[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26479-26481]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72088; File No. SR-EDGX-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGX Rule 11.5 Regarding the Route Peg Order

May 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 21, 2014, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Route Peg Order under Rule
11.5(c)(17) to permit: (i) Executions against routable orders that are
equal to or less than the aggregate size of the Route Peg Order
interest available at that price; and (ii) Users \3\ to add a minimum
execution quantity instruction. All of the changes described herein are
applicable to EDGX Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Route Peg Order under Rule
11.5(c)(17) to permit: (i) Executions against routable orders that are
equal to or less than the aggregate size of the Route Peg Order
interest available at that price, which would replace the current
requirement that routable orders be equal to or less than the size of
an individual Route Peg Order; and (ii) Users to add a minimum
execution quantity instruction.
    A Route Peg Order is a non-displayed limit order that posts to the
EDGX Book, and thereafter is eligible for execution at the national
best bid (``NBB'') for buy orders and national best offer (``NBO'') for
sell orders against routable orders that are equal to or less than the
size of the Route Peg Order.\4\ Route Peg Orders are passive, resting
orders on the EDGX Book \5\ and do not take liquidity. Route Peg Orders
may be entered, cancelled, and cancelled/replaced prior to and during
Regular Trading Hours.\6\ Route Peg Orders are eligible for execution
in a given security during Regular Trading Hours, except that, even
after the commencement of Regular Trading Hours, Route Peg Orders are
not eligible for execution (1) in the opening cross, and (2) until such
time that regular session orders in that security can be posted to the
EDGX Book. A Route Peg Order does not execute at a price that is
inferior to a Protected Quotation, and is not permitted to execute if
the NBBO is locked or crossed. Any and all remaining, unexecuted Route
Peg Orders are cancelled at the conclusion of Regular Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67726 (August 24,
2012), 77 FR 52771 (August 30, 2012) (Order Approving the Route Peg
Order).
    \5\ The ``EDGX Book'' is defined as ``the System's electronic
file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
    \6\ ``Regular Trading Hours'' is defined as ``the time between
9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aggregate Size
    As noted above, Route Peg Orders will currently only trade with
routable orders that are equal to or smaller in quantity than the order
quantity of an individual Route Peg Order. The Exchange proposes to
amend the operation of the Route Peg Order to permit it to execute
against routable orders that are equal to or less than the aggregate
size of the Route Peg Order interest available at that price. The
Exchange believes this change would incentivize Users seeking large
size executions to route orders to the Exchange by increasing
opportunities for executions against Route Peg Orders. This proposed
change to the Route Peg Order is similar to the operation of the Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC's (``Nasdaq'') Supplemental Order and NYSE Arca,
Inc.'s (``NYSE Arca'') Tracking Order, which both only execute if the
size of the incoming order is less than or equal to the aggregate size
of Supplemental Order or Tracking Order interest available at that
price.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq Rules 4751(f)(14), 4751(g) and 4757(a)(1)(D); see
also NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Execution Quantity
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Route Peg Order under Rule
11.5 to add optional functionality to allow Users to designate a
minimum execution quantity. As proposed, a minimum execution quantity
on a Route Peg order will no longer apply where the number of shares
remaining after a partial execution are less than the minimum execution
quantity. This proposed change is similar to the operation of NYSE
Arca, Inc.'s Tracking Order, which permits Tracking Orders to include a
minimum size requirement.\8\ The Exchange believes that providing Users
with the option to designate a minimum quantity for Route Peg Orders
will promote the entry of

liquidity at the Exchange because Users entering such orders will be
assured of obtaining a larger sized execution. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change could attract Users that are seeking
larger executions to enter Route Peg Orders because by designating a
minimum quantity, the submitting User would be assured that they are
not traded against by smaller-sized interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On NYSE Arca, if the Tracking Order with a minimum size
requirement is executed but not exhausted and the remaining portion
of the Tracking Order is less than the minimum size requirement,
NYSE Arca would cancel the Tracking Order. See NYSE Arca Rule
7.31(f). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71366 (January
22, 2014), 79 FR 4515 (January 28, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-01)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to Add a Minimum
Execution Size Designation for Tracking Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Trading Notice to be published no later than 30 days
following publication of the proposed rule change by the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Aggregate Size
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit executions
against routable orders that are equal to or less than the aggregate
size of the Route Peg Order interest available at that price would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and protect investors and the public interest because it would
incentivize Users seeking large size executions to route orders to the
Exchange by increasing opportunities for executions against Route Peg
Orders in a manner similar to existing functionality available on
Nasdaq and NYSE Arca.\11\ The proposed rule change also encourages
market participants to post liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange
through the use of Route Peg Orders, thereby promoting just and
equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system. Moreover, the proposed rule changes would protect investors and
the public interest by increasing the probability of an execution on
the Exchange at the NBBO in the event that the order would otherwise be
shipped to an external destination and potentially miss an execution at
the NBBO while in transit. Lastly, the Exchange does not believe that
this will permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers because it will be available to all Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Execution Quantity
    The Exchange also believes its proposal to amend the Route Peg
Order under Rule 11.5 to add optional functionality to allow Users to
designate a minimum execution quantity removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors
and the public interest because it would provide an incentive for
Members seeking larger-sized executions both to post liquidity at the
Exchange using this feature and to route larger-sized orders to the
Exchange because of the potential for an execution against such
liquidity. The Exchange further believes that adding an optional
minimum quantity would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market system because the proposed functionality is
similar to functionality available at the NYSE Arca.\12\ The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to provide an option for Users seeking to
provide such liquidity to not only designate a minimum execution
quantity, but for a minimum execution quantity on a Route Peg order to
no longer apply where the number of shares remaining after a partial
execution are less than the minimum execution quantity. Doing so would
permit Users to continue to have their Route Peg Orders eligible for
execution in such circumstances. In such case, Users will have the
option to cancel their Route Peg Order if they wish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9 [sic] and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will promote competition by enhancing the
value of the Exchange's Route Peg Order by mirroring the function of
similar order types offered by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra notes 8 [sic] and 9 [sic] and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2014-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-14 and should be
submitted on or before May 29, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10541 Filed 5-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MANE-VU Mobile Source Projection Inventory:

Data Preparation for SMOKE/MOBILE6 Application

I.  Background

The MANE-VU Emissions Inventory group decided to utilize our in-house abilities to develop future year mobile source emission estimates for use in Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze SIP modeling.  Jung-Hun Woo, NESCAUM, and Megan Schuster, MARAMA will be compiling all the information necessary to run Mobile6 with SMOKE.  States are requested to provide the information described below.

