TABLE 2a ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS)

/ MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ( MACT) SUBPART DDD  MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION  YEAR 1 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 525 1 525 4.3 2257.5 112.9 225.8 2596.1 $ 140,142.21 Repeat of Performance Tests 525 0.2 105 4.3 451.5 22.6 45.2 519.2 $ 28,028.44 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 4.3 172 8.6 17.2 197.8 $ 10,677.50 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 4.3 172 8.6 17.2 197.8 $ 10,677.50 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 4.3 8.6 0.4 0.9 9.9 $ 533.88 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 4.3 8.6 0.4 0.9 9.9 $ 533.88 Notification of Compliance Status 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 $ 37.25 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 1.7 54.4 2.7 5.4 62.6 $ 3,377.07 Report of No Excess Emissions 8 2 16 6.9 110.4 5.5 11.0 127.0 $ 6,853.47 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 0.9 36 1.8 3.6 41.4 $ 2,234.83 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 0.3 4.8 0.2 0.5 5.5 $ 297.98 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 b. Plan Activities  Included in 3e

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3e

d. Develop Record System  Included in 3e REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 4.4 52 228.8 8.6 1967.7 98.4 196.8 2262.8 $ 122,150.62 f. Time to Transmit or Disclose Information 0.25 11 2.75 8.6 23.65 1.2 2.4 27.2 $ 1,468.16 g. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A h. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 5319 266.0 531.9 6117.2 $ 330,216.03 TABLE 2b ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS) SUBPART DDD

/ MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ( MACT) SUBPART DDD  MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION  YEAR 2 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 525 1 525 4.3 2257.5 112.9 225.8 2596.1 $ 140,142.21 Repeat of Performance Tests 525 0.2 105 4.3 451.5 22.6 45.2 519.2 $ 28,028.44 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 4.3 172 8.6 17.2 197.8 $ 10,677.50 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 4.3 172 8.6 17.2 197.8 $ 10,677.50 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 4.3 8.6 0.4 0.9 9.9 $ 533.88 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 4.3 8.6 0.4 0.9 9.9 $ 533.88 Notification of Compliance Status 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 $ 37.25 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 2.6 83.2 4.2 8.3 95.7 $ 5,164.93 Report of No Excess Emissions 8 2 16 10.4 166.4 8.3 16.6 191.4 $ 10,329.86 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 1.3 52 2.6 5.2 59.8 $ 3,228.08 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 0.3 4.8 0.2 0.5 5.5 $ 297.98 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 4.3 17.2 0.9 1.7 19.8 $ 1,067.75 b. Plan Activities  Included in 3e

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3e

d. Develop Record System  Included in 3e REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 4.4 52 228.8 13 2974.4 148.7 297.4 3420.6 $ 184,646.29 f. Time to Transmit or Disclose Information 0.25 11 2.75 13 35.75 1.8 3.6 41.1 $ 2,219.31 g. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A h. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 6439 321.9 643.9 7404.8 $ 399,720.36 TABLE 2c ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS) SUBPART DDD

/ MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ( MACT) SUBPART DDD  MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION  YEAR 3 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 525 1 525 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Repeat of Performance Tests 525 0.2 105 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Notification of Compliance Status 4 1 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 $ 37.25 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 2.6 83.2 4.2 8.3 95.7 $ 5,164.93 Report of No Excess Emissions 8 2 16 10.4 166.4 8.3 16.6 191.4 $ 10,329.86 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 1.3 52 2.6 5.2 59.8 $ 3,228.08 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 0.3 4.8 0.2 0.5 5.5 $ 297.98 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 4 1 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 b. Plan Activities  Included in 3e

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3e

d. Develop Record System  Included in 3e REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 4.4 52 228.8 13 2974.4 148.7 297.4 3420.6 $ 184,646.29 f. Time to Transmit or Disclose Information 0.25 11 2.75 13 35.75 1.8 3.6 41.1 $ 2,219.31 g. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A h. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 3317 165.9 331.7 3814.7 $ 205,923.70 Assumptions Number of affected facilities*

( 13 plants/ 3 years= 4.3 repondents per year) 13 Number of new facilities ( per year) 0 Time required to read instructions ( hours) 4 Time required to complete performance test ( hours)

[( 2.5 sources per plant x 130 hours per source) + 200 hours for calibration, retesting, sample analysis, etc.)] 525 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Time required to prepare the Operation, Maintain,

Monitoring Plan 40 Time required to prepare the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 Time required to prepare the Quality Improvement Plan 40 Number of facilities required to prepare a QIP 10%

