[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44829-44834]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175]
RIN 2127-AK84

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule that amended
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for air brake systems by
requiring substantial improvements in stopping distance performance on
new truck tractors. In response, the agency received eight petitions
for reconsideration. The agency has already responded to most of the
issues raised in the petitions. This document responds to the one
outstanding issue raised in the petitions, stopping distance
performance requirements at lower initial speeds. Based on testing
results and our concern that the current requirements might not be
practicable, NHTSA is slightly relaxing the stopping distance
requirement for typical loaded tractors tested from an initial speed of
20 mph by increasing the distance from 30 feet to 32 feet and for
unloaded tractors tested from an initial speed of 20 mph by increasing
the distance from 28 feet to 30 feet. We believe no other changes are
necessary.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 1, 2011.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than
September 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Jeffrey Woods, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-6206, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the
Chief Counsel, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at (202) 366-
3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background of the Stopping Distance Requirement
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Testing Program
IV. Response to Petition
V. Technical Correction
VI. Effective Date
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VIII. Regulatory Text

I. Background of the Stopping Distance Requirement

    On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
121, Air Brake Systems, to require improved stopping distance
performance for heavy truck tractors.\1\ This rule reduced the maximum
allowable stopping distance, from 60 mph, from 355 feet to 250 feet for
the vast majority of loaded heavy truck tractors. For a small minority
of loaded very heavy tractors, the maximum allowable stopping distance
was reduced from 355 feet to 310 feet. Having come to the conclusion
that modifications needed for ``typical three-axle tractors,'' to meet
the improved requirements were relatively straightforward, NHTSA
provided two years lead time for those vehicles to comply with the new
requirements. These typical three-axle tractors comprise approximately
82 percent of the total fleet of heavy tractors. The agency concluded
that other tractors, which are produced in far fewer numbers and may
need additional work to ensure stability and control while braking,
would need more lead time to meet the requirements. Due to extra time
needed to design, test, and validate these vehicles, which included
two-axle tractors and severe service tractors, the agency allowed four
years lead time for

these tractors to meet the improved stopping distance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 74 FR 37122; Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0083-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirements in FMVSS No. 121 provide that if the speed attainable
by a vehicle in two miles is less than 60 mph, the speed at which the
vehicle shall meet the specified stopping distances is four to eight
mph less than the speed attainable in two miles. In the July 2009 final
rule, the agency used an equation to derive the required stopping
distances for vehicles with initial speeds of less than 60 mph.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The complete derivation for this equation was included in
the docket. See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21462-0039, at 18-22.

St = (\1/2\ Vo tr) + ((\1/2\)
Vo[sup2]/af)--((\1/24\) af
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tr[sup2])

Where:

St = Total stopping distance in feet
Vo = Initial Speed in ft/sec
tr = Air pressure rise time in seconds
af = Steady-state deceleration in ft/sec[sup2]

