, supra note 6.
    \12\ The Participants also have filed a proposed amendment to
the Selection Plan (Amendment No. 1) that would allow the
Participants to accept revised Bids prior to the Commission's
approval of the CAT NMS Plan, and to narrow the list of Shortlisted
Bidders prior to the Commission's approval of the CAT NMS Plan. See
Notice of Amendment No. 1 to the Selection Plan, supra note 6.
Amendment No. 1 also requires recusal of a Bidding Participant from
voting in the narrowing process if a Bid submitted by or including
the Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant is a Shortlisted
Bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After gaining experience with the development process for the CAT
NMS Plan, the Participants believe it is advisable to amend the
Selection Plan to ensure that the Participants will be able to choose a
Plan Processor without any potential conflict of interest raised by
having a Participant vote in any round in the selection process where
that Participant has submitted a Bid, a Bid has been submitted by an
Affiliate of that Participant, or a Bid has been submitted that
includes that Participant or its Affiliate, and any such Bid is under
consideration in that round. The Participants propose amending the
Selection Plan to require recusal of that Bidding Participant in any of
those situations.
1. The Selection Plan Currently Requires Recusal on a Vote Only in the
Second Round of the Selection Process
    Under the Selection Plan, a Bidding Participant is recused from a
vote only in the second round of voting by the Selection Committee to
select the Plan Processor (as set forth in Section VI(E)(4) of the
Selection Plan) where that Participant has submitted a Bid, a Bid has
been submitted by an Affiliate of that Participant, or a Bid has been
submitted that includes that Participant or its Affiliate, and any such
Bid is under consideration in that round.
2. Requiring Recusal on a Vote in all Rounds of the Selection Will
Ensure That All Participants Voting on the Plan Processor Do Not Have
Any Conflict of Interest
    As noted in the Selection Plan Approval Order, the Selection Plan
as currently drafted balances the competing goals of ensuring all
Participants participate meaningfully in the process of developing the
CAT NMS Plan and mitigating potential conflicts of interest related to
the involvement of Bidding Participants through information barriers
and the voting limitations.\13\ Based on their experience with these
measures as currently set forth in the Plan, the Participants believe
that the Plan has adequately addressed the potential conflicts of
interest related to Bidding Participants. Nonetheless, the Participants
believe that requiring recusal in all rounds of the selection process
will further the Participants' goal of ensuring the fair and impartial
consideration and selection of the Plan Processor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Selection Plan Approval Order, supra note 6 at 11157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements Pursuant to Rule 608(a)

1. Description of the Amendments to the Selection Plan
    The Participants propose amending the Selection Plan to prohibit a
Bidding Participant from voting in any round to select the Plan
Processor from among the Shortlisted Bidders where that Bidding
Participant has submitted a Bid, a Bid has been submitted by an
Affiliate of that Bidding Participant, or a Bid has been submitted that
includes that Participant or its Affiliate, and any such Bid is under
consideration in that round.
2. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
3. Implementation of Amendment
    The terms of the proposed amendment will be operative immediately
upon approval of the amendment by the Commission.
4. Development and Implementation Phases
    Not applicable.
5. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act. The SROs believe that the amendment further helps
assure the fair and impartial consideration and selection of the Plan
Processor for the CAT NMS Plan.
6. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    Not applicable.
7. Statement that the Amendments Have Been Approved by the Plan
Sponsors
    The Selection Plan provides that amendments to the Selection Plan
shall

be effected by means of a written amendment that: (1) Sets forth the
change, addition, or deletion; (2) is executed by over two-thirds of
the Participants; and (3) is approved by the SEC pursuant to Rule 608,
or otherwise becomes effective under Rule 608.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment has been executed by all of the
Participants, and has consequently been approved by the SROs.
8. Terms and Conditions of Access
    Not applicable.
9. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    Not applicable.
10. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
11. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Amendment No.
2 to the Selection Plan 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 4-668 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-668. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Amendment to the Plan that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Amendment to the Plan between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the submission will also be available for
inspection and copying at the Participants' principal offices. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number 4-668 and should be submitted
on or before July 23, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.