Time required to record info required by standard ( hours)

( 2.5 sources x 1.5 hours per source) 3.8 Number of startups, shutdowns, malfuctions, etc. ( 1 facility over the next three years) 0.3 Time required to prepare the Excess Emission Reports 16 Percent of facilities preparing Excess Emissions Reports 20%

Time required to prepare No Excess Emissions Reports 8 Percent of facilities preparing No Excess Emissions Reports 80%

Time required to prepare Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports ( hours) 8 Estimated number of facilities that will submit startup,

shutdown, and malfunction reports ( 1 facility over the next three years) 0.3 Estimated number of requests for extension/ adjustments to time periods/ changes in info ( 1 facility over the next three years) 0.3 Time required for notification preparation/ requests for extensions/ adjustments to time periods/ changes in info( hours) 2 Average number of items to transmit or disclose ( per year) 11 Management labor rate $ 73.93 Technicial labor rate $ 54.94 Adminstrative labor rate $ 34.42 * Industry has until the compliance date ( 6/ 02/ 02) to comply with this standard. We are assuming that one third, or approximately 4.3 facilities, will come into compliance in each of the first three years following the effective date. Note that this ICR covers the second, third and fourth years following the effective date.

Thus, the remaining two thirds, or 8.6 facilities will come into compliance during the first two years of this ICR. By the third year we are assuming that all facilities subject to this standard will be in compliance. Thus by the end of the second year of this ICR, we are assuming that all facilities will be in compliance.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17489-17492]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0103]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation on Pensacola Bay in Pensacola, FL. This action is necessary
to protect the persons participating in the Pensacola Triathlon marine
event. This regulation restricts transit into, through, and within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 a.m. through 10 a.m. April 29,
2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0103 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Mobile
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On January 16, 2018, the Pensacola Triathlon notified the Coast
Guard that it would be conducting the swim portion of the race in the
vicinity of the Vince J. Whibbs Sr. Community Maritime Park in
Pensacola, FL. In response, on March 6, 2018, the Coast Guard published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation;
Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL (83 FR 9454). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited

comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this triathlon
event. During the comment period that ended April 5, 2018, we received
four comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule is impracticable and contrary to public interest because it
would delay the safety measures necessary to respond to potential
safety hazards associated with this marine event. Immediate action is
needed protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels
during the triathlon event on these navigable waters.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the Pensacola Triathlon marine event
on April 29, 2018 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons
within 300 yards of the Pensacola Triathlon. The purpose of this rule
is to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels
during the Triathlon event on navigable waters.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    As noted above, we received four comments on our NPRM published on
March 6, 2018. Two of the four commenters supported the rulemaking.
Another commenter opposed regulatory action generally without making
remarks specific to this rulemaking, and the last comment was not
related to the subject matter of this rulemaking at all. There are no
changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in
the NPRM.
    This rule establishes temporary special local regulation from 4
a.m. through 10 a.m. on April 29, 2018. The regulated area will cover a
300 yard radius from position 30[deg]24'16.4'' N, 87[deg]12'55.2'' W in
Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL. The duration of this special local
regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and persons
before, during, and after the Pensacola Triathlon marine event. No
vessel or person is permitted to enter the regulated area without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The
PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''. All persons and vessels not
registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels
are considered spectators. The ``official patrol vessels'' consist of
any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
    Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so
only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and
when so directed by that officer shall be operated at a minimum safe
navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger participants in the
regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor,
block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or
official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective
dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official
patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated
area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the
regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the
progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30
minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain
moored through the duration of the event.
    The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the
movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled
by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop
and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or
the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the
protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative
can terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the
conclusion of the event.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration of the special local regulation. The regulated area is a
small area of Pensacola Bay extending in a 300 yard radius from
position 30[deg]24'16.4'' N, 87[deg]12'55.2'' W, lasting only 6 hours
on one day. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so
that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this
restriction. The rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the
COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
special local regulation on Pensacola Bay extending in a 300 yard
radius from position 30[deg]24'16.4'' N, 87[deg]12'55.2'' W in
Pensacola, FL. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC)
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0103 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0103   Special Local Regulation; Pensacola Bay,
Pensacola, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. All navigable waters of Pensacola Bay extending
in a 300 yard radius from position 30[deg]24'16.4'' N, 87[deg]12'55.2''
W in Pensacola, FL.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 4 a.m.
through 10 a.m. on April 29, 2018.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) In accordance with the general
regulations in Sec.  100.801 of this part, entry into, transit within
or through, or exit from this area is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated
representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard
Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative
and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe
navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in
the regulated area or any other vessels.
    (4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the
through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for
entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
    (5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator
vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated
area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of
the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to
the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the
duration of the event.
    (6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control
the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an
immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so
may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event
or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for
the protection of life or property.
    (8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate
enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the
event.