    For the final rule, the agency selected an air pressure rise time
of 0.45 seconds, which is equal to the brake actuation timing
requirement in FMVSS No. 121. The steady-state deceleration was based
on an theoretical deceleration curve in which vehicle deceleration
would increase linearly during the rise time portion of the stopping
event, followed by constant steady-state deceleration, followed by an
instantaneous decrease in acceleration back to zero at the completion
of the stop. Table II in FMVSS No. 121 sets forth the stopping distance
requirements for speeds from 60 mph down to 20 mph (in increments of 5
mph) for both typical and severe service tractors in the loaded
conditions and all tractors in the unloaded condition derived using
that formula.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received eight timely petitions for reconsideration in
response to the final rule. Separate petitions were received from the
Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); the Heavy Duty Brake
Manufacturers Council of the Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association
(HDBMC); Bendix Spicer Foundation Brake LLC (Bendix), a joint venture
between Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems and Dana Corporation; and
ArvinMeritor. The agency received four additional petitions supporting
and incorporating the TMA petition by reference from Daimler Trucks
North America (Daimler), Kenworth Truck Company (Kenworth), Peterbilt
Motors Company (Peterbilt), and Navistar Truck Group (Navistar).
    The petitions focused on four main issues. The main issues included
the stopping distance requirements for reduced speeds, the omission of
four-axle tractors under 59,600 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) from the listed requirements and the date at which the improved
stopping distance requirements should apply to those tractors, the
manner in which NHTSA characterized the typical three-axle tractor, and
the fuel tank fill level testing specification. Additionally, the
petitioners requested that NHTSA correct some typographical errors in
the regulatory text.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 13,
2009, the agency addressed all of the issues raised in the petition,
except those related to stopping distance requirements at reduced
speeds.\3\ We addressed the other issues first because the agency
omitted lead time requirements for tractors with four or more axles and
a GVWR of 59,600 pounds or less, which would have inadvertently
required those vehicles to comply with the upgraded stopping distance
requirements on November 24, 2009. The November 2009 final rule
responded to issues raised in the petition with these amendments: (1)
The agency accepted the recommendation of petitioners TMA, HDBMC, and
Bendix and required compliance with the improved stopping distance
requirements for tractors with four or more axles and a GVWR of 59,600
pounds or less by August 1, 2013, thereby giving four years of lead
time; (2) the agency revised the definition of a ``typical three-axle
tractor'' in the regulatory text in response to concerns raised by TMA
and ArvinMeritor to include three-axle tractors having a steer axle
gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 14,600 pounds or less and a combined
drive axle GAWR of 45,000 pounds or less; (3) the agency removed the
fuel tank loading specification from the test procedure in response to
TMA's petition; (4) the agency made two typographical corrections
identified by all petitioners.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 58562; Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175-0001.
    \4\ The agency made further correcting amendments to correct an
omission in the November 2009 final rule. See 75 FR 15620 (Mar. 30,
2010); Docket No. 2009-0175-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TMA, HDBMC, and Bendix each raised issues in their petitions
regarding stopping distance requirements at reduced test speeds. TMA,
HDBMC, and Bendix each stated that the new stopping distance
requirements from speeds lower than 60 mph have not been validated
through actual vehicle test data. In addition, the agency received a
comment on the November 2009 final rule from Crystal Vangorder, which
supported this assertion. TMA and Ms. Vangorder requested that the
agency withdraw the reduced stopping distance requirements from speeds
lower than 60 mph until test data has been obtained.
    Although HDBMC reviewed NHTSA's calculations and assumptions set
forth in the preamble to the final rule and agreed with the technical
approach taken, HDBMC nevertheless stated that the brake timing may be
too fast for some vehicle configurations. HDBMC made reference to its
own prior comments on the agency's reduced stopping distance rulemaking
in which it provided tables showing how brake timing affects stopping
distance.\5\ HDBMC noted that high braking torques can occur prior to
load transfer, which may cause deep cycling of the antilock brake
system (ABS) resulting in slightly longer stopping distance. Bendix
also stated that differing opinions on axle response time and average
deceleration left the results of the calculations open to speculation.
HDBMC noted that limited initial testing data by its members showed
that vehicle are close to meeting or are not meeting the stopping
distance from 20 mph of 30 feet within a 10 percent margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21462-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TMA and HDBMC both stated that their members were conducting
testing and would provide the agency with data to supplement any agency
testing. However, no test data has been provided to the agency.

III. Testing Program

    In response to the petitions, NHTSA conducted testing to evaluate
the stopping distance performance of a truck tractor from initial test
speeds between 20 and 60 mph. The purpose of the testing was to acquire
test data that, as stated in the petitions for reconsideration to the
July 2009 final rule, had not been available to confirm that the new
stopping distance requirements from speeds less than 60 mph could be
achieved. The test program and results are described in the technical
report, ``Experimental Measurement of the Stopping Performance of a
Tractor-Semitrailer from Multiple Speeds.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOT HS 811 488, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC)/ca/811488.pdf, Docket No.
NHTSA-2009-0175-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test plan was to evaluate a tractor that, when tested while
traveling at a speed of 60 mph, met the reduced tractor stopping
distance requirement of 250 feet for vehicles loaded to GWVR without
any margin. That same tractor was then tested at lower initial speeds
to compare actual test results with the new requirements in Table II of
FMVSS

