[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23321-23326]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Emergency Order No. 30, Notice No. 1]

Emergency Order Establishing a Maximum Operating Speed of 40 mph
in High-Threat Urban Areas for Certain Trains Transporting Large
Quantities of Class 3 Flammable Liquids

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this Emergency Order (E.O. or Order) to require
that trains transporting large amounts of Class 3 flammable liquid
through certain highly populated areas adhere to a maximum authorized
operating speed limit. FRA has determined that public safety compels
issuance of this Order. This Order is necessary due to the recent
occurrence of railroad accidents involving trains transporting
petroleum crude oil and ethanol and the increasing reliance on
railroads to transport voluminous amounts of those hazardous materials
in recent years. Under the E.O., an affected train is one that
contains: (1) 20 or more loaded tank cars in a continuous block, or 35
or more loaded tank cars, of Class

3 flammable liquid; and, (2) at least one DOT Specification 111 (DOT-
111) tank car (including those built in accordance with Association of
American Railroads (AAR) Casualty Prevention Circular 1232 (CPC-1232))
loaded with a Class 3 flammable liquid. Affected trains must not exceed
40 miles per hour (mph) in high-threat urban areas (HTUAs) as defined
in 49 CFR 1580.3.

DATES: Effective Date: This Order is effective immediately. Railroads
shall immediately initiate steps to implement FRA Emergency Order No.
30. Railroads shall complete implementation no later than April 24,
2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Hynes, Director, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
Thomas Herrmann, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Office of Chief
Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Introduction: FRA has determined that public safety compels
issuance of this E.O.. This Order sets the maximum authorized operating
speed of 40 mph for certain trains transporting large quantities of
Class 3 flammable liquids within HTUAs.\1\ FRA finds that this action
is necessary as a result of the unique risks associated with the
growing reliance on trains to transport large quantities of flammable
liquids. The risk of flammability is compounded in the context of rail
transportation because petroleum crude oil and ethanol are commonly
shipped in large blocks or single commodity unit trains. Further, the
differing tank cars currently available to transport petroleum crude
oil and ethanol in this country have varying levels of protection, with
the most commonly used tank cars having shown a propensity to puncture
or otherwise release hazardous material that catches fire in the event
of a derailment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HTUA is defined by the Transportation Security
Administration as ``an area comprising one or more cities and
surrounding areas include a 10-mile buffer zone, as listed in
appendix A to [part 1580].'' 49 CFR 1580.3. Appendix A to part 1580
lists the specific metropolitan areas within the United States that
are considered HTUAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) has developed a final rule that will contain enhanced tank car
standards for both new and existing tank cars and certain speed
restrictions. Until those standards are issued, FRA believes that
public safety dictates that an appropriate speed restriction be placed
on trains containing large quantities of flammable liquid, particularly
in areas where a derailment could cause a significant hazard of death,
personal injury, or harm to the environment and property.
    Since the July 2013 derailment in Lac-M[eacute]gantic, Quebec,
Canada, which demonstrated the consequences of a railroad accident
resulting in the sudden release of flammable liquids, there have been
numerous derailments in the United States involving trains transporting
large quantities of crude oil and ethanol. Although none of these
recent derailments resulted in the tragic loss of life that occurred as
a result of the Lac-M[eacute]gantic derailment, the pattern of
derailments and resulting hazardous material releases and fires
involving tank cars transporting flammable liquids lead FRA to the
conclusion that additional action is necessary in highly populated
areas where any such derailment could result in catastrophic
consequences. This action is being taken to eliminate an unsafe
condition or practice, or a combination of such, causing an emergency
situation involving the hazard of death, personal injury, or
significant harm to the environment.
    This Order applies to:
    (1) Any train in the United States transporting 20 or more loaded
tank cars in a continuous block, or containing 35 or more loaded tank
cars, of Class 3 flammable liquid; and
    (2) Which contains at least one DOT-111 tank car (including those
built to the CPC-1232 standard) loaded with Class 3 flammable liquid.
    FRA believes that only trains transporting large quantities of
petroleum crude oil and ethanol (Class 3 flammable liquids described by
DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 to 180))
will be affected by this Order as those are the only Class 3 flammable
liquids transported in this quantity. FRA is ordering that any affected
train adhere to a maximum authorized operating speed limit of 40 mph in
HTUAs as defined in 49 CFR 1580.3.
    Authority: Authority to enforce Federal railroad safety laws has
been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrator
of the FRA. 49 CFR 1.89. Railroads are subject to FRA's safety
jurisdiction under the Federal railroad safety laws. 49 U.S.C. 20101,
20103. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where an unsafe
condition or practice, or a combination therof, ``causes an emergency
situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury or significant
harm to the environment . . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 20104(a). These orders may
immediately impose ``restrictions and prohibitions . . . that may be
necessary to abate the situation.'' Id.
    Background: In the last two years, DOT (including FRA and PHMSA)
has taken numerous actions to address the safe transportation by rail
of flammable liquids. Among other actions, DOT has issued three
emergency orders \2\ and several safety advisories, has reached
voluntary agreements with the railroad industry,\3\ and has undertaken
several separate rulemaking proceedings to address the transportation
and handling of trains transporting large quantities of flammable
liquids. Notably, PHMSA, in cooperation with FRA, has formulated the
final rule mentioned above that will address issues including a new HMR
tank car standard and speed limits governing the transportation of
large quantities of flammable liquids. The final rule will codify
certain proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
in the HM-251 rulemaking proceeding (79 FR 45016, Aug. 1, 2014).\4\ The
final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866 on February 5, 2015
(http://www.reginfo.gov/public). A chronology of certain DOT actions to
address safe transportation of flammable liquids is listed on PHMSA's
Internet Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOT Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order, Docket No. DOT-
OST-2014-0067 (May 7, 2014); DOT Amended and Restated Emergency
Restriction/Prohibition Order, Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0025 (March
6, 2014); and, FRA Emergency Order No. 28, 78 FR 48218, Aug. 2,
2013.
    \3\ http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/letter-association-american-railroads.
    \4\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-01/pdf/2014-17764.pdf.
    \5\ http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/osd/chronology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite efforts by DOT, the railroad industry, tank car
manufacturers, and other interested parties, trains transporting large
quantities of petroleum crude oil and ethanol continue to derail in
this country. These derailments have resulted in the release of large
quantities of hazardous material and subsequent fires. In addition to
the 2013 Lac-M[eacute]gantic derailment mentioned above in which 47
people were killed, numerous derailments involving crude oil unit and
ethanol trains have occurred in this country. Three significant
accidents have occurred domestically already in 2015 in Iowa, West
Virginia, and Illinois, respectively.