II.  Purpose

The purpose of this document is to help states prepare mobile source activity data (i.e. non-link based VMT & Speed) and Mobile6 scenario input files for the development of future year projection inventories.

States should utilize the 2002 MANE-VU inventory SMOKE/Mobile6 files as examples of how to create the required files. The SMOKE/MOBILE6 data files for MANE-VU 2002 EI are available on the MARAMA FTP site for your reference:

  HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.marama.org"  ftp.marama.org

username: mane-vu

password: exchange

or   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

III.  Tasks

States are requested to supply NESCAUM and MARAMA with the data described below, under Required Data.  States may supply NESCAUM and MARAMA with the Optional Data.

REQUIRED DATA:

SMOKE/IDA Activity File

Go to MARAMA FTP site (above), click on Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/ MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt

Open the MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt file

Delete all data that is not your state’s.

Update file with new header and annual VMT by SCC for 2009

Name file: state_2009_mbinv.txt

Repeat steps ‘b’ through ‘e’ for years 2012 and 2018

MOBILE6 input scenario files

Go to MARAMA ftp site, click on MANE-VU Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/ MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_InputFiles_12032004.zip /m6_2002/month/statecounty.in

Provide updated statecounty.in files for each month and year 2009, 2012 and 2018

Use same naming convention as the 2002 files – statecounty.in

OPTIONAL DATA (You do not have to submit this):

 If a state wants to, they can update registration data to either 2004 or 2005

Go to MARAMA FTP site - Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_ExternalFiles.zip

As an example, open file 0900002.reg (or any files with extension .reg)

There is a long header followed by the real data.  Real data starts at the line called REG DIST. (See example file below).

States should update the registration data by vehicle class and age for 2004 or 2005.

If you update this data and change the name of the file, make sure the M6 input scenario file (required data from above) includes the correct file name for registration data (REG DIST).

Example of a registration file for New Castle, DE (2002/2003) (ex. /m6ext/NC02.RDT):

REG DIST

* RESULTING MOBILE6-BASED REGISTRATION FRACTIONS LDV, LDT1, LDT2, LDT3,

* LDT4 and MC CT Specific

*

* MOBILE6 REGISTRATION FRACTIONS BY VEHICLE CLASS AND AGE

* LDV

 1 0.0700 0.0803 0.0851 0.0757 0.0708 0.0714 0.0618 0.0705 0.0593 0.0569

   0.0490 0.0427 0.0416 0.0396 0.0331 0.0280 0.0198 0.0131 0.0087 0.0047

   0.0027 0.0021 0.0016 0.0023 0.0092

* LDT1

 2 0.0745 0.0458 0.0350 0.0342 0.0412 0.0415 0.0594 0.0691 0.0708 0.0544

   0.0404 0.0505 0.0555 0.0705 0.0639 0.0713 0.0489 0.0278 0.0169 0.0081

   0.006 0.0053 0.0008 0.001 0.0072

* LDT2

 3 0.1051 0.1115 0.1209 0.1029 0.1030 0.0930 0.0697 0.0677 0.0586 0.0453

   0.0311 0.0218 0.0128 0.0144 0.0191 0.0053 0.0046 0.0033 0.0026 0.0018

   0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.0027

* LDT3

 4 0.0824 0.0993 0.0875 0.0994 0.0632 0.0586 0.0497 0.0643 0.0526 0.0378

   0.0273 0.0204 0.0280 0.0418 0.0451 0.0321 0.0269 0.0201 0.0128 0.0081

   0.0036 0.0024 0.0019 0.0051 0.0296

.

.

.

.

.

* HDBT

15 0.0307 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0613

   0.0611 0.0607 0.0595 0.0568 0.0511 0.0406 0.0254 0.0121 0.0099 0.0081

   0.0066 0.0054 0.0044 0.0037 0.0114

* Motorcycles

16  0.0975 0.0943 0.0744 0.0676 0.0500 0.0425 0.0401 0.0357 0.0290

0.0285

    0.0215 0.0170 0.0182 0.0189 0.0181 0.0231 0.0308 0.0298 0.0217

0.0257

    0.0351 0.0302 0.0263 0.0183 0.1057

2)  If a state wants to supply monthly VMT temporal profiles that differ from MANE-VU 2002 temporal files (which were based off of state data), please contact Megan Schuster<PHONE_NUMBER>.

IV.  Schedule

States should supply this data to Jung-Hun Woo (  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>) and Megan Schuster (  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>)  by August 12.  If you have any questions, please contact Megan Schuster or Jung-Hun Woo.

Updated June 24, 2005

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


Memo to: Bob Holloway, EPA OSW

From: Lucky Benedict, EERGC Corp.

Date: May 21, 2007

Subject: Background Information and Sample Calculations for Potential
Approach to Establish DRE based Firing Rate Restrictions for ECF.

	This document provided background information for a potential approach
to establish DRE based firing rate restrictions for Emissions-comparable
fuel (ECF).  These restrictions were discussed in your recent note to
the RCRA docket.

The approach involves:

Identifying target maximum emissions levels for two hydrocarbons
(benzene and toluene) and the 24 oxygenates listed in Table 1 to
§261.38.

Estimating destruction and removal efficiency for that compound.