No. 121. The test was also conducted in a lightly loaded vehicle weight
condition with no trailer attached.
    The agency used a 1991 Volvo 6x4 tractor with a 190-inch wheelbase,
equipped with a hybrid disc brake configuration. The vehicle was used
in the agency's research to support the reduced stopping distance
rulemaking, and was chosen because it was expected to have close to a
250-foot stopping distance when tested from 60 mph in the loaded
condition. During actual testing, the vehicle was found to have a
minimum stopping distance of 249 feet when loaded to GVWR (i.e., the
shortest stop in a series of six stops).\7\ However, the vehicle had
not been operated for several years and when the vehicle was
recommissioned for this test program, the agency found it necessary to
adjust the amount of the ballast load of the vehicle by lowering it to
a modified GVWR in order to achieve consistent stopping distance of 250
feet from 60 mph.\8\ This modified GVWR was used for the rest of the
testing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Repairs were necessary to this vehicle in order to meet the
0.45 second brake application timing requirement.
    \8\ The tractor's GVWR was 50,000 pounds. The load necessary to
meet the 250-foot stopping requirement with the control trailer
attached was 42,840 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency considered using a newer vehicle and adding ballast to
increase the stopping distance of the vehicle to 250 feet. However, the
agency decided not to follow this approach because it could have
resulted in unusually high brake temperatures and brake fade effects or
changes in the brake lining friction characteristics. The agency
believed it would be better to remove weight from a worse-performing
tractor rather than adding weight to a better-performing tractor.
    A series of six stops was then conducted for the loaded tractor at
initial speeds ranging from 60 mph down to 20 mph in five-mph
increments. The average of each six-stop series was compared to the new
requirements in column (3) of Table II of FMVSS No. 121. The results
indicated that from initial speeds below 60 mph, the vehicle could
achieve slightly better stopping distances than those in Table II,
except at the lowest test speed of 20 mph. From an initial speed of 20
mph, the tractor loaded to the modified GVWR achieved an average
stopping distance of 31.2 feet, compared to the FMVSS No. 121 stopping
distance requirement of 30 feet.
    The test series was then repeated in the unloaded (bobtail)
condition. For this test series, the agency was unable to devise a
practical way of adjusting the tractor's braking performance to provide
a zero percent margin of compliance at 60 mph. These results were
compared to the new requirements in column (6) of Table II of FMVSS No.
121. The results indicated that the tractor performed with a 20 to 25
percent margin of compliance at initial test speeds between 30 and 60
mph. However, at the two lowest test speeds, the margin of compliance
was less--16 percent at 25 mph and eight percent at 20 mph.
    When compared to the theoretical deceleration curve discussed in
the July 2009 final rule, there were differences. The theoretical
deceleration curve has a linear increase in deceleration during the
rise time, followed by a constant steady-state deceleration, and then
an instantaneous decrease in deceleration to zero at the completion of
the stop. In comparison, the test data generally followed this shape
with some differences. There was substantial signal noise in the
measured deceleration, which has been observed in other heavy vehicle
braking tests. Because of this signal noise, the data analyst had to
use judgment in determining the completion of the rise time. The
steady-state deceleration also was not constant. It appeared to be
higher toward the end of the stop as the vehicle speed decreased during
the stop. At the end of the stop, the test data indicated a steep ramp
down in deceleration to zero, but it was not the instantaneous drop
shown in the theoretical curve.
    For the new stopping distance requirements, the rise time used in
the stopping distance equation was 0.45 seconds, and the preamble of
the July 2009 final rule provided the required steady-state
decelerations for the various initial test speeds that would be
required to achieve the new stopping distances. For example, for a
typical tractor from an initial speed of 60 mph with a rise time of
0.45 seconds and a stopping distance of 250 feet, the required steady-
state deceleration in the equation was 16.80 ft/sec\2\.
    When compared to the actual test data in the loaded condition from
60 mph, the average stopping distance was 251 feet, the rise time was
0.40 seconds, and the steady-state deceleration was 17.3 ft/sec\2\.
Although the rise time was slightly faster and the stopping distance
very slightly worse, the measured steady-state deceleration was higher
than predicted. Deriving the steady-state deceleration from the
equation using the observed stopping distance and rise time would
result in a predicted steady-state deceleration of 16.6 ft/sec\2\,
which is four percent lower than what was observed. Although the
difference is small, the divergence became greater at lower initial
test speeds. At the lowest test speed of 20 mph, the measured steady-
state deceleration of the vehicle was 20 ft/sec\2\, which is 2.9 ft/
sec\2\ or 17 percent higher than the predicted value of 17.1 ft/sec\2\
from the equation. Similar differences, though not as great were
observed from tests in the unloaded condition.
    The test results also revealed that the agency was correct in
assuming that higher steady-state deceleration would be achieved at
lower initial test speeds due to increasing tire adhesion as the
vehicle speed decreases when considering speeds between 60 and 35 mph.
However, for the loaded tractor tests conducted at the lowest initial
speeds, the measured steady-state deceleration actually decreased from
21.4 ft/sec\2\ at an initial test speed of 25 mph to 20.0 ft/sec\2\ at
an initial test speed of 20 mph. For the unloaded tests, the steady-
state deceleration decreased from 24.7 ft/sec\2\ at an initial test
speed of 35 mph to 21.7 ft/sec\2\ at an initial test speed of 20 mph.
The reduced steady-state deceleration at these lower test speeds
appears to be an influential factor in the loaded tractor's not meeting
the new 20 mph stopping distance of 30 feet and in the reduced margin
of compliance for the unloaded tractor tests at the lowest test speeds
of 25 and 20 mph.
    The testing also provided data on the rise times that were achieved
for the two loading conditions at the various test speeds, although
they had to be determined based on engineering judgment due to the
signal noise. For the tests in the loaded condition, the average rise
time based on the six stops at each test speed ranged between 0.39 and
0.56 seconds. The longest average rise times of 0.50 and 0.56 seconds
occurred at the initial test speeds of 30 and 25 mph, respectively.
From an initial test speed of 20 mph, the average rise time decreased
to 0.42 seconds. Otherwise, there was no clear trend for the rise times
when compared to initial test speed. Within each set of six stops for
each test speed, some showed considerable variability between the six
stops and some did not, with standard deviations ranging between 0.11
seconds from an initial speed of 30 mph (minimum 0.37 seconds, maximum
0.60 seconds) to 0.02 seconds from an initial speed of 40 mph (minimum
0.36 seconds, maximum 0.41 seconds).
    The rise times for the unloaded tractor tests were substantially
lower than those for the loaded tests. There was also much less
variability in the unloaded tests compared to the loaded tests, with