Exhibit A

    Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TEXT

    Additions underlined; deletions bracketed \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The marked additions and deletions show the proposed
changes to the current Selection Plan without taking into account
Amendment No.1. The effect of the proposed additions and deletions
on the Selection Plan, taking into account Amendment No. 1, would be
renumbering Section V.(B)(3) as Section V.(B)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plan Processor Evaluation and Selection Plan

V. Selection Committee

    * * *

(B) Voting

    * * *
    (3) No Bidding Participant shall vote in any [the second] round set
forth [in Section VI(E)(4)] below if a Bid submitted by or including
the Participant or an Affiliate of the Participant is a part of such
[the second] round.
    * * *

VI. RFP Bid Evaluation and Plan Processor Selection

    * * *

(E) Selection of Plan Processor Under the CAT NMS Plan

    * * *
    (2) Each Participant shall have one vote in each round, except that
no Bidding Participant shall be entitled to vote in any [the second]
round if the Participant's Bid, a Bid submitted by an Affiliate of the
Participant, or a Bid including the Participant or an Affiliate of the
Participant is considered in such [the second] round. [Until the second
round, Bidding Participants may vote for any Shortlisted Bid.]
    (3) First Round Voting by the Selection Committee
    (a) In the first round of voting, each Voting Senior Officer,
subject to the recusal provisions in Paragraph (E)(2) above, shall
select a first and second choice from among the Shortlisted Bids.
    * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-15364 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12452-12454]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0112]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Anacostia River, Washington,
DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain navigable waters of the Anacostia River in Washington,
DC, on April 11, 2020 (with alternate date of April 12, 2020). This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters
during a fireworks display. This rulemaking would prohibit persons and
vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0112 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 MST3 Courtney Perry, Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    National Cherry Blossom Festival, Inc., notified the Coast Guard
that it will be conducting a fireworks display on April 11, 2020, from
8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. in conjunction with the National Cherry Blossom
Festival. In the event of inclement weather, the event will be held
those same hours on April 12, 2020. The fireworks will be launched from
a barge located in the Anacostia River across from Yards Park in
Washington, DC. Hazards from the firework display include accidental
discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers
or other debris. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be
used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone in the
Anacostia River near the fireworks barge.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within 400 feet of the fireworks barge before,
during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33
U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone to be enforced
from 7:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on April 11, 2020 (or alternatively, in
case of rain, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on April 12, 2020). The
safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Anacostia River
within 400 feet of the fireworks barge, in approximate position
latitude 38[deg]52'16.3'' N, longitude 077[deg]00'09.7 W, located at
Washington, DC. The duration and enforcement of the safety zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without first
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration,
time-of-day and time-of-year of the safety zone. Although this safety
zone would restrict access to certain parts of the waterway, it would
only impact a small designated area for a short period of time. The
Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone that would be enforced for less than 2.5 hours that would prohibit
entry within 400 feet of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) 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. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have

provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR
48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0112 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0112  Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Anacostia River,
Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Anacostia River within 400 feet of the fireworks barge,
in approximate position latitude 38[deg]52'16.3'' N, longitude
077[deg]00'09.7 W, located at Washington, DC. These coordinates are
based on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30
p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on April 11, 2020. Or alternatively, if necessary due
to inclement weather it will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on
April 12, 2020.

    Dated: February 26, 2020.
Mathew S. Fine,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector
Maryland-NCR.
[FR Doc. 2020-04302 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 12, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1195

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  SERVICIOS AEREOS REGIOMONTANOS, S.A. de C.V.
         Date Filed:  May 22, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

Applicant representative(s):  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Date of last action:  June 5, 2001, in this Docket.

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                                  Action date:  June 12,
2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 12, 2002, through June 15,
2003

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is
av楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮
瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19165-19167]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64162; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Expand the
$2.50 Strike Price Program