    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners of the enforcement period for the temporary special local
regulation as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: April 16, 2018.
M.R. Mclellan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2018-08314 Filed 4-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65210]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20428]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98410; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading, To
Implement a Low Priced Stock Strike Price Interval Program

September 15, 2023.
    On June 5, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 404,
Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading. Specifically, the Exchange
proposed to adopt Interpretations and Policies .12 to Rule 404 to
implement a new strike interval program for stocks that are priced less
than $2.50 and have open interest equal to or greater than 1,000
contracts. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 22, 2023.\3\ On August 4, 2023, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On September 14, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (MIAX-2023-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97733 (June 15,
2023), 88 FR 40887. Comments on the proposed rule change are
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2023-22/srmiax202322.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98058, 88 FR 54361
(August 10, 2023). The Commission designated September 20, 2023 as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20428 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76451-76453]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-USCG-2020-0645]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Neuse River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Neuse River in New Bern, North Carolina. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable water near New Bern, NC, during an aerobatic airshow on
December 05, 2020. This rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels
from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective December 5, 2020 from 4 p.m. through 5:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0645 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Petty Officer Joshua O'Rourke, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    In August 2020, the UHF Development Group informed the Coast

Guard of their intention to plan an aerobatic airshow on the Neuse
River in New Bern, North Carolina. The airshow will take place December
5, 2020, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We are proposing to establish a
temporary safety zone covering approximately one square mile of the
Neuse River for the duration of the event. The Captain of the Port
(COTP) North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards
associated with the aerobatic airshow would be a concern for anyone
transiting this portion of the Neuse River during the show.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from
the hazards associated with this event on December 5, 2020.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231) The COTP North Carolina has
determined that potential hazards associated with the New Bern
Christmas Flotilla Airshow scheduled for 4 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. on
December 5, 2020 is a safety concern for mariners during the time that
aircraft perform aerobatic maneuvers directly above the Neuse River.
This rule is necessary to protect safety of life from the potential
hazards associated with the high-speed boat race.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on a portion of the
Neuse River from December 5, 2020, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The rule
will be enforced for the duration of the event. The dates and times of
enforcement will be broadcast locally over VHF-FM marine radio. The
safety zone will include all navigable waters of the Neuse River in New
Bern, North Carolina, inside an area starting from approximate
positions: Latitude 35[deg]06'32'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'54'' W, then
north to latitude 35[deg]06'55'' N, longitude 077[deg]02'04'' W, then
east to latitude 35[deg]07'06'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'27'' W, then
southeast to latitude 35[deg]06'49'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'12'' W,
then south to latitude 35[deg]06'08'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'18'' W,
then west to latitude 35[deg]06'02'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'57'' W,
then north to the point of origin, for a total area of approximately 1
mile square. The airshow will consist of two separate performances and
will last a total approximately 1.5 hours. The event will begin roughly
20 minutes before sunset and will last to approximately 30 minutes
after sunset. All aircraft will remain at least 500 feet above the
ground. Public spectators will be allowed to view the event from the
waterway, however, for safety reasons, the aircraft will not perform if
there are any vessels inside the safety zone. The duration of this
safety zone is intended to protect participants and spectators on the
navigable waters of the Neuse River during the airshow. Vessels may
transit the area, so long as they remain outside the safety zone. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP North Carolina or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be
allowed to enter or transit a portion of the Neuse River during the
airshow from 4 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. December 5, 2020. The Coast Guard
will transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel
16 regarding the enforcement area. This rule allows vessels to request
permission to pass through the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.