average rise times for each six-stop series ranging between 0.27 and
0.32 seconds. The standard deviation for each six-stop series ranged
between 0.01 seconds and 0.03 seconds.
    The agency did not specifically evaluate ABS cycling during stops.
However, based on a review of the wheel speed data, we are able to make
some observations. The ABS had the most activity when the tractor was
tested in the unloaded condition, in which there were continuous brake
pressure modulations for the drive axles throughout all of the stops
from all initial test speeds. The intermediate drive axle was equipped
with ABS wheel speed sensors and the brake pressures for both drive
axles were modulated based upon the wheel slip occurring on this drive
axle. For tests in the loaded condition, the wheel speed data for the
drive axles did not show any indications of substantial wheel slip on
the intermediate drive axle, although brake pressure modulation was
observed in about half of the stops, mostly at the beginning of the
stop, indicating that ABS did activate in those stops. ABS activity on
the steer axle was mixed. Some tests in the loaded condition showed
steer axle brake pressure modulations of up to 30 psi followed by
stair-stepping pressure increases. As with the drive axle, there was
much more ABS activity on the steer axle during the unloaded stops.
However, none of the ABS activity on the steer or drive axles was
considered to be deep cycling in which the pressure is modulated to
near zero or held at low pressures for a substantial amount to time in
response to rapid wheel lockup, and there were no observed lapses in
deceleration resulting from ABS activity.

IV. Response to Petition

    Because of the lack of test data on the stopping distance for
tractors from reduced stopping distance, the agency conducted the
testing program to determine the accuracy of the equation from which
the agency derived the stopping distances and to determine whether a
test tractor could readily achieve the new reduced stopping distances
from each of the initial test speeds. Because the agency has conducted
testing that verified the stopping distance requirements at reduced
test speeds, the agency has decided not to set aside or withdraw the
stopping distance requirements at reduced initial test speeds, as
requested by TMA and supported by Ms. Vangorder.
    Regarding the validity of the stopping distance equation in the
final rule that was used to derive the stopping distances from reduced
speeds, the agency concludes that the theoretical deceleration profile
that formed the basis of the equation had some inaccuracies.\9\
Although the testing demonstrated some slight inaccuracies in the
equation, we have decided not to pursue refinements to the equation at
this time to improve its accuracy in order to address the petitions for
reconsideration. The results lead us to believe that further testing
likely would not suggest a need for any significant changes to other
stopping distance requirements nor would it lead to improvements in the
robustness of the equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We believed that including the stopping distance equation in
preamble to the final rule was useful to provide the agency's view
on how tractors are anticipated to meet the stopping distance
requirements at reduced speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding HDBMC's comments that the rise times used in the final
rule would make very fast brake timings necessary and that could result
in high braking torques occurring prior to load transfer and deep
cycling of the ABS, and as a result those timings would contribute to
longer stopping distances, we presume that HDMBC was referring
primarily to the tractor's steer axle that experiences the greatest
increase in load transfer during a maximum effort stop. In response to
this concern, we note three observations from the agency's testing.
First, the fastest rise times observed in the testing were in the
unloaded condition and were approximately 0.30 seconds, which closely
matched the average brake application timing of 0.31 seconds that was
measured on the steer axle. Second, the brake application timing was
not particularly fast on the drive axles (0.41 and 0.42 seconds for the
rear and intermediate drive axles respectively), and the rise times for
the tractors tested in the loaded condition were similar to the drive
axle application timing (average of 0.43 seconds). Third, deep cycling
of the ABS system was not observed during any stops in the unloaded and
loaded conditions. The test tractor was able to meet nearly all of the
stopping distance requirements without particularly fast brake
application timing. Further, HDBMC never provided its own test data in
support of its assertion that fast brake timings would be required to
meet the stopping distance requirements at lower initial test speeds.
    Based on the foregoing, the agency has decided to increase the
stopping distances set forth in Table II of FMVSS No. 121 for typical
tractors in the loaded condition (column (3)) and for unloaded tractors
(column (6)) from an initial speed of 20 mph. For typical tractors in
the loaded condition, the agency is increasing the stopping distance
from an initial speed of 20 mph from 30 feet to 32 feet. The basis for
this change is that the agency's testing program showed decreased
steady-state deceleration performance at this initial test speed
compared to what was predicted. The agency based the 30-foot stopping
distance on the assumption that lower initial test speeds would always
have a higher steady-state deceleration when compared to higher initial
test speeds. The tractor tests showed that this was the case between
initial test speeds of 60 and 35 mph. However, variations occurred
below 25 mph. We believe that braking tests with initial speeds below
35 mph are of such short duration that there is insufficient time to
attain and maintain the level of steady-state deceleration performance
that is seen from higher initial braking speeds.
    The agency is also increasing the stopping distance for tractors in
the unloaded condition from an initial speed of 20 mph from 28 feet to
30 feet. In the agency's testing, the test tractor exceeded the new
stopping distances in the unloaded condition from initial test speeds
between 60 mph and 30 mph by a margin of greater than 20 percent. At 25
mph, the compliance margin narrowed to 16 percent, and at 20 mph, the
compliance margin further narrowed to eight percent. Increasing the
unloaded stopping distance from 28 feet to 30 feet would improve the
margin of compliance to 14 percent. The eight percent margin of
compliance stands out when considering that a tractor that would not
have as good of braking performance as the tractor tested, such that it
would have lower margins of compliance at higher initial test speeds.
As we stated above, we were not able to test an unloaded tractor with a
zero margin of compliance from an initial test speed of 60 mph. We are
making this change in anticipation that some atypical tractors with
lower margins of compliance in the unloaded condition would have
difficulty achieving the 28 foot stopping distance.
    The agency notes that these changes are being made based on the
testing of a tractor that was adjusted to just meet the stopping
distance requirements for the stops from 60 mph in the loaded
condition. We anticipate that tractors with improved braking
performance will be designed to have a greater-than-zero margin of
compliance to the new stopping distance requirements so that minor
variations in the vehicle manufacturing process and brake components
can be tolerated. Thus, we