March 31, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 29, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4
to expand the $2.50 Strike Price Program. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the principal office of the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization'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 expand the current
$2.50 Strike Price Program (``Program'') \3\ to permit the listing of
options with $2.50 strike price intervals for options with strike
prices between $50 and $100, provided the $2.50 strike price intervals
are no more than $10 from the closing price of the underlying stock in
the primary market.\4\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase
the number of option classes on individual stocks for which the
intervals of strike prices will be $2.50 to 60 options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35993 (July 19,
1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995) (approving File Nos. SR-Phlx-95-
08, SR-Amex-95-12, SR-PSE-95-07, SR-CBOE-95-19, and SR-NYSE-95-12).
See also Exchange Act Release No. 52986 (December 20, 2005) 70 FR
76897 (December 28, 2005) (a rule change to allow the listing of
options with $2.50 strike price intervals for strike prices between
$50 and $75).
    \4\ The term ``primary market'' is defined in NYSE Arca Rule
6.1(27), in respect of an underlying stock, as the principal market
in which the underlying stock is traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Exchange Rule 6.4 at Commentary .03 permits the listing
of options with $2.50 strike price intervals for options with strike
prices between $50 and $75. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 to amend the current text.
    For example, consider a hypothetical where Caterpillar, Inc.
(``CAT'') was trading at $81. With approximately one month remaining
until expiration, and with a front month at-the-money put option (the
80 strike) trading at approximately $1.30, the investor would be able
to purchase a $77.50 strike put at an estimated $.60 per contract.
Today, the next available strike of a one month put option is the 75
strike. While the 75 strike put would certainly trade at a lesser price
than the 80 strike put,\5\ the protection offered would only take
effect with a 7.40% decline in the market as opposed to a 4.30% decline
in the market. The additional choice would provide the investor an
additional opportunity to hedge exposure (the opportunity to hedge with
a reduced outlay) and thereby minimize risk if there were a decline in
the stock price of CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 75 strike put would trade at $.30 in this example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example would be if an investor desired to sell call
options to hedge the exposure of an underlying stock position and
enhance yield. Consider a hypothetical where CAT was trading at $81 and
the second month (two months remaining) of a recently out-of-the-money
call option (the 85 strike) was trading at approximately $2.35. If the
investor were to sell the 85 call against an existing stock position,
the investor could yield a return of approximately 2.90% over a two-
month period or an annualized return of 17.4%. By providing an
additional $2.50 strike interval above $75, the investor would have the
opportunity to sell the 82.50 strike instead of the 85 strike. If the
85 strike call were trading at $2.35, the 82.50 strike call would trade
at approximately 3.30. By selling the 82.50 strike call at 3.30 against
an existing stock position, the investor could yield a 4.07% return
over a two-month period or an annualized 24.40% return. Therefore, an
additional choice of a $2.50 strike interval could afford varying
yields to the investor.
    The Exchange believes that the Program has to date created
additional trading opportunities for investors, thereby benefiting the
marketplace. The existence of $2.50 strike prices with strike intervals
above $75 affords investors the ability to more closely tailor
investment strategies to the precise movement of the underlying
security and meet their investment, trading and risk management
requirements.

    The Exchange is also making a small revision to the rule text to
remove a reference to Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (``ETF''), as the
strike interval for ETFs has been superseded by Rule 6.4 Commentary
.05, which permits strike price intervals for ETFs in $1 increments
under $200.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the number of option
classes on individual stocks for which the intervals of strike prices
will be $2.50 to 60 options classes. Currently, the Exchange may select
up to 43 options classes on individual stocks for which the intervals
of strike prices will be $2.50. Initially adopted in 1995 as a pilot
program, the options exchanges at that time were permitted to list
options with $2.50 strike price intervals up to $50 on a total of up to
100 option classes. In 1998, the pilot program was expanded and
permanently approved to allow the options exchanges collectively to
select up to 200 option classes on which to list options with $2.50
strike price intervals up to $50. Of these 200 options classes eligible
for the Program, 43 classes were allocated to the Exchange pursuant to
a formula approved by the Commission as part of the permanent approval
of the Program.\6\ In addition, each options exchange is permitted to
list options with $2.50 strike price intervals on any option class that
another options exchange selects under its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40662 (November 12,
1998), 63 FR 64297 (November 19, 1998) (approving File Nos. SR-Amex-
98-21, SR-CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR Phlx-98-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1998, the 200 options classes have not been expanded,
although increasingly more companies have completed initial public
offerings from 1998 through 2010. Additionally, significantly more
options classes are trading in 2010 as compared to 1998. The Exchange
proposes to increase its allocation from 43 to 60 \7\ options classes
to accommodate investor requests for $2.50 strikes in certain options
classes. The Exchange believes that offering additional options classes
would benefit investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') has
an allocation of 60 options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal would
have a negative impact on the marketplace. The Exchange would compare
this proposal with the $1 Strike Price expansion, wherein the Exchange
expanded its $1 Strike Price Program from 55 individual stocks to 150
individual stocks on which an option series may be listed at $1 strike
price intervals.\8\ The Exchange believes that this proposal, wherein
the Exchange is proposing to increase its allocation from 43 to 60
options classes is substantially less than the $1 Strike Price Program
increase and therefore would have less impact than that program, which
has not had any negative impact on the market in terms of proliferation
of quote volume or fragmentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62450 (July 2, 2010)
75 FR 39712 (July 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary system capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with the listing and
trading of classes on individual stocks in the $2.50 Strike Price
Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \9\,
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
effect of the proposed expansion on the marketplace would not result in
a material proliferation of quote volume or concerns with
fragmentation. In addition, the Exchange believes that it has the
necessary system capacity to handle the potential additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of additional series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather, the Exchange believes the $2.50 Strike Price Program
proposal would provide the investing public and other market
participants increased opportunities to better manage their risk
exposure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal to
expand the number of classes in the Program and to allow the listing of
options with $2.50 strike price intervals for options with strike
prices between $50 and $100 should further benefit investors and the
market by providing greater trading opportunities for those underlying
stocks that have low volatility and thus trade in a narrow range.