Calculating a maximum ECF firing rate as a function of the concentration
of the compound in the ECF.

Target Emission Levels

	As described in the note to the docket, the target emissions levels
would be identified as:

For compounds with emissions data from oil-fired industrial boilers, the
target level would be the highest test condition average (excluding
outliers) or a 20 ug/dscm (which is identified de minimis level),
whichever is higher.

For compounds with emissions data from only boilers that burn hazardous
waste, the target level would be the highest test condition average
(excluding outliers) or a 20 ug/dscm, whichever is higher.

If no emissions data were available from either fuel-oil fired
industrial boilers or hazardous waste boilers, the target level would be
20 ug/dscm.

Table 1 lists the benchmark levels for each compound.

DRE versus Feedrate

	The DRE of a specific organic compound (contained in a liquid fuel or
waste) is dependent on numerous parameters including, but not limited
to, combustion chamber temperature, residence time of the material in
the combustion chamber, stability of the primary flame, and on adequate
mixing the fuel and/or waste and air.

	The feedrate of the target compound is also an important factor.

NJIT Study: A recent experimental and modeling study by Brukh et al.
concluded that DREs increase with increasing feedrate of the target
compound.  The experiments were conducted in a small, well-stirred
reactor and involved the combustion of methylene

chloride (CH2Cl2), with ethylene (C2H4) as the primary fuel, at
extremely low residence times of 5-12 milliseconds and temperatures of
1400- 1750 K (2050 -2700 °F).  Experiments were conducted at both fuel
rich and fuel lean conditions.  CH2Cl2 concentrations were low (2- 1350
ppm by volume in the main feed.)

	The authors modeled the combustion of methylene chloride, methyl
chloride, and benzene. They show limited experimental data for methyl
chloride and benzene from previous work.  The authors’ hypothesis is
that higher concentrations of POHC contribute additional radical
fractions and the overall result is a higher destruction efficiency.

	The modeling and experimental data support the authors hypothesis that
DRE’s increase with increasing concentration of the target
constituent.  Although the feed concentrations were low and DRE’s
achieved were low, if the data can be extrapolated to higher inlet feed
concentrations, and higher residence times typical of boilers, this
study would suggest that DREs increase with increasing composition of
the hazardous constituent.

Data from Liquid Fuel Boilers Burning Hazardous Waste: We extracted data
from the hazardous waste combustor data base for liquid fuel boilers
(LFB) that conducted DRE testing. Note that,

  --------------- (1)

where feedrate and emissions for target compound is usually reported as
a mass flow rate, for example in lb/hr.  When feedrate data were
available, or could be calculated, we used the feedrate data to
calculate a maximum theoretical emissions concentration (MTEC) for the
target compound using the formula:

 --- (2)

	Simultaneous DRE and MTEC data are available for approximately 200 runs
from 27 boilers for ten compounds.  These compounds are listed in Table
2 along with their incinerability (thermal stability) rank as well as
their thermal stability class.

	Figure 1 shows a plot of  penetration as function of feedrate MTEC for
the ten compounds.  While there is some scatter in the data there
appears to be a clear trend that DRE increases with feedrate.  (Note the
lines on the plot showing DRE of 99.99%, 99.995% and 99.999%).  DRE is
above five nines(99.999%) for MTECs greater than about 1x107 while MTECs
greater than 5 x 106 generally produces DRE’s above 99.995% with the
exception of two data points for hydrogen cyanide (the compound with the
highest thermal stability ranking).  The figure also shows that in
general compounds in lower thermal stability classes achieve higher
DREs.

	Figure 2 plots four of these compounds, all of which had an order of
magnitude variation in MTEC.  Best fit (power law) trend lines are shown
on the figure for each of the compounds.  Again while there is
significant scatter in the data the trendlines all indicate higher DREs
with increasing feed MTEC.

Firing Rate Restrictions for Boilers Burning ECF

The conditional exclusion currently being proposed for firing of ECF in
qualifying industrial boilers restricts the firing rates of ECF
depending on its constituents.

The boiler must fire at least 50% fossil fuel, on a heating value or
volume basis, whichever results in lower volume of ECF firing.

Additionally, for ECF containing more than 2% by mass of benzene, or 2%
by mass of acrolein, the firing rate of ECF will be restricted to 25% on
a volume or heat input basis whichever results in a lower volume of ECF.

                           Figure 2: Penetration versus Feed MTEC for
Compounds with a Substantial Range of Constituent Feedrates

Sample Calculation

	We made the following assumptions for the purposes of the calculations.

The primary fuel was fuel oil #4 with a heating value (HV) of 18,840
Btu/lb,  density (d ) of 7.58 lb/gal (specific gravity of 0.91), and a
composition by weight of 88.9% carbon, 10.9% hydrogen, and 0.21% sulfur.

Concentration of the specific hydrocarbon or oxygenate in fuel oil is
negligible. *

ECF consists of 25% by weight of toluene (HV=18,280 Btu/lb, d= 7.22
lb/gal, 91.3%C and 8.7% H by wt) and 75 % of non toxics having the
properties and composition of fuel oil.

 A DRE of 99.99% is achieved for the combustion of toluene.

	The calculation is performed for a primary fuel mass feedrate of 100
lb/hr.  Thus the thermal feedrate of the primary fuel is given by:

Thermal Feed Primary Fuel = 100 lb/hr*18,840 Btu/lb= 1.884 MM Btu/hr--
(3)

	Using assumptions 1-3 above, we can calculate the properties and
composition of ECF.

HV ECF = 0.25*18,280+0.75*18,840=18,700 Btu/lb – (4)

  -- (5)

Composition ECF = 89.5% C, 10.3% H, 0.16% S --- (6)

	The process involves selecting a firing rate for ECF, calculating the
concentration of the toxic substance in the stack gas, and repeating the
calculation if concentration is different from the target levels listed
in Table 1.