expect that the stopping distance performance of vehicles at all
initial test speeds would be slightly better as well. The agency has
received no additional test data after the petitions for
reconsideration were filed. We are therefore amending the stopping
distances for reduced initial speeds based solely upon the agency's own
test data.
    We also wish to clarify that tractors, trucks, and buses must only
meet the stopping distance requirements at the initial test speed
corresponding to the highest speed attainable by the vehicle. As stated
in S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 121, vehicle stops are generally conducted
from 60 mph in both the loaded and unloaded conditions. However, if the
speed attainable by a vehicle in two miles is less than 60 mph, the
vehicle is required to stop from a speed in Table II that is four to
eight mph less than the speed attainable in two miles. Thus, FMVSS No.
121 does not require that stops be conducted from all initial test
speeds listed in Table II; rather, stopping distance tests are
conducted from either 60 mph or from the speed that is four to eight
mph less than the highest speed attainable within two miles.

V. Technical Correction

    In the notes portion of Table II of FMVSS No. 121, the label for
column (6) is ``Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail),'' which is the stopping
distance requirements for unloaded tractors using the service brakes,
whereas the label for column (8) is ``Unloaded Tractors,'' which is the
stopping distance requirements for unloaded tractors using the
emergency brake. The vehicle loading conditions tested in columns (6)
and (8) are identical. The term ``Bobtail'' is included as a
parenthetical to the label for column (6) to make clear that the
stopping distance requirements in that column are to be met without a
trailer attached. So there is no confusion that the loading condition
for column (8) is identical to the loading condition for column (6), we
are adding the term ``Bobtail'' in parenthesis in the label for column
(8).

VI. Effective Date

    Section 30111(d) of title 49, United States Code, provides that a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard may not become effective before
the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or later than one year
after it is prescribed except when a different effective date is, for
good cause shown, in the public interest. This rule makes amendments to
regulatory provisions that are subject to phase-in that were set forth
in the July 2009 final rule. These amendments would not impose new
requirements; rather, these amendments simply adjust the required
maximum stopping distances at very low speeds by slightly relaxing them
to be consistent with what the agency intended in the April 2007 final
rule. Therefore, good cause exists for these amendments to be made
effective in the timeframe already in place concerning the effective
dates of implementation of the reduced stopping distance requirements
in FMVSS No. 121.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agency has
considered the impact of this action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not ``significant''
under them.
    This action completes the agency's response to petitions for
reconsideration regarding the July 2009 final rule amending FMVSS No.
121. This final rule revises the stopping distance table for vehicles
from very low speeds to reflect agency's intent in the July 2009 final
rule regarding braking performance level from very low test speeds.
Today's action will not cause any additional expenses for vehicle
manufacturers. This action will not have any significant safety
impacts.

B. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may
visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the July 2009 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks). As today's rule merely makes minor changes in
the stopping distance at lower speeds to reflect agency's intent in the
July 2009 final rule regarding braking performance level from very low
test speeds, it will not have any effect on the agency's analyses in
those areas.

VIII. Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. In Sec.  571.121, revise Table II to read as follows:

Sec.  571.121  Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.