2015 Accidents

    The following is an overview of the circumstance surrounding the
most recent derailments involving trains

transporting large amounts of crude oil or ethanol that have occurred
in 2015. FRA has not definitively established the probable causes of
these accidents. Accordingly, nothing in this Order is intended to
attribute definitive causes to these accidents, or to place
responsibility for the accidents on the acts or omissions of any
specific person or entity.
    On February 4, a southbound Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (CP) train
consisting of three locomotives, 1 buffer car loaded with sand, and 80
tank cars loaded with ethanol derailed near Dubuque, Iowa while
traveling approximately 24 mph. As a result there was an ethanol spill,
a fire, and at least two loaded tank cars came to rest on the frozen
Mississippi River. Legacy DOT-111 cars were among the seven cars that
released ethanol during the incident. One non-jacketed CPC-1232 car was
punctured. It is estimated that approximately 53,000 gallons of ethanol
was released as a result of the derailment.
    On February 16, 2015, a CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) train
consisting of 109 tank cars loaded with crude oil derailed near Mt.
Carbon, West Virginia. The train was en route to a shipping terminal in
Yorktown, Virginia, and was transporting crude oil sourced from the
Bakken region (Bakken oil) and traveling at an approximate speed of 33
mph when 28 cars derailed. Two tank cars were punctured, thirteen cars
experienced catastrophic thermal tears, and two cars released crude oil
through their bottom outlet valves. Multiple fires and explosions
occurred and emergency responders established a one-half mile
evacuation zone, involving approximately 300 people. In all, the tank
cars lost a total of almost 379,000 gallons of crude oil. All of the
tank cars involved in this accident were CPC-1232 tank cars built
between 2011 and 2013 and were non-jacketed tank cars.
    Most recently, on March 5, 2015, a BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) train
consisting of 103 tank cars also loaded with Bakken crude oil derailed
near Galena, Illinois, resulting in a fire. The train was traveling at
an approximate speed of 23 mph when 21 cars derailed. Seven cars
experienced thermal tears, three cars released product through their
bottom outlet valves, and two cars released product from their top
fittings. All of the tank cars involved in this accident were
constructed to the CPC-1232 standard, and were non-jacketed. FRA notes
that no cars were punctured as a result of this derailment.
    In addition to the above-described incidents, previous publicized
derailments resulting in releases of crude oil or ethanol and and/or
resulting fires have occurred with increasing frequency (e.g.,
Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; Lynchburg, Virginia;
Columbus, Ohio; Cherry Valley, Illinois; Arcadia, Ohio; New Brighton,
Pennsylvania). Since February 2015, an additional three incidents have
occurred in Ontario, Canada, two of which involved trains transporting
large quantities of petroleum crude in loaded CPC-1232 tank cars that
were punctured, one of which occurred at a train speed of over 40 mph.
Some of these recent accidents listed above that occurred prior to 2015
have been the impetus for DOT regulatory actions, such as the recent
DOT emergency orders and the HM-251 rulemaking proceeding mentioned
above. Rail incidents involving crude oil have also been the subject of
several National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations and
subsequent NTSB recommendations to DOT.