	We initially assume that the ECF firing rate (FR) is 10% by heat input.
 Therefore, the thermal feedrate of ECF can be calculated from the
thermal federate of the primary fuel in (3)

  ---- (7)

	Now that we have the thermal feedrate of ECF, we simply need to divide
by the ECF heating value to get the ECF mass feedrate which is 11.18
lb/hr. And the ECF FR by volume is:

The composite fuel composition is calculated using:

	This results in a composite fuel composition: 88.96% C, 10.84% H, and
0.21% S.

Assuming the composite fuel undergoes complete combustion in air:

	The amount of O2 required for complete combustion at a stoichiometric
ratio of 1.0 is given by

Oxygen requirement = Moles CO2 + ½*Moles H2O + Moles SO2 – Moles O2
in fuel

                                   = 8.284 + (6.059/2) + 0.0067 = 10.126
lbmol/hr

Assuming, combustion air consists of 79% N2 and 21% O2 by volume,

		N2 from comb air = 3.76 * 10.126 = 42.562 lbmol/hr

Total molar flowrate (dry) = Moles CO2 + Moles SO2 + Moles N2  = 8.284 +
0.0067 + 42.562 = 50.853 lbmol/hr

	Assuming standard conditions of 25oC and 1 atmosphere pressure, the
stack gas flowrate can be calculated as

Stack gas flowrate = 50.853 lbmol/hr * 386.7 dscf/lbmol * hr / 60min =
327.7 dscfm

	From 25% Toluene of 11.18 lb/hr ECF fed in, and 99.99% DRE is achieved,
the mass emission of Toluene is calculated:

Toluene emissions = (1 – DRE) * Feed =(1 – 99.99%) * (11.18*25%) =
0.000279 lb/hr T

	The mass emissions concentration of toluene is given by:

	Since toluene concentration is greater than the  target of 120 ug/dscm,
 we revise the initial assumption for  firing rate of of ECF,  and
iterate to get to the target toluene concentration.  The calculated
allowable ECF firing rate limit would be 7.8% (by heating value) or 8%
(by volume).

Results

	The maximum firing rate as a function of concentration of the
hydrocarbon/oxygenate in ECF for DRE of 99.99%, 99.995%, and 99.999% are
displayed in Table 3.  The table shows, within each DRE, the firing rate
limits as the concentration of the compound in ECF is varied.  The table
also shows estimated stack gas concentration and MTECs for each
calculation.  Note that the calculated stack gas concentration of the
compound is not always the target level in Table 1, because the firing
rate would be “capped” at either 25% (for ECF containing greater
than 2% benzene or acrolein) or at 50%.

	The shaded cells on Table 3 are firing rate limits that would apply if
we make the following assumptions based on the DRE versus MTEC plots
shown earlier;

For MTEC  > 1.0E7 ug/dscm, DRE= 99.999% is achievable

For 5.0E6 < MTEC < 1.0E7, DRE= 99.995% is achievable

For MTEC < 5.0 E6, DRE = 99.99% for compounds in thermal stability class
1 or 2 (benzene, toluene, and methyl methacrylate), and DRE=99.995% for
others.

This approach would result in the firing rate limit first decreasing and
then increasing as the concentration of the compound in ECF increases.
This is due to our unrealistic assumption that the DRE is a discrete
(step) function of MTEC as opposed to a continuous function.

 Note from Bob Holloway to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0017 dated
April 25, 2007.

 This level is equivalent to approximately 0.01 ppmv total hydrocarbons
(on a propane basis) for the 26 hydrocarbons and oxygenates.

 Brukh, R., R. Baret, and S. Mitra, New Jersey Institute of Technology,
“The Effect of Waste Concentration on Destruction Efficiency During
Incineration,” Environmental Engineering Science, Vol. 23, No. 2,
2006.

 Note for several cases DRE was reported without emissions or feedrate
data.  If emissions were reported the feedrate was calculated from
equation 1.

 Penetration is the fraction of the constituent remaining in the stack
gas and is equal to the ratio of emissions over feed or 1-DRE/100.

 Properties and composition of fuel oil based on average values found
in,  Stultz & Kitto, eds, “Steam: It’s Generation and Use,” 40th
Edition, 1992, p 8-15.

 Properties (specific gravity, molecular weight, heating value) of the
hydrocarbon or oxygenate constituents are from table 2-1 of the draft
TSD for the proposed ECF conditional exclusion.

 The ultimate stack gas concentration calculated is independent of the
assumed mass feed rate of primary fuel.

 The low concentration was typically selected to be slightly greater
than the specification limit (or detection limit if the specification is
nondetect) that apply to comparable fuels as listed in Table 1 of
§261.38

Table 2: Thermal Stability Ranking for Compounds with DRE Data

Table 1: Target Emissions Levels for Feedrate Restrictions.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73610-73611]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-33-000.
    Applicants: Ridgeline Alternative Energy, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application of Ridgeline Alternative Energy,
LLC; Rockland Wind Farm LLC; and Atlantic Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/17/11.
    Accession Number: 20111117-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/11.

    Docket Numbers: EC12-34-000.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of
Bishop Hill Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3876-003; ER11-2044-004; ER10-2611-002.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company, Cordova Energy Company LLC,
Saranac Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Triennial market update for Central Region of
MidAmerican Energy Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/17/11.
    Accession Number: 20111117-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-430-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Revisions to Attachment AE--Review and Assessment of
Resource Plans to be effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/17/11.
    Accession Number: 20111117-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-431-000.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Section X and XI to be effective
11/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/17/11.
    Accession Number: 20111117-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-432-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Vantage Wind LGIA to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/17/11.
    Accession Number: 20111117-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-433-000.
    Applicants: Energy Exchange Direct, LLC.
    Description: Energy Exchange Direct, LLC Electric Tariff Original
Volume No 1 to be effective 12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-434-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: 2nd Revised Service Agreement 385--CB4 Transmission to
be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-435-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 20111118--JOA Changes to be effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-436-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 2011-11-18--PSCo-SPS-Lamar-Tie Rate-Filing to be
effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-437-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: 20111118--JOA COC Filing to be effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-438-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 20111118--JOA COC Filing to be effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-439-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: 20111118--JOA COC Filing to be effective 1/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/18/11.
    Accession Number: 20111118-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/11.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 18, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30702 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65568-65574]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0234]
RIN 2126-AB94

