[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44418-44420]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. The currently
effective community number is shown and must be used for all new
policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location and case                                                                                Community
  State and county           No.          Chief executive officer of community     Community map repository        Date of modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Santa Cruz  Unincorporated       The Honorable Manuel Ruiz, Chair,     Santa Cruz County Complex,     Jun. 21, 2022...............       040090
 (FEMA Docket No.:    areas of Santa       Santa Cruz County Board of            2150 North Congress Drive,
 B-2220).             Cruz County (21-09-  Supervisors, 2150 North Congress      Suite 116, Nogales, AZ
                      1274P).              Drive, Suite 119, Nogales, AZ         85621.
                                           85621.
Colorado: Boulder    City of Boulder (21- The Honorable Aaron Brockett, Mayor,  City Hall, 1777 Broadway,      Jul. 1, 2022................       080024
 (FEMA Docket No.:    08-0987P).           City of Boulder, 1777 Broadway,       Boulder, CO 80306.
 B-2226).                                  Boulder, CO 80306.
Florida:
    Bay (FEMA        City of Lynn Haven   Vickie Gainer, Manager, City of Lynn  Building Department, 817 Ohio  Jun. 27, 2022...............       120009
     Docket No.: B-   (20-04-4506P).       Haven, 825 Ohio Avenue, Lynn Haven,   Avenue, Lynn Haven, FL
     2231).                                FL 32444.                             32444.
    Bay (FEMA        City of Panama City  The Honorable Greg Brudnicki, Mayor,  Public Works Department,       Jun. 27, 2022...............       120012
     Docket No.: B-   (20-04-4506P).       City of Panama City, 501 Harrison     Engineering Division, 501
     2231).                                Avenue, Panama City, FL 32401.        Harrison Avenue, Panama
                                                                                City, FL 32401.

    Bay (FEMA        Unincorporated       The Honorable Robert Carroll, Chair,  Bay County Planning and        Jun. 27, 2022...............       120004
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Bay         Bay County Board of Commissioners,    Zoning Department, 840 West
     2231).           County (20-04-       840 West 11th Street, Panama City,    11th Street, Panama City, FL
                      4506P).              FL 32401.                             32401.
    Bay (FEMA        Unincorporated       The Honorable Robert Carroll, Chair,  Bay County Planning            Jun. 21, 2022...............       120004
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Bay         Bay County Board of Commissioners,    Department, 840 West 11th
     2226).           County (21-04-       840 West 11th Street, Panama City,    Street, Panama City, FL
                      2502P).              FL 32401.                             32401.
    Charlotte (FEMA  Unincorporated       The Honorable Bill Truex, Chair,      Charlotte County Community     Jun. 21, 2022...............       120061
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Charlotte   Charlotte County Board of             Development Department,
     2220).           County (22-04-       Commissioners, 18500 Murdock          18400 Murdock Circle, Port
                      0620P).              Circle, Suite 536, Port Charlotte,    Charlotte, FL 33948.
                                           FL 33948.
    Lake (FEMA       City of Leesburg     Al Minner, Manager, City of           Planning and Zoning            Jun. 27, 2022...............       120136
     Docket No.: B-   (21-04-3589P).       Leesburg, P.O. Box 490630,            Department, 204 North 5th
     2231).                                Leesburg, FL 34749.                   Street, Leesburg, FL 34748.
    Lake (FEMA       Unincorporated       Jennifer Barker, Lake County Interim  Lake County Public Works       Jun. 27, 2022...............       120421
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Lake        Manager, P.O. Box 7800, Tavares, FL   Department, 323 North
     2231).           County (21-04-       32778.                                Sinclair Avenue, Tavares, FL
                      3589P).                                                    32778.
    Monroe (FEMA     City of Marathon     The Honorable John Bartus, Mayor,     Planning Department, 9805      Jun. 21, 2022...............       120681
     Docket No.: B-   (22-04-0625P).       City of Marathon, 9805 Overseas       Overseas Highway, Marathon,
     2226).                                Highway, Marathon, FL 33050.          FL 33050.
Georgia:
    Hall (FEMA       City of Oakwood (21- The Honorable Lamar Scroggs, Mayor,   Department of Public Works,    Jun. 23, 2022...............       130334
     Docket No.: B-   04-4607P).           City of Oakwood, P.O. Box 99,         4035 Walnut Circle, Oakwood,
     2226).                                Oakwood, GA 30566.                    GA 30566.