Tank Cars

    Traditionally, DOT-111 cars have been the primary type of tank cars
used to transport large quantities of flammable liquids such as
petroleum crude oil and ethanol in this country. Part 173 of the HMR
authorizes the DOT-111 as a permissible packaging to transport ethanol
and crude oil, as well as certain other low, medium, and high-hazard
liquids and solids. DOT-111 cars are general purpose, non-pressure
railroad tank cars. Subpart D of 49 CFR part 179 in the HMR establishes
the design requirements for DOT-111 cars. Baseline (legacy) DOT 111
tank cars have traditionally been designed to operate at a gross rail
load of 263,000 pounds, and additional tank car protections intended to
improve crashworthiness, such as head shields, jackets, and thermal
protection systems, are optional features. DOT-111 cars are required to
have a shell and head thickness of \7/16\''.
    However, there have been changes in railroad operations over the
last several years that have impacted the use of DOT-111 cars to
transport flammable liquids. These changes primarily include (1)
increased DOT-111 traffic due the rapid increase in production levels
of domestic energy products such as petroleum crude oil, (2) higher in-
train forces due to the transportation of hazardous materials in tank
cars at higher gross rail loads (286,000 lbs.), and (3) the likelihood
of tank cars accumulating more miles annually. This has resulted in
tank car design modifications to accommodate these increased stresses
and to reduce the chance of a catastrophic tank car failure.
    However, despite those efforts, a significant number of older,
legacy DOT-111 tank cars remain in flammable liquid service. In the HM-
251 NPRM, DOT estimated that over 50,000 such non-jacketed DOT-111 cars
(and an estimated 5,500 jacketed DOT-111 cars (79 FR 45025)) were still
being used in crude oil and ethanol service as of August 2014.\6\ FRA
is aware that the number of CPC-1232 and DOT-111 cars in crude oil
service is variable, as new cars are currently being constructed and
older cars are retired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTSB has described DOT-111 tank cars as having ``. . . a high
incidence of failure when involved in accidents,'' \7\ and has
recommended that DOT update the design requirements for DOT-111 tank
cars, including for use in crude oil and ethanol service
specifically.\8\ The NTSB recommendations were made with the intent to
enhance the cars' performance in accidents.\9\ The forthcoming HM-251
rulemaking will address certain of these NTSB recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With Subsequent
Hazardous Materials Release and Fire, Cherry Valley, Illinois June
19, 2009; NTSB Accident Report NTSB/RAR-12-01 (Feb. 14, 2012);
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1201.pdf.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the rail industry, through CPC-1232, adopted a new
industry standard intended to improve the crashworthiness of newly-
constructed DOT-111 tank cars intended for use in crude oil and ethanol
service. Cars built to the CPC-1232 standard are DOT-111 cars that are
designed to operate at a gross rail load of 286,000 pounds, and include
a thicker shell and head protection (\1/2\ height head shield, \1/2\''
thick shell and head thickness), are constructed with normalized steel,
are constructed with top fittings protection, and with relief valves
having a greater flow capacity as when compared to legacy DOT-111 cars.
Additionally, some new tank cars constructed to the CPC-1232 standard
are also jacketed and equipped with insulation and/or thermal
protection. The jacket is \1/8\'' thick around the shell and \1/2\''
thick at the heads providing full-height head protection.
    Based on recent railroad accidents, the risk of additional future
accidents, and the NTSB's findings that DOT-111 cars have a propensity
to fail when involved in accidents, FRA has a safety concern regarding
the continued use of a large number of DOT-111 cars to

transport large quantities of crude oil and ethanol, especially at
higher speeds. Under current Federal regulations and applicable
railroad industry practices, unit trains containing these older non-
jacketed DOT cars may travel in flammable liquid unit trains at up to
50 mph in this country, and at speeds of up to 40 mph in populated
urban areas under certain circumstances (as further discussed below).
    FRA's safety concern also extends to the newer CPC-1232 tank cars
in light of recent incidents, especially those incidents occurring at
higher speeds. FRA notes that a total of only five tank cars were
punctured as a result of the 2015 accidents in Iowa and West Virginia.
No CPC-1232 cars were punctured as a result the Galena, Illinois
derailment, and only one CPC-1232 tank car was punctured as a result of
the 2014 Lynchburg, Virginia, derailment (23 mph). However, these
accidents indicate that the newer CPC-1232 cars will still release
hazardous material which catches fire when the cars derail.