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\13\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64157 (March 31,
2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-15) (order approving expansion of $2.50 Strike
Price Program).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2011-13 and should be submitted on or before April 27, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8136 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55622-55623]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0041, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC12

Systems for Telephonic Notification of Unsafe Conditions at
Highway-Rail and Pathway Grade Crossings

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

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: On March 4, 2011, FRA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking that would require certain railroads to develop a system for
telephonic notification of unsafe conditions at highway-rail and
pathway grade crossings. FRA is announcing a public hearing to provide
interested persons an opportunity to provide comments on the proposal
and to discuss further development of the regulation. The Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 requires the development and implementation of
these telephonic notification systems.

DATES: A public hearing will be held on September 29, 2011, in
Washington, DC and will commence at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held at the
Courtyard Washington Capitol Hill/Navy Yard, Admiral Room I & II,
located at 140 L Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003.
    Attendance: Any persons wishing to make a statement at the hearing
should notify FRA's Docket Clerk, Michelle Silva, by telephone, e-mail,
or in writing, at least five business days before the date of the
hearing. Ms. Silva's contact information is as follows: FRA, Office of
Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities or
to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact by
telephone or e-mail as soon as possible, Larry Woolverton at 202-493-
6212 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Crawford, Transportation
Specialist, Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention, Office of
Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Matthew Navarrete, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,
1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-
0138<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the hearing is to receive
oral comments in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing regulations that would require certain railroads to implement
systems for telephonic notification of unsafe conditions at highway-
rail and pathway grade crossings. See 76 FR 11992-12012 (March 4,
2011). Interested parties are invited to present oral statements and to
proffer information and views at the hearing. The hearing will be
informal and will be conducted by a representative designated by FRA in
accordance with FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The hearing
will be a non-adversarial proceeding; therefore, there will be no cross
examination of persons presenting statements or proffering evidence. An
FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope
of the hearing. After all initial statements have been completed; those
persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given the opportunity
to do so in the same order in which the initial statements were made.
Additional procedures, as necessary for the conduct of the hearing,
will be announced at the hearing. A transcript of the discussions will
be made part of the public docket in this proceeding.
    Public Participation Procedures. Any person wishing to participate
in the public hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by mail or at the
address or fax number provided in the Attendance section of this notice
at least five working days prior to the date of the hearing and submit
three copies of the oral statement that he or she intends to make at
the proceeding. The notification should identify the party the person
represents, the particular subject(s) the person plans to address, and
the time requested. The notification should also provide the Docket
Clerk with the participant's mailing address and other contact
information. FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the
hearing of persons who fail to provide such notification. FRA reserves
the right to limit the duration of presentations if necessary to afford
all persons with the opportunity to speak.

Background

    In section 205 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public
Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4872 (Oct. 16, 2008) (codified at 49 U.S.C.
20152) (hereinafter RSIA), Congress directed the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to issue a regulation, requiring railroads
to establish a telephonic notification system for the public to report
unsafe conditions at highway-rail and pathway grade crossings. While
the statute vests certain responsibilities with the Secretary, those
responsibilities have been delegated to the FRA Administrator. See 49
CFR 1.49(oo); 74 FR 26981 (June 5, 2009); see also 49 U.S.C. 103(g).
    In an NPRM issued on March 4, 2011, FRA proposed various amendments
to its regulations on grade crossing safety. The primary amendments
proposed would require a railroad that dispatches a train through a
public or private highway-rail or pathway grade crossing to establish
and maintain a system that allows a member of the public to call the
railroad and report an emergency or other unsafe condition at the
crossing. Upon receiving such a report, the railroad may be required to
warn all trains authorized to operate through the crossing of the
reported unsafe condition, inform local law enforcement of the reported
unsafe condition, and must either investigate the report itself or
request that the railroad with maintenance responsibility for the
crossing investigate the report. If the report is substantiated, the
railroad with maintenance responsibility for the crossing would be
required to take certain actions to remedy the condition found. The
purpose of the hearing is to receive oral comments in response to the
requirements related to a telephonic notification system as proposed in
the NPRM.
    FRA encourages all interested persons to participate in the
hearing, at the addresse noted above. We encourage participants wishing
to make oral statements to plan on attending the entire hearing, since
FRA may not be able to accommodate competing requests to appear at
specific times.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2011.
Robert Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-23008 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P