* * * * *

                                                           Table II--Stopping Distance in Feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Service brake                                      Emergency brake
         Vehicle speed in miles per hour         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          (1)          (2)          (3)          (4)          (5)          (6)          (7)          (8)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20..............................................           32           35           32           35           38           30           83           85

25..............................................           49           54           45           54           59           43          123          131
30..............................................           70           78           65           78           84           61          170          186
35..............................................           96          106           89          106          114           84          225          250
40..............................................          125          138          114          138          149          108          288          325
45..............................................          158          175          144          175          189          136          358          409
50..............................................          195          216          176          216          233          166          435          504
55..............................................          236          261          212          261          281          199          520          608
60..............................................          280          310          250          310          335          235          613          720
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Loaded and Unloaded Buses.
(2) Loaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(3) Loaded Tractors with Two Axles; or with Three Axles and a GVWR of 70,000 lbs. or less; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR of 85,000 lbs. or less.
  Tested with an Unbraked Control Trailer.
(4) Loaded Tractors with Three Axles and a GVWR greater than 70,000 lbs.; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR greater than 85,000 lbs. Tested with an
  Unbraked Control Trailer.
(5) Unloaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(6) Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail).
(7) All Vehicles except Tractors, Loaded and Unloaded.
(8) Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail).

* * * * *

    Issued on: July 21, 2011.
Ronald L. Medford,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-18929 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3498-3500]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00960]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0074; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-138-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that
without an effective maintenance task to maintain the airplane's
inherent level of safety, there is a potential that a dormant failure
of the alternate release system of the landing gear could occur. This
proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate a maintenance task for an
operational check of the electro-mechanical actuator (EMA) and release
mechanism of the alternate extension system (AES) for the nose landing
gear (NLG) and main landing gear (MLG). We are proposing this AD to
prevent failure of the alternate release system of the landing gear,
which could prevent the landing gear from extending during a failure of
the normal landing gear extension system.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0074; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0074;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-138-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-16, dated June 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a design review, an error was identified which led to the
development of a new certification maintenance requirement (CMR)
task. Without an effective maintenance task to maintain the
aeroplane's inherent level of safety, there is a potential that a
dormant failure of the alternate release system of the landing gear
could occur. Failure of the landing gear alternate release system
could prevent the landing gear from extending in the case of a
failure of the normal landing gear extension system.
    This [TCCA] AD mandates the incorporation of a new maintenance
task to ensure operation of the landing gear alternate extension
system.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0074.

Related Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-0472, dated
February 27, 2014, to Section 1-32, of Part 2, Bombardier Airworthiness
Limitations, of the CRJ Series Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements
Manual, CSP B-053. This service information describes a maintenance
task for an operational check of the electro-mechanical actuator and
release mechanism of the alternate extension system for the nose
landing gear and main landing gear. The actions described in this
service information are

intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions
described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method
of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. The request
should include a description of changes to the required inspections
that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975, or $85 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0074; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-138-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 9, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 19002 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that without an
effective maintenance task to maintain the airplane's inherent level
of safety, there is a potential that a dormant failure of the
alternate release system of the landing gear can occur. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the alternate release system
of the landing gear, which could prevent the landing gear from
extending during a failure of the normal landing gear extension
system.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revise Maintenance Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Task 32-01-00-101, ``Operational Check of the MLG [Main Landing
Gear] and NLG [Nose Landing Gear] AES [Alternate Extension System]
EMA [Electro-mechanical Actuator] and Release Mechanism (CRJ1000),''
for the operational check of the MLG and NLG AES EMA and release
mechanism, as specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-
0472, dated February 27, 2014, to Section 1-32 of Part 2, Bombardier
Airworthiness Limitations, of the CRJ Series Regional Jet,
Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053. The initial compliance
times for the actions specified in Bombardier TR ALI-0472, dated
February 27, 2014, are at the applicable time specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 540 total flight hours
or more as of the effective date of this AD: Within 660 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 540 total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Before the
accumulation of 1,200 total flight hours.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Organization Approval (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-16, dated June 11,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0074.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00960 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68351-68353]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30981 Amdt. No. 3611]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective November 17, 2014. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125),
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the

affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air
commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting
these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists
for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule '' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2014.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 13 November 2014