Train Speed

    Speed is a factor that may contribute to the severity of a
derailment or the derailment itself. Speeds can influence the
probability of an accident. A lower speed may allow for a brake
application to stop a train before a collision, or allow a locomotive
engineer to identify a safety problem and stop the train before an
accident or derailment occurs. Higher speeds will increase the kinetic
energy of an accident or derailment and the associated damage caused,
resulting in a greater possibility of tank cars being punctured. For
example, the unmanned train that derailed and caught fire in the Lac-
M[eacute]gantic derailment was believed to have been traveling at over
60 mph at the time of the incident, resulting in approximately 59 tank
car being breached. As explained in the HM-251 NPRM, if an accident
occurs at 40 mph instead of 50 mph, DOT expects a reduction in kinetic
energy of 36 percent. 79 FR 45046. As discussed above, the most recent
derailment in the United States near Galena, Illinois, that occurred at
23 mph resulted in no tank cars being punctured, and the 2014 Lynchburg
derailment that occurred at a similar speed only resulted in one CPC-
1232 tank car puncture.
    Generally, with respect to operating speeds, FRA has developed a
system of classification that defines different track classes based on
track quality. The track classes include Class 1 through Class 9 and
``excepted track.'' See 49 CFR 213.9 and 213.307. Freight trains
transporting hazardous materials, including crude oil, operate at track
speeds associated with Class 1 through Class 5 track and, in certain
limited instances, at or below ``excepted track'' speeds (10 mph or
less up to 80 mph). However, AAR design specifications effectively
limit most freight equipment to a maximum allowable speed of 70 mph.
The HMR contain speed restrictions on railroad cars transporting loads
of certain hazardous materials, such as material poisonous-by-
inhalation. See, e.g., 49 CFR 174.86.
    In addition, the rail industry, through AAR, implements a detailed
protocol on recommended operating practices for the transportation of
hazardous materials. This protocol, set forth in AAR Circular No. OT-
55-N, August 5, 2013 (Circular) \10\ includes a 50 mph maximum speed
for any ``key train.'' The Circular establishes that a key train
includes any train with 20 or more loads of ``any combination of
hazardous material.'' This definition includes trains affected by this
Order that transport large quantities of petroleum crude oil and
ethanol. In February 2014, by way of Secretary of Transportation
Anthony Foxx's letter to AAR,\11\ the major railroads in this country
voluntarily committed to a lower 40-mph speed limit for trains
containing one or more legacy DOT-111 tank cars (or one non-DOT
specification car) and transporting large quantities of crude oil
within the limits of any HTUA as defined by the regulations of the
Transportation Security Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ http://www.boe.aar.com/CPC-1258%20OT-55-N%208-5-13.pdf.
    \11\ http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/letter-association-american-railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FRA is aware that the nation's second largest freight
railroad, BNSF, recently took steps to lower the speeds of key trains
in populated areas. BNSF recently amended its railroad rules to require
that key trains traveling within large municipal areas travel no more
than 35 mph, or an even lower speed and in more locations than they,
other Class I railroads, AAR, and some short line railroads committed
to in response to Secretary Foxx's February 2014 letter described
above.
    PHMSA requested public comment on appropriate speed limits for
trains transporting large quantities of certain flammable liquids in
the HM-251 NPRM, and will address train speeds in the forthcoming final
rule. As discussed above, PHMSA will also address updated tank car
standards as related to the transportation of flammable liquids by
rail. However, any lowered speed requirements in the forthcoming PHMSA
rule will not be applicable until the effective date of the final rule.
In the interim, FRA believes that further action is necessary to ensure
public safety.
    While FRA applauds the industry for its voluntary commitments
related to speed reductions, FRA believes that it is necessary for it
to require that the existing industry commitments be applied to all
trains carrying large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids,
including those transporting newer CPC-1232 cars. FRA believes that
immediately lowering maximum train speeds in HTUAs to all trains
carrying large quantities of flammable liquids will help to mitigate
the potential effects of future accidents should they occur in a highly
populated area. Despite the efforts of all stakeholders, these
accidents continue to occur on a regular basis. While accidents
involving affected trains have recently occurred at speeds below 40
mph, FRA anticipates that the reduction in maximum speed for certain
trains carrying large volumes of flammable liquid in higher risk areas
based on the type of tank car being used may prevent fatalities and
other injuries and damages, and limit the amount of environmental
damage that would likely result were an accident to occur in one of
these densely populated areas. HTUA's encompass locales where, were a
derailment to occur, there is a greater chance that a catastrophic loss
of human life could occur than in other less populated areas. Further,
by limiting speeds for certain higher risk trains, FRA also hopes to
reduce in-train forces related to acceleration, braking, and slack
action that are sometimes the cause of derailments.\12\ FRA believes
these restrictions are necessary until the HM-251 final rule is issued
and becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., FRA Report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure: Safe Placement of Train Cars (June 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's approach here is based on longstanding concerns regarding the
crashworthiness of legacy DOT-111 cars, as evidenced by NTSB and FRA
investigations of derailments involving trains consisting of large
blocks or unit trains of tank cars containing flammable liquids. A
recent FRA study, involving a tank car puncture model validated by full
scale testing was conducted at the Transportation Technology Center in
Pueblo, Colorado.\13\ The study evaluated the relative performance of a
variety of DOT-111 tank cars, including those that are the subject of
this E.O. In addition, a soon to be released report issued in March
2015 by Sharma & Associates,