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Windshield-
Mounted Technologies

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to allow the voluntary mounting of certain devices on the
interior of the windshields of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs),
including placement within the area that is swept by the windshield
wipers. Section 5301 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act directs the Agency to amend the FMCSRs to allow devices to
be mounted on the windshield that utilize ``vehicle safety
technology,'' as defined in the Act. In addition, the section 5301
states that all windshield mounted devices/technologies with a limited
2-year exemption in effect on the date of enactment, shall be
considered to meet the equivalent-or-greater safety standard required
for the initial exemption. Promulgation of this final rule is a
nondiscretionary, ministerial action that does not require prior notice
and public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

DATES: This final rule is effective October 24, 2016.
    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than October 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this final
rule, call or email Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations
Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone 202-366-
0676.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Final Rule is organized as follows:

I. Executive Summary
II. Abbreviations
III. Legal Basis
IV. Background
V. FAST Act--Windshield Technology
VI. Discussion of Final Rule
VII. International Impacts
VIII. Section-by-Section
IX. Regulatory Analyses
    A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information)
    F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    J. Privacy
    K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
    O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice)

I. Executive Summary

    Section 5301 of the FAST Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, but made
effective on October 1, 2015, pursuant to section 1003, directs the
Secretary to revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 393.60(e)
relating to the prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of
view, to provide an exception for the voluntary mounting on a
windshield of ``vehicle safety technology'' likely to achieve a level
of

safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that
would be achieved without the exception. Section 5301(c) provides that
any windshield-mounted technology for which FMCSA had granted a limited
exemption under 49 CFR part 381 that was in effect on the date of
enactment of the FAST Act (October 1, 2015) shall be considered as
meeting the equivalent-or-better level of safety. For this reason,
FMCSA amends 49 CFR 393.60(e) to allow the use of all the devices for
which limited exemptions had previously been granted, with restrictions
on placement that are consistent with the restrictions that were
included in the limited 2-year exemptions.
    Specifically, the Agency replaces current Sec.  393.60(e)(1) with
(1) Sec.  393.60(e)(1)(i), which requires antennas and similar devices
to be mounted not more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of
the windshield, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals; and (2) Sec.  393.60(e)(1)(ii), which
provides an exception to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to allow devices that
utilize certain vehicle safety technologies (including, but not limited
to video event recorders, lane departure warning systems, collision
mitigation or warning systems, transponders, and sensors that are part
of a hands-free driver aid equipment package) to be mounted on the
interior of the windshield and within the area swept by the windshield
wipers. The Agency adds a definition of ``vehicle safety technology''
in Sec.  393.5, specifically as it relates to Sec.  393.60(e). The
Agency believes the potential economic impact of these changes is
negligible. The amendments do not impose new or more stringent
requirements, but simply codify the temporary exemptions granted
pursuant to 49 CFR part 381 that allow the use of the above-mentioned
devices/technologies in locations that would have previously been a
violation of Sec.  393.60(e)(1). More importantly, the amendments do
not mandate the use of any devices/technologies, but simply permit the
voluntary use of the devices/technologies while mounted in a location
that maximizes their effectiveness without impairing operational
safety.

II. Abbreviations

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Full name                     Abbreviation or acronym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act...........................  CAA
Categorical Exclusion...................  CE
Code of Federal Regulations.............  CFR
Commercial Motor Vehicles...............  CMVs
Executive Order.........................  EO
Federal Highway Administration..........  FHWA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety              FMCSA
 Administration.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations  FMCSRs
Fixing America's Surface Transportation   FAST Act
 Act.
Motor Carrier Act, 1935.................  1935 Act
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984........  1984 Act
National Environmental Policy Act.......  NEPA
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking...........  NPRM
Office of Management and Budget.........  OMB
United States Code......................  U.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act,
1935 [1935 Act], the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act], and
the FAST Act of 2015.
    The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that ``[t]he Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum
hours-of-service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.''
[49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].
    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to
``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The
regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial
motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that--(1)
commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely .
. .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5)
an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor
carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under
this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.'' [49 U.S.C.
31136(a)].
    Section 5301 of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to exempt voluntary
mounting of a vehicle safety technology on a windshield if that
technology is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved without the
exemption [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, Dec. 4, 2015]. Section
5301(c) also specifies that any regulatory exemption for windshield-
mounted technologies in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act
``shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
achieved absent an exemption . . .'' It must be noted, however, that
section 1003 of the FAST Act makes this provision effective on October
1, 2015, not on the date the act was signed.
    The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136 (a)(1), (2) and (4) are
applicable to this rulemaking action. The rulemaking amends 49 CFR part
393 to allow certain safety equipment to be mounted within the area of
the windshield swept by the windshield wipers. The Agency has concluded
that this modification will not impair operational safety. Because the
amendments in this final rule are primarily technical changes that make
permanent certain variances already allowed by regulatory exemptions,
FMCSA believes that they will be welcomed by motor carriers and drivers
alike and that coercion to violate these variances, which is prohibited
by Sec.  31136(a)(5), will not be an issue. FMCSA must consider the
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal before promulgating regulations
[49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 31502(d)].
    Adoption of this rule is a nondiscretionary ministerial action.
Because prior notice and opportunity for comment could not affect the
substance of this rule, FMCSA finds good cause under 49 U.S.C. 553(b)
to make the rule immediately final. For the same reason, the Agency
finds good cause to make the rule effective upon publication, as
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 553(d).