Nome, AK, Nome, ILS OR LOC/DME Z RWY 28, Amdt 4
Nome, AK, Nome, LOC/DME BC RWY 10, Amdt 4
Nome, AK, Nome, NDB-A, Amdt 1
Nome, AK, Nome, NDB/DME RWY 3, Amdt 3
Nome, AK, Nome, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6
Nome, AK, Nome, VOR RWY 28, Amdt 3
Nome, AK, Nome, VOR/DME RWY 10, Amdt 3
Shaktoolik, AK, Shaktoolik, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Sitka, AK, Sitka Rocky Gutierrez, BIORKA THREE, Graphic DP
Arkadelphia, AR, Dexter B Florence Memorial Field, NDB RWY 4, Amdt
7, CANCELED
Arkadelphia, AR, Dexter B Florence Memorial Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4,
Amdt 1
Arkadelphia, AR, Dexter B Florence Memorial Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
22, Orig
Arkadelphia, AR, Dexter B Florence Memorial Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Glendale, AZ, Glendale Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Goodyear, AZ, Phoenix Goodyear, POTER TWO, Graphic DP
Goodyear, AZ, Phoenix Goodyear, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
San Diego/El Cajon, CA, Gillespie Field, LOC/DME-D, Amdt 11
Santa Rosa, CA, Charles M. Schulz--Sonoma County, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 6
Perry, FL, Perry-Foley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L,
Amdt 4
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (GPS) PRM RWY 9L
(SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE PARALLEL), Orig
Winder, GA, Barrow County, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Orig-B
Winder, GA, Barrow County, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 9A
Winder, GA, Barrow County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A
Newton, IA, Newton Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 2
Newton, IA, Newton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Newton, IA, Newton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A
Boise, ID, Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld, RNAV (RNP) X RWY 28R, Orig
New Castle, IN, New Castle-Henry Co Muni, NDB RWY 27, Amdt 6
New Castle, IN, New Castle-Henry Co Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
New Castle, IN, New Castle-Henry Co Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
New Castle, IN, New Castle-Henry Co Muni, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 10
Sullivan, IN, Sullivan County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Sullivan, IN, Sullivan County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, ILS OR LOC RWY
1L, ILS RWY 1L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 1L (CAT II), Amdt 3C
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, ILS OR LOC RWY
1R, Amdt 17C
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, ILS OR LOC RWY
19L, Amdt 1
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, ILS OR LOC RWY
19R, Amdt 5F
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, NDB RWY 1R, Amdt
15C
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) RWY
1R, Amdt 2
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) RWY
32, Amdt 1A
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
1L, Amdt 1B
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
14, Amdt 2A
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
19L, Amdt 2
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
19R, Amdt 1A
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
1L, Orig-C
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
14, Orig-B
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
19L, Amdt 1
Wichita, KS, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
19R, Orig-B
Marion, KY, Marion-Crittenden County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2
Marion, KY, Marion-Crittenden County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2
Pine Knot, KY, Mc Creary County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Pine Knot, KY, Mc Creary County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Pine Knot, KY, Mc Creary County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Galliano, LA, South LaFourche Leonard Miller Jr, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY
36, Amdt 1
Galliano, LA, South LaFourche Leonard Miller Jr, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18,
Amdt 2
Galliano, LA, South LaFourche Leonard Miller Jr, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36,
Amdt 1
Springhill, LA, Springhill, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELED
Springhill, LA, Springhill, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8R, Amdt 6A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, Amdt 21A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 1B
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, VOR RWY 17, Orig-D
Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R. Ford Intl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1A
Greenville, MI, Greenville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-A
Greenville, MI, Greenville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A
Greenville, MI, Greenville Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A
Hastings, MI, Hastings, VOR RWY 12, Orig-E

Holland, MI, West Michigan Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 10D
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, Amdt 11
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 27
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L, Amdt 1
Lansing, MI, Capital Region Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 14
South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni-Richard E Fleming Fld, LOC RWY
34, Amdt 1A
South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni-Richard E Fleming Fld, NDB-B,
Amdt 4
South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni-Richard E Fleming Fld, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
South St Paul, MN, South St Paul Muni-Richard E Fleming Fld, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31,
Amdt 4
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 2A
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4,
Orig
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13,
Orig-A
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22,
Orig
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31,
Orig-A
Thief River Falls, MN, Thief River Falls Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, GPS RWY 9, Orig, CANCELED
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, GPS RWY 27, Orig, CANCELED
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 27, Amdt 2A,
CANCELED
Grain Valley, MO, East Kansas City, VOR OR GPS RWY 23, Amdt 3A,
CANCELED
Monett, MO, Monett Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 3
Monett, MO, Monett Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3
Monett, MO, Monett Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Warsaw, MO, Warsaw Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Warsaw, MO, Warsaw Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Warsaw, MO, Warsaw Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 14B
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, GPS RWY 31, Orig-A, CANCELED
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Cut Bank, MT, Cut Bank Intl, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 16
Berlin, NJ, Camden County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Las Cruces, NM, Las Cruces Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Las Cruces, NM, Las Cruces Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Lovington, NM, Lea County-Zip Franklin Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3,
Amdt 1
Lovington, NM, Lea County-Zip Franklin Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21,
Amdt 1
Brigham City, UT, Brigham City, NDB-A, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt
7
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt
1
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt
1
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 4
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 1A,
CANCELED
Eastsound, WA, Orcas Island, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig
Eastsound, WA, Orcas Island, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
3
Walla Walla, WA, Walla Walla Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-A,
CANCELED
Walla Walla, WA, Walla Walla Rgnl, VOR RWY 16, Amdt 12A, CANCELED
Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, LOC RWY 15L, Amdt 6B

Effective 11 December 2014

Winslow, AZ, Winslow-Lindbergh Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Kindred, ND, Robert Odegaard Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1B
Kindred, ND, Robert Odegaard Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1A
Gothenburg, NE, Quinn Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-A
Gothenburg, NE, Quinn Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A
Gothenburg, NE, Quinn Field, VOR-A, Amdt 3
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-B
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B