    Hall (FEMA       Unincorporated       Jock Connell, Hall County             Hall County Engineering        Jun. 23, 2022...............       130466
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Hall        Administrator, P.O. Drawer 1435,      Division, 2875 Browns Bridge
     2226).           County (21-04-       Gainesville, GA 30503.                Road, Gainesville, GA 30503.
                      4607P).
Kentucky: Fayette    Lexington-Fayette    The Honorable Linda Gorton, Mayor,    Engineering Department, 101    Jun. 29, 2022...............       210067
 (FEMA Docket No.:    Urban County         Lexington-Fayette Urban County        East Vine Street, 4th Floor,
 B-2226).             Government (21-04-   Government, 200 East Main Street,     Lexington, KY 40507.
                      2906P).              Lexington, KY 40507.
Massachusetts:
    Plymouth (FEMA   Town of Marion (21-  The Honorable Norman A. Hills,        Building Department, 2 Spring  Jun. 17, 2022...............       255213
     Docket No.: B-   01-1425P).           Chair, Town of Marion Board of        Street, Marion, MA 02738.
     2226).                                Selectmen, 2 Spring Street, Marion,
                                           MA 02738.
    Plymouth (FEMA   Town of              The Honorable Jordan C. Collyer,      Building Department, 16 Main   Jun. 17, 2022...............       255214
     Docket No.: B-   Mattapoisett (21-    Chair, Town of Mattapoisett Board     Street, Mattapoisett, MA
     2226).           01-1425P).           of Selectmen, 16 Main Street,         02739.
                                           Mattapoisett, MA 02739.
Montana:
    Missoula (FEMA   City of Missoula     The Honorable John Engen, Mayor,      Department of Planning and     Jun. 27, 2022...............       300049
     Docket No.: B-   (21-08-0781P).       City of Missoula, 435 Ryman Street,   Grants, 435 Ryman Street,
     2226).                                Missoula, MT 59802.                   Missoula, MT 59802.
    Missoula (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable Juanita Vero, Chair,    Missoula County Community and  Jun. 27, 2022...............       300048
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Missoula    Missoula County Board of              Planning Services
     2226).           County (21-08-       Commissioners, 200 West Broadway      Department, 323 West Alder
                      0781P).              Street, Missoula, MT 59802.           Street, Missoula, MT 59802.
New Mexico:
    San Juan (FEMA   City of Aztec (21-   The Honorable Michael A. Padilla,     City Hall, 201 West Chaco      Jul. 5, 2022................       350065
     Docket No.: B-   06-1857P).           Sr., Mayor, City of Aztec, 201 West   Street, Aztec, NM 87410.
     2231).                                Chaco Street, Aztec, NM 87410.
    San Juan (FEMA   Unincorporated       Mike Stark, San Juan County Manager,  San Juan County Fire           Jul. 5, 2022................       350064
     Docket No.: B-   areas of San Juan    100 South Oliver Drive, Aztec, NM     Operations Building, 209
     2231).           County (21-06-       87410.                                South Oliver Drive, Aztec,
                      1857P).                                                    NM 87410.
North Carolina:      City of              The Honorable Mitch Colvin, Mayor,    Zoning Department, 433 Hay     Jul. 27, 2022...............       370077
 Cumberland (FEMA     Fayetteville (21-    City of Fayetteville, 433 Hay         Street, Fayetteville, NC
 Docket No.: B-       04-3782P).           Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301.       28301.
 2232).
North Dakota:
    Cass (FEMA       City of Mapleton     The Honorable Andrew Draeger, Mayor,  Moore Engineering Inc., 1042   Jun. 16, 2022...............       380023
     Docket No.: B-   (21-08-0692P).       City of Mapleton, 651 2nd Street,     14th Avenue, Suite 101, West
     2226).                                Mapleton, ND 58059.                   Fargo, ND 58076.
    Cass (FEMA       Township of Durbin   The Honorable Keith Gohdes, Chair,    Township Hall, 3768 157 R      Jun. 16, 2022...............       380325
     Docket No.: B-   (21-08-0692P).       Township of Durbin Board of           Avenue, Southeast,
     2226).                                Commissioners, 3747 160th \1/2\       Casselton, ND 58012.
                                           Avenue Southeast, Mapleton, ND
                                           58079.
Pennsylvania:
    Montgomery       Municipality of      Crandall O. Jones, Administrator,     Municipality Hall, 235 East    Jun. 27, 2022...............       425386
     (FEMA Docket     Norristown (21-03-   Municipality of Norristown, 235       Airy Street, Norristown, PA
     No.: B-2231).    1308P).              East Airy Street, Norristown, PA      19401.