IV. Background

    The fundamental purpose of 49 CFR part 393, ``Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation,'' is to ensure that an employer does not
operate a CMV or cause or permit it to be operated, unless it is
equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of that
part. However, nothing contained in part 393 should be construed to
prohibit the use of additional equipment and accessories,

as long as it is not inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSRs,
provided that such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety
of operation of the CMV on which they are used (Sec.  393.3).
    Prior to 1998, Sec.  393.60(c) (``Use of vision-reducing matter'')
prohibited the operation of any CMV ``with any label, sticker,
decalcomania, or other vision-reducing matter covering any portion of
its windshield or windows at either side of the driver's compartment,
except that stickers required by law may be affixed at the bottom of
the windshield, provided that no portion of any label, sticker,
decalcomania, or other vision-reducing matter may extend upward more
than 4 \1/2\ inches from the bottom of such windshield.'' On March 6,
1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) granted a petition from
the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Heavy Vehicle Electronic License
Plate, Inc. for a waiver of the requirements of Sec.  393.60(c) to
allow mounting of an automatic vehicle identification transponder at
the upper border of the windshield of CMVs. After reviewing automotive
engineering recommended practices, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, research regarding driver's field of view, and CMV cab
designs related to placement of interior mirrors and sun visors, FHWA
concluded that mounting a transponder at the approximate center of the
top of the windshield would be extremely unlikely to create a situation
inconsistent with the safe operation of a CMV, and was unlikely to have
any effect on a driver's ability to observe nearby objects, such as
pedestrians.
    On April 14, 1997, FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in which the Agency proposed general amendments to part 393 of
the FMCSRs, including numerous revisions to Sec.  393.60 regarding
glazing materials, windshields and windows (62 FR 18170). Among other
things, FHWA proposed revising Sec.  393.60(c) concerning the
restrictions on the use of vision-reducing matter on windshields to
allow the installation of antennas, transponders, and similar devices
in the upper margin of windshields. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to
replace Sec.  393.60(c) with a new Sec.  393.60(e), ``Prohibition on
obstructions to the driver's field of view,'' that would (1) require
antennas, transponders, and similar devices to be located not more than
6 inches below the upper edge of the windshield, outside the area swept
by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs or signals, and (2) retain the general
requirement that inspection decals and stickers required under Federal
or State laws must be mounted not more than 4\1/2\ inches from the
bottom of the windshield, outside the area swept by the windshield
wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway
signs or signals. The proposed revisions were intended to eliminate the
need for motor carriers to petition FHWA for waivers to allow the use
of windshield-mounted transponders and similar devices, such as the
March 1995 waiver. The NPRM stated that ``The proposed amendment would
codify the March 6, 1995, waiver and help to promote the use of
advanced technologies to improve the efficiency and safety of operation
of commercial motor vehicles.''
    On January 9, 1998, FHWA published a final rule adopting the
amendments as proposed in the April 1997 NPRM (63 FR 1383). In adopting
the amendments, FHWA stated that ``revising Sec.  393.60 to allow the
use of windshield-mounted transponders and similar devices will help to
promote increased efficiency and safety of motor carrier operations.''
FHWA reviewed accident reports concerning the transponder-equipped CMVs
operating under the terms of the 1995 waiver, and determined that there
had been no crashes that could be attributed to the mounting of such
devices in the uppermost area of the center of the windshields of the
CMVs. Based on this, FHWA concluded that ``the real-world experience of
the motor carriers operating approximately 10,000 transponder-equipped
CMVs indicates that allowing other CMVs to be similarly equipped is
consistent with the public interest and the safe operation of CMVs.''
The amendments adopted in the January 1998 final rule, establishing
Sec.  393.60(e), have remained unchanged over the past 18 years.
    In the past several years, FMCSA has granted numerous temporary
exemptions from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) for a variety of devices and safety
technologies that require a clear forward-facing visual field to
function most effectively. In conditions of rain or other inclement
weather, these devices must be located partially or entirely in the
area of the windshield swept by wipers. Many of these devices/safety
technologies, such as video event recorders, lane departure warning
system sensors, and forward collision warning and mitigation systems,
did not exist when the requirements of Sec.  393.60(e) were first
established in 1998.

V. FAST Act--Windshield Technology

    Section 5301(a) of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to amend Sec.
393.60(e) of the FMCSRs to ``exempt from that section the voluntary
mounting on a windshield of vehicle safety technology likely to achieve
a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety that would be achieved absent the exemption.'' ``Vehicle safety
technology'' is defined in Section 5301(b) to include (1) a fleet-
related incident management system, (2) performance or behavior
management system, (3) speed management system, (4) lane departure
warning system, (5) forward collision warning or mitigation system, (6)
active cruise control system, and (7) any other technology that the
Secretary considers applicable.
    Section 5301(c) also states that ``any windshield mounted
technology with a short term exemption under part 381 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, on the date of enactment of this Act, shall be
considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or
greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent an
exemption.'' The following is a list of temporary exemptions from Sec.
393.60(e) that were in effect on October 1, 2015, the effective date of
the FAST Act pursuant to section 1003:
     On March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13460), FMCSA granted a 2-year
exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)(1) to Volvo/Prevost, LLC motorcoaches
for a lane departure system mounted not more than 7 inches above the
lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The
lane departure warning system alerts drivers who unintentionally drift
out of their lane of travel, thus promoting improved safety
performance.
     On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14222), FMCSA granted Mobileye,
Inc., a 2-year exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)(1) for CMVs utilizing a
camera-based collision avoidance system mounted not more than 4 inches
below the upper edge, or above the lower edge, of the area swept by the
windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals. The collision avoidance system warns drivers
of potential hazards by detecting other vehicles, pedestrians and
cyclists on the road, and lane markings and traffic signs.
     On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14231), FMCSA granted Lytx Inc.
(formerly DriveCam, Inc.), a renewal of a 2-year exemption from Sec.
393.60(e)(1) for CMV utilizing video event recorders mounted not more
than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the
windshield wipers, and located outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals. Use of the