Inc. to FRA, addressed the reduction in tank car puncture probabilities
based on changes to tank car designs or the tank car operating
environment. FRA expects to post this report to its Web site in the
near future. The report discusses the fact that tank cars are exposed
to a wide range of hazards during derailments that affect the outcomes.
It also discusses the assumption that higher derailment speeds tend to
lead to ``more cars derailing as well as higher magnitudes of forces,
and thereby, a higher probability of puncture.'' The study estimated
derailment impacts at 30, 40, and 50 mph, respectively, as applied to
tank cars equipped with varying protections. The results of the study
indicate more likely tank car punctures occur as accident speeds
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L15900#p6_z50_gD;
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L15901#p6_z50_gD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FRA is limiting speeds for affected trains to 40 mph.
Recent accidents involving unit trains of crude oil indicate that these
legacy DOT-111 cars are prone to punctures, tears, and hazardous
material releases when involved in accidents. Newer tank cars built to
the CPC-1232 standard have more robust protections than do legacy DOT-
111 tank cars. However, recent incidents have shown that those cars
will still release hazardous material when involved in derailments.
Thus, FRA is also limiting the speed for affected trains transporting
CPC-1232 cars to 40 mph or less. While past accidents have shown that
there still may be hazardous material releases when derailments occur
at less than 40 mph, FRA believes this speed restriction will
substantially mitigate the effects of any accidents as when compared to
accidents that occur at higher speeds.
    To formulate the speed limitation for certain trains, FRA balanced
the need to alleviate an emergency situation involving a hazard of
death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment against
the impacts speed limitations may have on efficient rail transportation
in this country. An analysis of certain speed restrictions below 40 mph
indicated that such restrictions could potentially cause harmful
effects on interstate commerce, and actually increase safety risks.
Increased safety risks could occur if speed restrictions cause rail
traffic delays resulting in trains stopping on main track more often
and in trains moving into and out of sidings more often requiring more
train dispatching. Increased safety risks could also occur if shippers
offer more affected trains onto the rail network to maintain constant
inventories to offset train delays. FRA also evaluated speed
restrictions in the context of potential delays to passenger rail
service. FRA believes the restriction in this Order will address an
emergency situation while avoiding other safety impacts and harm to
interstate commerce and the flow of necessary goods to the citizens of
the United States. FRA and DOT will continue to evaluate whether
additional action with regard to train speeds is appropriate.
    The speed restriction in this Order applies to trains transporting
DOT-111 and CPC-1232 cars that pose dangers in a derailment. In seeking
the appropriate approach to ensure safety, FRA has also limited this
Order's applicability to only those trains transporting large
quantities of flammable liquids. This Order will primarily apply to
unit trains only. Further, this Order would have applied to all of the
recent incidents described above involving unit trains transporting
petroleum crude oil and ethanol. This Order's threshold ensures that
FRA is focusing on the highest risk shipments and not unnecessarily
imposing safety-related burdens on lesser risks that do not represent
the same safety and environmental concerns.
    Findings and Order: Due to the recently increasing volume of
petroleum crude oil, and consistently high volume of ethanol being
shipped by railroads in recent years, the numerous recent rail
accidents involving trains transporting these hazardous materials to
occur, and the subsequent releases of large quantities of crude oil
into the environment and the imminent hazard those releases present to
human life and the environment, this Order is requiring that each
railroad carrier in this country adhere to the below-described maximum
speed limit when operating certain trains containing large quantities
of Class 3 flammable liquid.
    The transportation of hazardous materials by rail is extremely
safe, and the vast majority of hazardous materials shipped by rail each
year arrive at their destinations without incident. However, FRA finds
that there are gaps in the existing regulatory scheme that create an
emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or
significant harm to the environment, with respect to the speed at which
trains transporting large quantities of certain flammable liquids are
currently operated and the crashworthiness of the tank cars being used
to transport those materials. The risks are magnified when less robust
tank cars are used to transport large quantities of flammable liquids.
As evidenced by recent accidents, even affected trains traveling at
lower speeds have accidents with a propensity to result in fires and
the release of large quantities of hazardous material.
    To mitigate the effects of future accidents and to prevent others
from occurring, and pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. 20104,
delegated to the FRA Administrator by the Secretary of Transportation
(49 CFR 1.89), effective immediately, this Order requires that certain
trains identified below must not exceed 40 mph while operating within
High Threat Urban Areas. This Order applies to:
    (1) Any train in the United States transporting 20 or more loaded
tank cars in a continuous block, or containing 35 or more loaded tank
cars, of Class 3 flammable liquid; and
    (2) Which contains at least one DOT-111 tank car (including those
built to the CPC-1232 standard) loaded with Class 3 flammable liquid.
    A High Threat Urban Area is as defined by 49 CFR 1580.3. A Class 3
flammable liquid is as described by Sec.  173.120 of the HMR. A Class 3
flammable liquid includes the hazardous materials described by Sec.
172.101 of the HMR as UN 1267, petroleum crude oil, 3, PG I, II, or
III, and UN 3475, Ethanol and gasoline mixture, 3, PG II, or UN 1287,
Denatured alcohol, 3, PG II or III. For purposes of this Order, a Class
3 flammable liquid includes petroleum crude oil that might otherwise be
reclassified as a combustible liquid under Sec.  173.150 of the HMR. A
DOT-111 car means a jacketed or non-jacketed tank car built to the
specification established by subpart D of part 179 of the HMR, but not
meeting the standard established by CPC-1232. A CPC-1232 car is a
jacketed or non-jacketed DOT-111 tank car built to the CPC-1232
standard. A ``train'' for purposes of this order is as defined by 49
CFR 232.5. This Order will remain in effect until the effective date of
the HM-251 final rule (Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082; RIN 2137-AE91).
    Relief: Petitions for special approval to take actions not in
accordance with this Order may be submitted to the Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer (Associate
Administrator), who is authorized to dispose of those requests without
needing to amend this Order. When reviewing any petition for special
approval, the Associate Administrator shall grant petitions only when a
petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative action that will
provide, in the Associate Administrator's judgment, at least a level of
safety equivalent to that provided by this Order. This Order will be
supplanted and terminated upon the effective date of the HM-251 final
rule (Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082; RIN 2137-AE91).