                                           19401.
    Montgomery       Township of Upper    Anthony T. Hamaday, Manager,          Township Hall, 175 West        Jun. 27, 2022...............       420957
     (FEMA Docket     Merion (21-03-       Township of Upper Merion, 175 West    Valley Forge Road, King of
     No.: B-2231).    1308P).              Valley Forge Road, King of Prussia,   Prussia, PA 19406.
                                           PA 19406.
    Montgomery       Township of West     Jason Bobst, Manager, Township of     Township Hall, 1630 West       Jun. 27, 2022...............       420711
     (FEMA Docket     Norriton (21-03-     West Norriton, 1630 West Marshall     Marshall Street,
     No.: B-2231).    1308P).              Street, Jeffersonville, PA 19403.     Jeffersonville, PA 19403.
South Carolina:

    Jasper (FEMA     City of Hardeeville  Michael J. Czymbor, Manager, City of  City Hall, 205 Main Street,    Jun. 30, 2022...............       450113
     Docket No.: B-   (21-04-4372P).       Hardeeville, P.O. Box 609,            Hardeeville, SC 29927.
     2226).                                Hardeeville, SC 29927.
    Jasper (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Barbara Clark, Chair,   Jasper County Planning and     Jun. 30, 2022...............       450112
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Jasper      Jasper County Council, 358 3rd        Building Services
     2226).           County (21-04-       Avenue, Ridgeland, SC 29936.          Department, 358 3rd Avenue,
                      4372P).                                                    Ridgeland, SC 29936.
Texas:
    Bell (FEMA       Unincorporated       The Honorable David Blackburn, Bell   Bell County Engineering        Jun. 27, 2022...............       480706
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Bell        County Judge, P.O. Box 768, Belton,   Department, 206 North Main
     2226).           County (21-06-       TX 76513.                             Street, Belton, TX 76513.
                      2729P).
    Bexar (FEMA      City of San Antonio  The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor,   Transportation and Capitol     Jun. 27, 2022...............       480045
     Docket No.: B-   (21-06-2681P).       City of San Antonio, P.O. Box         Improvements Department,
     2231).                                839966, San Antonio, TX 78283.        Storm Water Division, 114
                                                                                West Commerce Street, 7th
                                                                                Floor, San Antonio, TX
                                                                                78205.
    Brazoria (FEMA   City of Sweeny (21-  The Honorable Jeff Farley, Mayor,     City Hall, 102 West Ashley     Jun. 16, 2022...............       485512
     Docket No.: B-   06-0575P).           City of Sweeny, P.O. Box 248,         Wilson Road, Sweeny, TX
     2220).                                Sweeny, TX 77480.                     77480.
    Brazoria (FEMA   Unincorporated       The Honorable L.M. ``Matt'' Sebesta,  Brazoria County West Annex     Jun. 16, 2022...............       485458
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Brazoria    Jr., Brazoria County Judge, 111       Building, 451 North Velasco
     2220).           County (21-06-       East Locust Street, Angleton, TX      Street, Suite 210, Angleton,
                      0575P).              77515.                                TX 77515.
    Dallas (FEMA     City of Dallas (21-  The Honorable Eric Johnson, Mayor,    Oak Cliff Municipal Center,    Jul. 5, 2022................       480171
     Docket No.: B-   06-1960P).           City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla          320 East Jefferson
     2231).                                Street, Room 5EN, Dallas, TX 75201.   Boulevard, Room 312, Dallas,
                                                                                TX 75203.
    Montgomery       City of Conroe (21-  The Honorable Jody Czajkoski, Mayor,  Engineering Department, 700    Jul. 1, 2022................       480484
     (FEMA Docket     06-1436P).           City of Conroe, 300 West Davis        Metcalf Street, Conroe, TX
     No.: B-2231).                         Street, Conroe, TX 77301.             77301.
    Montgomery       Unincorporated       The Honorable Mark J. Keough,         Montgomery County Engineering  Jun. 27, 2022...............       480483
     (FEMA Docket     areas of             Montgomery County Judge, 501 North    Department, 501 North
     No.: B-2231).    Montgomery County    Thompson Street, Suite 401, Conroe,   Thompson Street, Suite 103,
                      (21-06-1567P).       TX 77301.                             Conroe, TX 77301.