    Also, this 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry within a 1
square mile area of the Neuse River on December 5, 2020, from 4 p.m. to
5:30 p.m. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0645 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0645  Safety Zone; Neuse River, Airshow, New Bern, NC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Neuse River in New Bern, North Carolina, inside an area
starting from approximate positions: Latitude 35[deg]06'32'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'54'' W, then north to latitude 35[deg]06'55'' N,
longitude 077[deg]02'04'' W, then east to latitude 35[deg]07'06'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'27'' W, then southeast to latitude 35[deg]06'49''
N, longitude 077[deg]01'12'' W, then south to latitude 35[deg]06'08''
N, longitude 077[deg]01'18'' W, then west to latitude 35[deg]06'02'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'57'' W, then north to the point of origin, for a
total area of approximately 1 mile square.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, Sector North
Carolina.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones
in Sec.  165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North
Carolina's designated representative. Unless permission to remain in
the zone has been granted by the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North
Carolina's designated representative, a vessel within this safety zone
must immediately depart the zone when this section becomes effective.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through
the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington,
North Carolina, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the
safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13
(165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 4
p.m. through 5:30 p.m. on December 5, 2020.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
Matthew J. Baer,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2020-25688 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66636-66638]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1161; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Greenville,
Spartanburg, and Greer, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E
surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface in the Greenville, Spartanburg, and Greer, SC areas
due to the decommissioning of the Fairmont non-directional beacon (NDB)
and cancellation of associated approaches into Spartanburg Downtown
Memorial Airport/Simpson Field, as well as updating the airport's name
and geographic coordinates. Additionally, Greenville Spartanburg
International Airport, Greenville Downtown Airport, and Donaldson Field
Airport each require the name and geographic coordinate updates, as
well as airspace updates. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in
the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify Docket
No. FAA-2022-1161; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-18 at the beginning of
your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend airspace in Greenville, Spartanburg, and Greer, SC,
to support IFR operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2021-1161 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-18) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-1161; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-18.'' The postcard
will be dated/time-stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket before and after the comment closing
date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350,1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D
airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface in the Greenville, Spartanburg,
and Greer, SC area due to the decommissioning of the Fairmont NDB and
cancellation of associated approaches into Spartanburg Downtown
Memorial Airport/Simpson Field (formerly Spartanburg Downtown Memorial
Airport. The Class D airspace for Greenville Spartanburg International
Airport would be increased to 4.5 miles (previously 4.4 miles), and the
geographic coordinates would be updated to coincide with the FAA's
database. Also, the southwest extension of the Class E surface airspace
for Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport/Simpson Field would be
removed due to the cancellation of the NDB approaches. This action
would also update the airport's name and geographic coordinates to
coincide with the FAA's database and remove the city name from the
airspace header per order FAA 7400.2. Also, this action would update
the airport names of the following airports: Greenville Spartanburg
International Airport (formerly Greenville-Spartanburg Airport) and
Donaldson Field Airport (formerly Donaldson Center Airport), as well as
updating the geographic coordinates of both airports. In addition, this
action would replace the outdated terms Airport/Facility Directory with
the term Chart Supplement and Notice to Airmen with the term Notice to
Air Missions in the airspace descriptions.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000,
6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August
19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO
7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO SC D Greenville, SC [Amended]

Greenville Downtown Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]50'53'' N, long. 82[deg]21'00'' W)
Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]53'44'' N, long. 82[deg]13'08'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Greenville Downtown
Airport, excluding that airspace within the Greenville-Spartanburg
International Airport, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace
area is effective during the specific days and times established in
advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective days and times
will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO SC D Greenville Donaldson Field Airport, SC [Amended]

    Greenville, Donaldson Field Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]45'30'' N, long. 82[deg]22'35'' W)
Greenville Downtown Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]50'53'' N, long. 82[deg]21'00'' W)
Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]53'44'' N, long. 82[deg]13'08'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Donaldson Field Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Greenville Downtown Airport Class
D airspace area and excluding that airspace within the Greenville-
Spartanburg International Airport Class C airspace area. This Class
D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO SC E2 Greer, Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, SC
[Amended]

Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]53'44'' N, long. 82[deg]13'08'' W)

    That airspace extending upwards from the surface within a 5-mile
radius of the Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

ASO SC E2 Spartanburg, SC [Amended]

Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport/Simpson Field, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]54'59'' N, long. 81[deg]57'21'' W)
Spartanburg VORTAC
    (Lat. 35[deg]02'01'' N, long. 81[deg]55'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upwards from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport/Simpson Field
and within 1.8 miles each side of Spartanburg VORTAC 192[deg]
radial, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to the VORTAC, excluding
the portion within the Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport, SC,
Class C airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Greenville, SC [Amended]

Greenville Downtown Airport, SC
    (Lat.34[deg]50'53'' N, long. 82[deg]21'00'' W)
Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]53'44'' N, long. 82[deg]13'08'' W)
Donaldson Field Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]45'30'' N, long. 82[deg]22'35'' W)
DYANA NDB
    (Lat. 34[deg]41'28'' N, long. 82[deg]26'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.3-mile radius of Greenville Downtown Airport, and within
a 10-mile radius of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport,
and within a 6.7-mile radius of Donaldson Field Airport and within 4
miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of the 224[deg] bearing from
the DYANA NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 16 miles
southwest of Donaldson Field Airport.