    Penalties: Any violation of this Order shall subject the person
committing the violation to a civil penalty of up to $105,000. 49
U.S.C. 21301. Any individual who willfully violates a prohibition
stated in this order is subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C.
21301. In addition, such an individual whose violation of this order
demonstrates the individual's unfitness for safety-sensitive service
may be removed from safety-sensitive service on the railroad under 49
U.S.C. 20111. FRA may, through the Attorney General, also seek
injunctive relief to enforce this order. 49 U.S.C. 20112.
    Review: Opportunity for formal review of this Order will be
provided in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20104(b) and 5 U.S.C. 554.
Administrative procedures governing such review are found at 49 CFR
part 211. See 49 CFR 211.47, 211.71, 211.73, 211.75, and 211.77.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Sarah Feinberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-09614 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54032]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23582]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0560; FRL-9985-56]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances;
Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs)
promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 10
chemical substances, which were the subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking
procedures, which requires EPA to take certain actions if an adverse
comment is received. EPA received adverse comments and a request to
extend the comment period regarding the SNURs identified in the direct
final rule. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing the direct final rule
SNURs identified in this document, as required under the direct final
rulemaking procedures.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 83 FR 43527 on August 27,
2018, is withdrawn effective October 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0560, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of August 27, 2018 (83 FR 43527) (FRL-9982-77). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What direct final SNURs are being withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of August 27, 2018 (83 FR 43527) (FRL-9982-
77), EPA issued direct final SNURs for 10 chemical substances that are
identified in that document. Because the Agency received adverse
comments and a request to extend the comment period regarding the SNURs
identified in the document, EPA is withdrawing the direct final SNURS
issued for these 10 chemical substances, which were the subject of
PMNs. In addition to the Direct Final SNURs, elsewhere in the same
issue of the Federal Register of August 27, 2018 (83 FR 43527) (FRL-
9982-77), EPA issued proposed SNURs covering these 10 chemical
substances. EPA will address all adverse public comments in a
subsequent final rule, based on the proposed rule.