video event recorders increases safety through (1) identification and
remediation of risky driving behaviors such as distracted driving and
drowsiness, (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger behavior for CMVs in
passenger service, and (3) enhanced collision review and analysis. This
exemption was initially granted on April 15, 2009, and was renewed for
successive 2-year periods in 2011, 2013, and 2015.
     On April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17818), FMCSA granted Greyhound
Lines, Inc. a renewal of a 2-year exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)(1) for
its buses utilizing video event recorders mounted not more than 50 mm
(2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield
wipers, and located outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals. Use of the video event recorders increases
safety through (1) identification and remediation of risky driving
behaviors such as distracted driving and drowsiness, (2) enhanced
monitoring of passenger behavior for CMVs in passenger service, and (3)
enhanced collision review and analysis. This exemption was initially
granted on March 19, 2009, and was renewed for successive 2-year
periods in 2011, 2013, and 2015.
     On May 20, 2015 (80 FR 29151), FMCSA granted the Virginia
Tech Transportation Institute a 2-year exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)
to allow certain motor carriers operating up to 150 CMVs that are part
of a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research
program on the reliability of collision avoidance systems to mount
camera-based data acquisition systems within and/or below 3 inches of
the bottom of the driver side windshield wiper sweep, and out of the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The
data acquisition system provides an external view of the road and an
internal view of the driver, scanning the facial features of the driver
for detection of impaired driving.
     On June 22, 2015 (80 FR 35697), FMCSA granted Help, Inc. a
2-year exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)(1) for motor carriers using Help,
Inc. transponders mounted 2 inches right of the center of the
windshield, and 2-3 inches above the dashboard. If however, because of
the design and mounting of the windshield wipers on a particular CMV,
use of the mounting location identified above did not result in the
transponder being located within the swept area of the wipers, where it
could function optimally, the transponder could be positioned: (1) To
the right of the center of the windshield; and (2) as low as possible
in the swept area of the wipers. The transponders transmit and receive
data that is used to help determine a vehicle's compliance with safety,
weight, and credential requirements while traveling at highway speeds,
saving motor carriers time, fuel, and money, reducing congestion around
inspection facilities, and improving inspection efficiency and
effectiveness by enabling officials to focus their resources on
vehicles with safety and size and weight infractions.
     On November 18, 2013, FMCSA renewed (and published on
November 25, 2013, 78 FR 70396) for 2 years an exemption from Sec.
393.60(e)(1) for motor carriers using lane departure warning systems
and collision mitigation systems mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches)
below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and
outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and
signals. The lane departure warning system alerts drivers who
unintentionally drift out of their lane of travel, thus promoting
improved safety performance. This exemption was initially granted in
2011, renewed (through November 25, 2015) in 2013, and again (through
November 17, 2017) on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76061). The 2011
exemption was in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act.
    Less than one month after enactment of the FAST Act, FMCSA granted
one additional temporary exemption from Sec.  393.60(e) that is
currently in effect:
     On December 21, 2015 (80 FR 794112), FMCSA granted Volvo
Trucks of North America a 2-year exemption from Sec.  393.60(e)(1) for
motor carriers operating Volvo CMVs to use a rain and ambient light
detection sensor mounted in the lower part of the passenger side of the
windshield within the bottom 7 inches of the area swept by the
windshield wipers, outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors,
highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead. The sensors are
part of a hands-free driver aid equipment package intended to improve
driver safety.
    Video event recorders (Lytx, Greyhound), lane departure warning
systems (Bendix, Volvo/Prevost), and collision avoidance systems
(Mobileye) were specifically identified in the definition of ``vehicle
safety technology'' in section 5301(b) of the FAST Act. FMCSA considers
both the VTTI data acquisition system, which scans a driver's facial
features for the detection of impaired driving, and the Volvo rain and
ambient light sensor, which is part of a hands-free driver aid
equipment package, to be ``performance or behavior management systems''
under the definition in the Act. While transponders do not fall into
any of the specific categories included in the definition of ``vehicle
safety technology'' in the Act, these devices have been permitted to be
mounted in the windshield of CMVs since the granting of the 1995
waiver, and will be included in the amendments made via this rule as
the HELP, Inc., temporary exemption was in effect at the time the Act
was published.

VI. Discussion of Final Rule

    As directed by the Act, this final rule amends Sec.  393.60(e) to
allow certain vehicle safety technologies to be mounted on the interior
of the windshield of a CMV, within a defined portion of the swept area
of the windshield. FMCSA adds a definition of ``vehicle safety
technology'' in Sec.  393.5 of the FMCSRs, to include all of the
technologies that had been granted temporary exemptions from Sec.
393.60(e) that were in effect at the time the FAST Act was enacted.
Consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in the various
temporary exemptions currently in effect, the amended rules require
devices that must be mounted within the area swept by the windshield
wipers to be located (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the
upper edge, and (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower
edge of the area swept. Additionally, and consistent with the existing
regulation and the terms and conditions of the temporary exemptions,
the devices must be located outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals.
    Similar to the 1995 waiver and the 1998 amendments to Sec.  393.60,
this rule updates the FMCSRs in response to the development and
proliferation of devices that utilize new and innovative vehicle safety
technologies that did not exist at the time the previous requirements
were adopted. These devices/technologies have been proven to improve
safety and vehicle operations. As the first temporary exemption from
393.60(e)(1) was granted in March 2009, FMCSA has over 7 years of real-
world experience of motor carriers operating CMVs using devices mounted
on the interior of the windshield and marginally within the area swept
by the windshield wipers. During that time, FMCSA is unaware of any
crashes that have been attributed to the location of such devices.
    Section 5301(b) of the Act directs the Agency to permit specific
vehicle safety technologies (i.e., fleet-related incident management
system, performance or behavior management system, speed

management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision
warning or mitigation system, and active cruise control system) to be
mounted lower in the windshield than currently allowed, and ``any other
technology that the Secretary considers applicable.'' At this time, the
Agency is unaware of any other existing technologies that should be
included in the amendments made via this rule.