ASO SC E5 Spartanburg, SC

Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport/Simpson Field, SC
    (Lat. 34[deg]54'59'' N, long. 81[deg]57'21'' W)
Spartanburg VORTAC
    (Lat. 35[deg]02'01'' N, long. 81[deg]55'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport/
Simpson Field and within 3.1 miles on each side of Spartanburg
VORTAC 012[deg] radial, extending from the 7-mile radius to 7 miles
north of the VORTAC and within 2 miles each side of Spartanburg
localizer southwest course, extending from the 7-mile radius to 15.1
miles south of the VORTAC.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 28, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-23877 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4999]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01494]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0019; FRL-10575-01-Region 5]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement;
Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River and Bay Site, Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 5, of a proposed administrative
settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the
Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River and Bay Site, Michigan (the Site)
with The Dow Chemical Company. The settlement requires the settling
party to pay $5,415,846.64 in past response costs to a Special Account.
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to sections 106
and 107 of CERCLA, relating to the Site, subject to limited
reservations, and protection from contribution actions or claims as
provided by Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA. For thirty (30) days following
the date of publication of this notice, EPA will accept written
comments relating to the cost recovery component of this settlement.
EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The proposed settlement is
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0019, at EPA Region 5 offices at 77 West Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/tittabawassee-river. EPA's response to any comments received will be
available for public inspection at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/tittabawassee-river.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID EPA-R05-SFUND-
2023-0019, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Moynihan, Remedial Project
Manager, EPA, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, Region 5,
Cleveland Office, 25063 Center Ridge Road, Westlake, OH 44145, email
address: [email protected], telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional
Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL
60604, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

Douglas Ballotti,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023-01494 Filed 1-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75491-75492]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748]

Entry-Level Driver Training; Public Listening Session

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

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session
to solicit ideas and information on the issue of entry-level training
for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Specifically, the
Agency solicits input on factors, issues, and data it should consider
in anticipation of a rulemaking to implement the entry-level driver
training (ELDT) provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, Public Law 112-141 (MAP-21). Wherever possible, the Agency
requests that participants indicate whether the ideas identified are
supported by research and data analyses, including cost/benefit
considerations. The session, which will be held at the American Bus
Association (ABA) Marketplace meeting in Charlotte, NC, will allow
interested persons to present comments and relevant new research on
ELDT. All comments will be transcribed and placed in the docket
referenced above for FMCSA's consideration. The entire day's
proceedings will be webcast.

DATES: The listening session will be held on Monday, January 7, 2013,
from 9:00-11:00 a.m. and from 2:00-4:00 p.m., ET. If all interested in-
person participants have had an opportunity to comment, the session may
conclude earlier.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the Charlotte
Convention Center, 501 S. College Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, (704)
339-6000, in Room 207 A and B. In addition to attending the session in
person, the Agency offers several ways to provide comments, as
enumerated below.
    Internet Address for Live Webcast. FMCSA will post specific
information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA Web
site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/HOS-Listening-Sessions.aspx.
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-27748 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received, without
change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you would like
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
listening session or the live webcast, please contact Ms. Shannon L.
Watson, Senior Advisor for Policy, FMCSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you need sign language assistance to participate in this HOS
listening session, contact Ms. Watson by Wednesday, January 2, 2013, to
allow us to arrange for such services. FMCSA cannot guarantee that
interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the early 1980s, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Office of Motor Carriers, predecessor to the FMCSA, determined that
there was a need for technical guidance in the area of truck driver
training. Research showed that few driver training institutions offered
a structured curriculum or a standardized training program for any type
of CMV driver. A 1995 study entitled ``Assessing the Adequacy of
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training'' (the Adequacy Report)
concluded, among other things, that effective ELDT needs to include
behind-the-wheel (BTW) instruction on how to operate a heavy vehicle.
    In 2004, FMCSA implemented a training rule that focused on areas
unrelated to the hands-on operation of a CMV, relying instead on the
commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge and skills tests to
encourage training in the operation of CMVs. These current training
regulations cover four areas: (1) Driver qualifications; (2) hours of
service limitations; (3) wellness; and (4) whistleblower protection. In
2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
held that the Agency was arbitrary and capricious in promulgating the
2004 rule because it ignored the BTW training component aspect of the
1995 Adequacy Report.
    In 2007, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
seeking public comment on enhanced ELDT requirements (72 FR 73226). In