III. Good Cause Finding

    EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day
delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations
for publication in the Federal Register. This document must publish on
or before the effective date of the direct final rule containing the
direct final SNURs being withdrawn.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone
into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements and
reopens a comment period. As such, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The
statutory and Executive Order review requirements applicable to the
direct final rules were discussed in the August 27, 2018 Federal
Register (83 FR 43527). Those review requirements do not apply to this
action because it is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or
amended requirements.

V. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the
issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided
by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public
procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. As required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is
supported by a brief statement in Unit III.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 17, 2018.
Lance Wormell,
Acting Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 published on
August 27, 2018 (83 FR 43527), are withdrawn effective October 26,
2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-23582 Filed 10-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28548-28549]
[DOCID:fr16my08-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; smart USA Distributor LLC

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of smart USA
Distributor LLC (smart USA) in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49
CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the
smart fortwo vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2009. This
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard. smart USA is an authorized importer of smart brand
vehicles manufactured by Daimler AG. smart USA requested confidential
treatment for the information and attachments submitted in support of
its petition. The agency will address smart USA's request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 22, 2008, smart
USA requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the smart USA fortwo
vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. The petition requested an
exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an
antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one of its vehicle lines per year. smart USA's submission
is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that
it meets the general requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the
specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    smart USA's petition provided a detailed description and diagram of
the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the fortwo vehicle line. Although smart USA has requested
confidential treatment of specific details of the system's operation,
design, effectiveness and durability, NHTSA is, for the purposes of
this petition, disclosing the following general information. smart USA
will install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on the
vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. The antitheft device to be
installed on the MY 2009 fortwo is equipped with an access code
protected locking system and a transponder-based electronic immobilizer
system. Features of the antitheft device will include an immobilizer
consisting of an operational controller (SAM), transponder ignition
keys and an engine control transponder reader unit as standard
equipment. smart USA states that the vehicle key, SAM, engine control
unit, fuel injection system and starter must all independently verify
the presence of a code unique only to that vehicle. The smart USA
fortwo will be installed with a malfunction warning symbol indicator on
the instrument cluster. Additionally, the fortwo vehicle line will have
an optional alarm system which will monitor all the doors and tailgate
of the vehicle. The audible and visual alarms are activated when an
unauthorized person attempts to enter or move the vehicle by
unauthorized means.
    smart USA stated that the immobilizer device prevents the engine
from running unless a valid key is put into the ignition. Turning the
valid key in the ignition is required to activate or deactivate the
immobilizer. smart USA further stated that the immobilizer is armed
immediately after the ignition is turned off regardless of whether the
doors are opened or are locked.
    There is currently no available theft rate data for the fortwo
vehicle line as it is a new vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. smart
USA provided Mercedes-Benz C-Line Chassis vehicle line as an example of
a vehicle line subject to the parts-marking requirements (49 CFR part
541) that are equipped with ignition immobilizer systems as standard
equipment. smart USA reported that NHTSA's theft rate for the C-Line
Chassis vehicle for model years prior to 1998 (1994 through 1997) when
an immobilizer was not installed as standard equipment resulted in an
average theft rate of 1.6437. smart USA reported that, since the
introduction of immobilizer systems as standard equipment on the C-Line
Chassis vehicles, the average theft rate for MY's 1998 through 2004 is
1.4167, which is below the 1990/1991 median theft rate of 3.5826. smart
USA stated that it believes the data indicate that the immobilizer
system was effective in contributing to a reduction in theft rates for
the C-Line Chassis at an average of 13.8 percent.
    On the basis of this comparison, smart USA stated that the
immobilizer in the fortwo vehicle line is functionally equivalent to
the systems used in the Mercedes-Benz S-Line, E-Line and C-Line Chassis
vehicles beginning with MY 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. smart USA
has concluded that the proposed antitheft device is no less effective
than those devices installed on lines for which NHTSA has already
granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, smart USA
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. Daimler AG has conducted tests based on its own specified
standards for reliability and durability. smart USA provided a detailed
list of the tests conducted, and believes that the device is reliable
and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements
for each test. Additionally, smart USA stated that it has obtained test
approval according to regulatory requirements that are based on the
testing parameters of the International Standards Organization
regulations.
    Based on the confidential material submitted by smart USA, the
agency believes that the antitheft device for the fortwo vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). Based on the information smart
USA provided about the device, the agency concludes that the device
will provide four of the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention
of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the
vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and
durability of the device.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR part 543.6(a)(4) and (5),
the agency finds that smart USA has

provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will
reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information
smart USA provided about its antitheft device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full smart
USA's petition for exemption for the fortwo vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49
CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If smart USA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
    NHTSA notes that if smart USA wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: May 12, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-10983 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 235)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65019-65021]
[DOCID:fr09de09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0331]
RIN 1625-AA87 and 1625-AA00