    RESCINDED: On September 25, 2014 (79 FR 57436), the FAA
published an Amendment in Docket No. 30974, Amdt No. 3605, to Part
97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The
following entries for Conway, AR, effective September 18, 2014 are
hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Conway, AR, Cantrell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Conway, AR, Cantrell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Conway, AR, Cantrell Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig

[FR Doc. 2014-26864 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34651-34652]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0028]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 36 individuals from the
prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The
exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on June 29, 2018. The exemptions
expire on June 29, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On May 29, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 36 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the
public (83 FR 24563). The public comment period ended on June 28, 2018,
and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized
assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the May 29, 2018,

Federal Register notice (83 FR 24563) and will not be repeated in this
notice.
    These 36 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 31 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two
or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each
case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by
the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within
two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia,
significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any
involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or
personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of
hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/
her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver
must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation
to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

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

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 36 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Leobardo O. Antunez (WA)
Alfred E. Apel (NY)
Carl M. Bartlett (SD)
Christopher A. Bell (IA)
Gerald A. Brady (IA)
Jeffrey Campbell (IN)
Ricky L. Collett (OK)
David M. Conrad (NM)
Lee E. Crenshaw, Jr. (CT)
Michael C. Crouch (OK)
Matthew J. Doyal (GA)
Maximiliano Duarte (AL)
Thomas P. Dubia (NH)
Michael W. Fellows (WA)
Raydon R. Gall (ND)
Clifford O. Hayter (FL)
Anthony A. Helms, Sr. (SC)
Brian D. Hopper (OK)
Terry R. Hunter (IL)
James C. Illingsworth (PA)
Christopher M. Joswak (MI)
Matthew S. Keas (KS)
Matthew T. Leyden (NE)
Jessica M. Merchen (GA)
Charlie Moore, Jr. (NY)
Wayne R. Mowery (PA)
Jesteva L. Moye-Hosey (OH)
Imelda Ortiz (NM)
Wesley H. Pollock (OH)
Robert J. Possley (WI)
Samuel K. Sanders (KS)
Leon J. Schlichte (IA)
Landon H. Tuck (TX)
Curtis D. Weinman (WA)
Nathaniel W. Wessel (ME)
Christopher H. Whitman (NC)

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

    Issued on: July 12, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15543 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41692]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13588]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-087, OMB Control No. 3235-0078]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 15c3-3

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-3 (17 CFR 240.15c3-
3), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval. Furthermore, notice is given regarding new collections of
information that were previously proposed in Rule 18a-4 (OMB No. 3235-
0700) and that were moved to this Rule 15c3-3 (OMB No. 3235-0078) based
on comments received during the rulemaking process.
    With respect to the extension of the previously approved collection
of information, Rule 15c3-3 requires that a broker-dealer that holds
customer securities obtain and maintain possession and control of fully
paid and excess margin securities they hold for customers. In addition,
the Rule requires that a broker-dealer that holds customer funds make
either a weekly or monthly computation to determine whether certain
customer funds need to be segregated in a special reserve bank account
for the exclusive benefit of the firm's customers. It also requires
that a broker-dealer maintain a written notification from each bank
where a Special Reserve Bank Account is held acknowledging that all
assets in the account are for the exclusive benefit of the broker-
dealer's customers, and to provide written notification to the
Commission (and its designated examining authority) under certain,
specified circumstances. Finally, broker-dealers that sell securities
futures products (``SFP'') to customers must provide certain
notifications to customers and make a record of any changes of account
type.
    A broker-dealer required to maintain the Special Reserve Bank
Account prescribed by Rule 15c3-3 must obtain and retain a written
notification from each bank in which it has a Special Reserve Bank
Account to evidence the bank's acknowledgement that assets deposited in
the Account are being held by the bank for the exclusive benefit of the
broker-dealer's customers. In addition, a broker-dealer must
immediately notify the Commission and its designated examining
authority if it fails to make a required deposit to its Special Reserve
Bank Account. Finally, a broker-dealer that effects transactions in
SFPs for customers also will have paperwork burdens to make a record of
each change in account type.
    The Commission staff estimates a total annual time burden of
approximately 1,109,518 hours and a total annual cost burden of
approximately $3,516,241 to comply with the existing information
collection requirements of the rule.
    In 2019, the Commission adopted amendments to establish segregation
and notice requirements for broker-dealers with respect to their
security-based swap activity. The Commission staff estimates a total
annual time burden of approximately 19,487 hours and a total annual
cost burden of approximately $13,860 to comply with the information
collection requirements of the 2019 amendments to the rule.
    The Commission staff thus estimates that the aggregate annual
information collection burden associated with Rule 15c3-3 is
approximately 1,129,005 hours and $3,530,101.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
August 28, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: June 22, 2023.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13588 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P