the NPRM, FMCSA proposed revisions to the standards for mandatory
training requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate
operations who are required to possess a CDL. The proposal would apply
to drivers who apply for a CDL beginning 3 years after a final rule
goes into effect. Following that date, persons applying for new or
upgraded CDLs would be required to successfully complete specified
minimum classroom and BTW training from an accredited institution or
program. The FMCSA proposed that the State driver-licensing agency
would issue a CDL only if the applicant presented a valid driver
training certificate obtained from an accredited institution or
program. The Agency indicated the rulemaking would strengthen the
Agency's ELDT requirements in response to the 2005 DC Circuit Court
decision.
    Since the publication of the NPRM, the Agency has completed its
review of the public responses to the proposal and initiated new
research concerning driver training. The Agency has also begun
exploring new alternatives for mining Motor Carrier Safety Management
Information System (MCMIS) data and Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) data to attempt to assess the safety
performance of new CDL holders compared to that of more experienced CDL
holders. In addition, in response to the public comments, the Agency
has reexamined the regulatory options presented in the 2007 NPRM, as
well as its estimates of the driver population who would be subject to
the requirements. As a result, the Agency has concluded that additional
stakeholder input will be useful in determining the most appropriate
path forward for an ELDT rulemaking.
    Section 32304 of MAP-21 requires that FMCSA issue final ELDT
regulations by October 1, 2013, establishing minimum ELDT requirements
for operators of CMVs. The listening session at the ABA's Marketplace
will provide an opportunity for motorcoach operators and other
interested parties to share with FMCSA their ideas, especially as they
relate to the training needs for individuals seeking a passenger
endorsement.

II. Meeting Participation and Information FMCSA Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks will
be limited to 5 minutes each. No pre-registration is required. The
public may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for
inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-2007-27748.

III. Alternative Media Broadcasts During and Immediately After the
Listening Session on January 7, 2013

    FMCSA will webcast the listening session on the Internet. The
telephone access number and other information on how to participate via
the Internet will be posted on the FMCSA Web site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/HOS-Listening-Sessions.aspx.
    FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate
transcription of the listening session that will be prepared by an
official court reporter.

    Issued on: December 12, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-30641 Filed 12-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78-80]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module
Speed Limiter Device

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants two separate but similar petitions for
rulemaking, one submitted by the American Trucking Associations and the
other submitted by Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers
(Schneider National, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS
Intermodal, LLC, DART Transit Company, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., U.S.
Xpress, Inc., Covenant Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc.) to
establish a safety standard to require devices that would limit the
speed of certain heavy trucks. Based on information received in
response to a request for comments,\1\ the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration believes that these petitions merit further
consideration through the agency's rulemaking process. In addition,
because of the overlapping issues addressed in these two petitions, the
agency will address them together in a single rulemaking activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 3904; January 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to
initiate the rulemaking process on this issue with a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in 2012. The determination of whether to issue a rule will
be made in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with
statutory criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Steve Wood,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization,
(Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to this
official at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 20, 2006, the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
submitted a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking
to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to require vehicle
manufacturers to install a device to limit the speed of trucks with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 26,000 pounds to no
more than 68 miles per hour (mph). The ATA claimed that reducing speed-
related crashes involving trucks is critical to the safety mission of
NHTSA, and that these new requirements are needed to reduce the number
and severity of crashes involving large trucks.
    On September 8, 2006, Road Safe America and a group of nine motor
carriers also petitioned the agency to require that manufacturers
install a speed limiting device in vehicles with a GVWR over 26,000
pounds and that the devices be set at not more than 68 mph. They also
requested that the requirements apply to all trucks manufactured after
1990.

Summary of the Petitions

    A detailed discussion of the two petitions can be found in the
request for comments notice. Items specific to NHTSA include the
following requests from ATA:
    1. All newly manufactured trucks with a GVWR greater than 26,000
pounds shall be equipped with an electronic control module (ECM) that
is capable of limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle.
    2. The ECM shall be set at no more than 68 mph by the manufacturer.
    3. The ECM should be tamper-resistant, and should be designed in a
way that does not allow the speed limiter setting on the ECM to be
adjusted to let the vehicle exceed 68 mph.
    4. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, manufacturers should be
prohibited from setting the ECM speed limiter to a maximum speed of
greater than 68 mph. However, this requirement should not take effect
earlier than the effective date of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) rule prohibiting vehicle owners or operators
from setting the ECM speed limiter at a level greater than 68 mph for
newly manufactured trucks.
    5. The effective date for installation of a tamper-resistant ECM
should be established with a period of time that will allow
manufacturers to undergo a systems integration process. The change to
the engine ECM may affect other devices on the vehicle; therefore,
manufacturers need some time to ensure that the vehicle functions
properly. ATA encourages NHTSA to seek information from manufacturers
to determine the length of time necessary to come into compliance with
the rule.
    6. An appropriate tolerance to accommodate variations in
manufacturing, wear, and maintenance throughout the lifecycle of the
vehicle. For example, the same diameter heavy truck tire but with a
different width and sidewall aspect ratio may have a 15-20 revolutions
per mile difference which will affect the actual top speed of the truck
with a governed speed of 68 mph. ATA recommends that any rulemaking
pertaining to this petition reference SAE J678, J862, and J1226
Recommended Practices.