VII. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the
United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the
countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences amongst nations.

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Under this final rule, the requirements of 49 CFR 393.60 are
revised to allow for the utilization of specific vehicle safety
technologies that would be mounted on the interior of the windshield of
a CMV, and within the area swept by the windshield wipers. FMCSA also
adds a definition for ``vehicle safety technology'' in 49 CFR 393.5

IX. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by Executive Order
13563)

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); is not
significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, 44 FR 11034, February
26, 1979); and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Therefore, the Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Agency
estimates that the economic benefits and costs of the voluntary use of
vehicle safety technologies will be less than $100 million. Carriers
will not incur costs associated with adopting any technologies
identified in this final rule because all such technologies are purely
optional. Manufacturers of technologies currently exempted will
experience a minor cost savings through the elimination of the biennial
burden to renew existing exemptions. Manufacturers not currently named
in exemptions that wish to develop and market such technologies will
have new business opportunities. Carriers that choose to purchase and
install currently exempt technologies may be more confident in doing so
since there will be no question as to whether an expiring exemption
will be renewed.
    Furthermore, the net impact of this rule, although small, should be
beneficial to the motoring public. When FMCSA previously granted each
exemption involved here, it found that doing so would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
achieved without the exemption. Based on the technical information
available, there is no indication that the rain and ambient light
detection sensors, lane departure warning system sensors, collision
mitigation or avoidance system sensors, video event recorders or
transponders would obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway
signs and surrounding traffic. Generally, trucks and buses have an
elevated seating position that greatly improves the forward visual
field of the driver; and the location within the top four inches of the
area swept by the windshield wipers and out of the driver's sightline
or within the bottom 7 inches of the area swept by the windshield
wipers and out of the driver's sightline will be reasonable and
enforceable at roadside. Moreover, no exemption has been rescinded due
to: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles failing to
comply with the terms and conditions of an exemption; (2) A lower level
of safety than that prior to the granting of an exemption; or (3)
Inconsistency between continuation of an exemption with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b). For the reasons stated
above, the Agency estimates that the net impact of this rule will be
positive.
    The economic impact of this final rule is expected to be small
because it merely makes permanent certain temporary exemptions to the
windshield-obstruction rule, and none of its provisions involve new or
more stringent requirements than those already allowed by current
exemptions. This final rule does not approach the $100 million annual
threshold of economic significance with respect to costs; in fact, it
adds no new costs. With respect to benefits, this final rule will
marginally increase the usage of vehicle safety technologies as defined
in Section 5301(b) of the FAST Act, thereby producing safety benefits
that the Agency lacks data to quantify. However, as the vehicle safety
technologies permanently exempted in this rule are already commercially
available and used by many carriers, the Agency expects their usage to
increase only slightly faster than without this rule. The Agency
therefore expects the benefits of this final rule will not rise to the
$100 million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the
Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional
or public interest.
    The FMCSA has determined that it has good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) to adopt this final rule without prior notice and opportunity
for comment. The Agency finds that notice and comment are
``unnecessary'' because section 5301(a) of the FAST Act required FMCSA
to revise Sec.  393.60(e) within 180 days of the date of enactment,
essentially to codify as permanent regulations those exemptions to the
windshield-obstruction rule that have been issued in recent years.
Section 5301(c) specified that any exemption from Sec.  393.60(e) in
effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act must be considered to
meet the statutory test for an exemption in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1),
i.e., ``likely [to] achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.''
Because section 5301 gives FMCSA no discretion in amending the
regulations to allow vehicle safety technology, the Agency has
determined that notice and comment are unnecessary.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996),
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and 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.
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not
required to prepare a

final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this
final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA determined that it has good
cause to adopt the rule without notice and comment.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in
understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the
final rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA
personnel listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the
final rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that results in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2014 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information)

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FMCSA has
determined that no new information collection requirements are
associated with this rule under OMB control number 2126-0003,
``Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.''

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications 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 the States. FMCSA
has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined
that it does not have Federalism implications.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The final 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.

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The
Agency determined that this final rule will not create an environmental
risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

J. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. This final rule does not require the
collection of any personally identifiable information.
    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA
has determined this final rule will not result in a new or revised
Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

K. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

M. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This final 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.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the
Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its
own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate
statement to OMB on this matter.

O. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act,
Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically
excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1,
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.bb. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph
6.bb. addresses regulations concerning vehicle operation safety
standards (e.g., regulations requiring: Certain motor

carriers to use approved equipment which is required to be installed
such as an ignition cut-off switch, or carried on board, such as a fire
extinguisher, and/or stricter blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
standards for drivers, etc.), equipment approval, and/or equipment
carriage requirements (e.g. fire extinguishers and flares). A
Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for inspection or
copying in the Regulations.gov.
    FMCSA also analyzed this final rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.
    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this final rule in accordance with the Executive
Order, and has determined that it has none, nor is there any collective
environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III,
subchapter B, as follows:

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 of
Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  393.5 by adding a definition for ``Vehicle safety
technology'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Vehicle safety technology. Vehicle safety technology includes a
fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior
management system, speed management system, lane departure warning
system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise
control system, and transponder.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  393.60 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  393.60   Glazing in specified openings.

* * * * *
    (e) Prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view--(1)
Devices mounted on the interior of the windshield. (i) Antennas, and
similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below
the upper edge of the windshield. These devices must be located outside
the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight
lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
    (ii) Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to vehicle
safety technologies, as defined in Sec.  393.5, that are mounted on the
interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies must
be mounted:
    (A) Not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the
area swept by the windshield wipers;
    (B) Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the
area swept by the windshield wipers; and
    (C) Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs
and signals.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
September 12, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-22923 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P