Security and Safety Zone; Cruise Ship Protection, Elliott Bay and
Pier-91, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting the subject interim rule published
in the Federal Register August 20, 2009, as a final rule without
change. Due to the physical location of Pier 91, Large Passenger Cruise
Vessels are required to maneuver near a prominent marina frequented by
a large recreational vessel community and near other numerous large
commercial fishing vessels located at adjacent piers, posing a high
safety and security risk when Large Passenger Cruise Vessels are
entering and departing the cruise terminal. Due to the inherent safety
and security risks associated with the movement of a cruise ship into
or out of this especially tight berth at Pier 91, coupled with the
large recreational boating community and commercial traffic in the
area, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds it
necessary to enact these safety and security zones.

DATES: This rule is effective January 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0331 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0331 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ian Hanna, Sector Seattle,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 20, 2009, we published an interim rule with request for
comment entitled Security and Safety Zone; Cruise Ship Protection,
Elliott Bay and Pier-91, Seattle, Washington in the Federal Register
(Volume 74, Number 160, Page 42026-42028). We received no comments on
the interim rule. No parties requested a public meeting, and no meeting
was held. We are adopting the interim rule as final without change.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing these safety and security zones to
ensure adequate measures are in place for the safety and security of
Large Passenger Cruise Vessels and the boating public. The Coast Guard
conducted a safety and security risk assessment of the Cruise Terminal
at Pier 91 (at 47[deg]37.58' N/122[deg]23.0' W), Seattle Washington,
and the surrounding waterways. As a result of this assessment, the
Captain of the Port found sufficient cause to require these safety and
security zones. These zones are necessary to ensure the safety and
security of not only moored Large Passenger Cruise Vessels, but also
for Large Passenger Cruise Vessels that are in transit while entering
or departing the Pier 91 cruise terminal at the Port of Seattle. Due to
the physical location of Pier 91, Large Passenger Cruise Vessels are
required to maneuver near a prominent marina and other numerous large
fishing vessels located at adjacent piers when entering and departing
the cruise terminal. Therefore, in order to protect these vessels, the
safety and security zones will be enforced during the arrival and
departure of Large Passenger Cruise Vessels and during the presence of
moored Large Passenger Cruise Vessels at Pier 91, Seattle, Washington.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This rule will be enforced to enhance the
Security and Safety Zone for the protection of large passenger vessels
under 33 CFR 165.1317. The security and safety zone that is in place
during the arrival and departure of Large Passenger Cruise Vessels in
and out of Pier 91 is short in duration, such that, it should not
adversely affect other vessel traffic in the area, and the Captain of
the Port Puget Sound may waive any of the requirements of this section
for any vessel or class of vessels upon finding that a vessel or class
of vessels, operational conditions or other circumstances are such that
application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of port security, safety or environmental safety.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered

whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The 100 yard security and safety zone around Pier 91 when
Large Passenger Cruise Vessels are present, allows a large enough area
for pleasure craft to transit the area unhindered. Additionally, the
security and safety zone that is in place during the arrival and
departure of Large Passenger Cruise Vessels in and out of Pier 91 is
short in duration, such that, it should not adversely affect other
vessel traffic in the area.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under authority of 33 U.S.C.
1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast
Guard adopts the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 that was
published at 74 FR 42028 on August 20, 2009, as a final rule without
change.

    Dated: November 24, 2009.
S.E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. E9-29355 Filed 12-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9910-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 20806]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-14-000]

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 25, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company
LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor TFO Tariff Rate Changes to be
effective 3/27/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 16, 2018.

    Dated: May 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09717 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 63540]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Part 65, Certification: Airmen Other
Than Flight Crewmembers, Subpart C, Aircraft Dispatchers and App. A
Aircraft Dispatcher Courses

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. The respondents to this information collection
are FAR Part 135 and Part 121 operators. The FAA will use the
information to ensure compliance and adherence to the regulations.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Part 65, Certification: Airmen other than flight
Crewmembers, Subpart C, Aircraft Dispatchers and App. A Aircraft
Dispatcher Courses.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0648.
    Form(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 36 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 57 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 4,679 hours annually.
    Abstract: The respondents to this information collection are FAR
Part 135 and Part 121 operators. The FAA will use the information to
ensure compliance and adherence to the regulations.
    Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-25043 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M