In addition to items similar to those in ATA's petition, Road Safe
America also included an item on retrofitting in its petition:

    1. Every class 7 and class 8 commercial motor vehicle manufactured
after the year 1990 shall be equipped with an electronic engine speed
governor.

Summary of Comments

    On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint Request for
Comments Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comments on

the ATA and Road Safe America petitions. The Department of
Transportation Docket Management System received approximately 3,850
comments into Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851, the majority of which were
submitted by private citizens. Of these, many comments supported a
regulation that would limit the speed of large trucks to 68 mph, which
included comments from trucking fleets and consumer advocacy groups,
and others. Other comments submitted by independent owner-operator
truckers, a trucking fleet association, and private citizens were
opposed to the rulemaking requested in the petitions. The remaining
comments did not explicitly indicate a position with regard to the
petitions.
    Comments from private citizens supporting the petitions include
responses from individuals who were involved in crashes with heavy
trucks or had friends/relatives who were involved in crashes with large
trucks. The private citizen supporters of the petitions are typically
non-truck drivers who stated that they are intimidated by the hazardous
driving practices of some truck drivers, such as speeding, tailgating,
and abrupt lane changes. These commenters expressed the belief that
limiting the speed of heavy trucks to 68 mph will result in safer
highways.
    Some of the organizations supporting the petition provided similar
reasons for their support and the selected comments summarized below
cover the range of issues they discussed.
    Schneider National, Inc., a major trucking fleet, indicated that
its trucks have been speed limited to 65 mph since 1996. According to
Schneider's crash data from its own fleet, vehicles without speed
limiters accounted for 40 percent of the company's serious collisions
while driving 17 percent of the company's total miles. Schneider stated
that its vehicles have a significantly lower crash rate than large
trucks that are not speed limited or have a maximum speed setting
greater than 65 mph.
    J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., another trucking fleet, commented that a
differential speed between cars and large trucks will result from
trucks being equipped with speed limiters set below the posted speed
limit. This speed differential may cause a safety hazard. However, J.
B. Hunt believes that the current safety hazard caused by large trucks
traveling at speeds in excess of posted limits is a greater safety
hazard.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that
large trucks require 20-40 percent more braking distance than passenger
cars and light trucks for a given travel speed. Advocates does not
believe that the data in the 1991 report to Congress \2\ are still
valid because the speed limits posted by the States over the past ten
years are much higher than the national posted speed limit of 55 mph
that was in effect in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that 97
percent of the occupants that are killed in crashes between heavy
trucks and passenger vehicles are passenger vehicle occupants. IIHS
stated that on-board electronic engine control modules (ECM) will
maintain the desired speed control for vehicles when enforcement
efforts are not sufficient due to lack of resources. IIHS stated that
there is already widespread use of speed governors by carriers and a
mandate will result in net safety and economic benefits.
    The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) stated that large
trucks are 3 percent of registered vehicles and represent about 8
percent of the total miles traveled nationwide. Also, GHSA believes
that it is prudent to consider speed limiting devices since they are
currently installed in large trucks and can be adapted to be tamper-
resistant. It stated that conventional approaches to vehicle speed
control do not provide optimal benefits because of a lack of
enforcement resources and too many miles of highway to cover.
    Several comments, including those from ATA's Truck Maintenance
Council, provided information concerning economic, non-safety benefits
that would result from large truck speed limiters. The Truck
Maintenance Council stated that an increase of 1 mph results in a 0.1
mpg increase in fuel consumption, and for every 1 mph increase in speed
over 55 mph, there is a reduction of 1 percent in tire tread life.
    Comments opposing rulemaking that would require speed limiters on
large trucks to be set to a maximum speed of 68 mph were received from
many independent truck drivers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and
private citizens (non-truck drivers).
    OOIDA commented that the 1991 report to Congress \3\ is still valid
today--there is no need to mandate speed limiters because the target
population (high speed crashes) is still small compared to the total
number of truck crashes. According to OOIDA, speed limiters would not
have an effect on crashes in areas where the posted speed limit for
trucks is 65 mph or below. OOIDA believes that the petitioners are
attempting to force all trucks to be speed limited so that the major
trucking companies with speed limited vehicles can compete for drivers
with the independent trucking operations that have not limited their
speeds to 68 mph or below. OOIDA also stated that it is not necessary
to set large truck speed limiters at 68 mph to realize most of the
economic benefits cited by the petitioners because improved fuel
economy and reduced emissions can be achieved with improved truck
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCA commented that a speed differential will be created in many
States by the 68-mph speed limit for heavy trucks and a higher speed
limit for other vehicles. This speed differential will result in more
interaction between cars and trucks and may be an additional safety
risk for cars and trucks.
    According to comments from CDW Transport, a trucking fleet, speed
limiters should be required on passenger vehicles as well as commercial
motor vehicles.
    Several comments from private citizens and small businesses opposed
to the petitions stated that speed is not the only cause of crashes,
that weather and highway conditions are also significant factors. There
were comments stating that passenger vehicles cause the majority of the
crashes between trucks and passenger vehicles. Some comments stated
that truck drivers will experience more fatigue with a 68-mph maximum
speed, which could result in more crashes; some comments expressed the
opinion that State and local law enforcement agencies should enforce
the speed of all vehicles on the nation's roads and highways; several
comments favored a 75-mph limit for truck speed limiters, instead of 68
mph, to match the highest posted speed limit in the country.
    The Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) provided information
concerning the cost of tamper-proof speed limiters for large trucks.
TMA estimates a one-time cost of $35 to $50 million would be required
to develop ECMs with tamper-resistant speed limiters and a one-time
cost of $150 million to $200 million to develop ECMs with tamper-proof
speed limiters. With both of these ECM designs, there would be
additional costs to make adjustments to the ECM for maximum speed, tire
size, and drive axle and transmission gear ratio information.

Research Review

    The agency conducted a preliminary review of research in its
evaluation of the merits of these petitions. Along with research
conducted by Transport Canada, \4\ the agency has considered a DOT
Research and Special Programs Administration report published in 2005,
\5\ and a synthesis of safety practice from the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies published in 2008.\6\ Both of these
reports indicate that there is a potential for speed limiting devices
to decrease crash severity. Both of these documents also contain survey
information pertaining to the current fleet usage of these devices and
the speed settings of the equipment currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The reports are available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-motorcarriers-speedlimiter-index-251.htm.
    \5\ ``Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed
Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,'' MBTC 2048.
    \6\ ``Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installation on
Commercial Trucks and Buses,'' Available at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the currently available studies have been useful in the
agency's grant consideration, additional information on this topic is
forthcoming. The agency anticipates the publication of a report on the
findings of a study being conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.\7\ The main objective of this research is to
quantitatively evaluate the safety impact and associated economic
benefits of speed limiters in commercial motor vehicles. This analysis
is expected to include safety impacts as well as fuel and tire
consumption data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information on this study is available at  http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/art-research-Safety-Effectiveness-of-Speed-Limiters.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Speed Limiter Regulations

    The European Union has limited the speed of large trucks and buses
under its jurisdiction to 62 mph since 1994. In Australia, large trucks
have been limited to 62 mph since 1990 with a 56-mph limit for road
trains (a road train consists of a tractor pulling multiple
trailers).\8\ The European Union and Australia cited economic and
safety benefits as the reasons for adopting large truck speed limiter
legislation and regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00--Maximum Road Speed
Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses specifies the
devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy
goods vehicles. For additional information, go to http://
www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/7ebc7a9d-b94b-4ee8-bf82-aab41c743252/
speed--limiter--requirements.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, Japan and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and
Quebec have also mandated speed limiters. Japan limited large trucks to
56 mph in 2003. Quebec and Ontario limited the speed of large trucks to
65 effective January 1, 2009, although they did not begin assessing
fines until July 1, 2009.\9\ In addition to economic and safety
benefits, the two provinces cited environmental benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ONTARIO AND QU[Eacute]BEC MANDATORY HEAVY TRUCK SPEED
LIMITERS--FACT SHEET. Available at http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/camionnage/limiteurs_vitesse/speed_limiters_note_info.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The granting of the petitions from ATA and Road Safe America,
however, does not mean that a final rule will be issued. The
determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the
requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the
rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

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

    Issued: December 27, 2010.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-33057 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P