Virginia: Buchanan   Town of Grundy (21-  Dennis A. Ramey, Manager, Town of     Department of Public Works,    Jun. 17, 2022...............       510025
 (FEMA Docket No.:    03-1165P).           Grundy, 1185 Plaza Drive, Grundy,     1185 Plaza Drive, Grundy, VA
 B-2226).                                  VA 24614.                             24614.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-15916 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23770-23772]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9593]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66819; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule
Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements
for OTC Equity Securities)

April 17, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On October 6, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``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 FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity Securities). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 20, 2011.\3\
The Commission received seven comment letters on the proposed rule
change--two from individual investors, three from an inter-dealer
quotation system and two from a member firm.\4\ FINRA responded to
comments on December 23, 2011.\5\ The Commission published an order
instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\6\
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
in the Federal Register on January 24, 2012.\7\ The comment period
closed on February 14, 2012, and FINRA's rebuttal period closed on
February 28, 2012. The Commission received one comment letter in
response to the Proceedings Order.\8\ On April 17, 2012, FINRA filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The text of Amendment No.
1 is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65568 (October 14,
2011), 76 FR 65307 (October 20, 2011) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2011-058) (``Original Proposal'').
    \4\ Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from
Suzanne H. Shatto, Seattle, Washington, dated October 20, 2011;
Naphtali M. Hamlet, Seattle, Washington, dated October 21, 2011;
Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group, Inc., dated
November 10, 2011; Michael T. Corrao, Managing Director, Knight
Capital Group, Inc., dated November 16, 2011 (``Knight
1''); R. Cromwell Coulson, President and CEO, OTC Markets,
dated November 18, 2011; Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets
Group, Inc., dated December 29, 2011; Michael T. Corrao, Managing
Director, Knight Capital Group, Inc., dated January 13, 2012
(``Knight 2'').
    Comment letters are available at www.sec.gov.
    \5\ On December 23, 2011, FINRA responded to comment letters
received by the SEC as of that date. See letter to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Stephanie M. Dumont, Senior Vice
President and Director of Capital Markets Policy, FINRA (``FINRA
Response Letter'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66168 (January 17,
2012), 77 FR 3515 (January 24, 2012) (Order Instituting Proceedings
to Determine Whether to Disapprove File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058)
(``Proceedings Order'').
    \8\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Daniel Zinn, General Counsel, OTC Markets Group Inc., dated
February 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As stated in the Original Proposal, FINRA is amending FINRA Rule
6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)
(the ``Rule'') to, among other things, (1) Simplify the tier structure,
(2) parallel the approach taken by the national securities exchanges
for securities priced at or above $1.00, (3) expand the scope of the
Rule to apply to all quotations or orders displayed on an inter-dealer
quotation system, (4) incorporate the requirements of FINRA Rule 6434
(Minimum Pricing Increments for OTC Equity Securities) \9\

and, importantly, (5) facilitate the display of customer limit orders
under FINRA Rule 6460 (Display of Customer Limit Orders) (the ``limit
order display rule'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62359 (June 22,
2010), 75 FR 37488 (June 29, 2010) (File No. SR-FINRA-2009-054;
``Order Approving NMS-Principled Rules for OTC Equity Securities'').
FINRA Rule 6434 became effective on February 11, 2011 and FINRA Rule
6460 became effective on May 9, 2011. See Regulatory Notice 10-42
(September 2010).
    \10\ See Order Approving NMS-Principled Rules for OTC Equity
Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this Amendment No. 1, FINRA is modifying the Original Proposal
in response to comment letters as well as further discussions with
members, particularly with regard to the lower minimum dollar amount of
displayed liquidity required under the proposed tiers.\11\ For example,
commenters expressed concern that the Original Proposal would remove
meaningful minimum dollar value level requirements for displayed
liquidity by market makers and suggested that any changes be
implemented as a pilot.\12\ FINRA believes that these proposed
modifications, which increase several minimum tier sizes as compared to
the Original Proposal, would address commenters' concerns by increasing
the minimum dollar commitment to the market overall, while nonetheless
facilitating investor protection by providing for increased display of
customer limit orders than is currently provided under the limit order
display rule. As noted in the FINRA Response Letter, through the
extension of limit order display for OTC equity securities, investors
may now benefit from enhanced transparency of limit orders, improved
prices and increased execution opportunities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Knight 1 and Knight 2.
    \12\ See, e.g., Knight 1 and Knight 2.
    \13\ As previously stated by the SEC, customer limit order
display is beneficial to the markets:
    The financial markets as a whole should benefit from [limit
order display] because the price discovery process will be enhanced,
market transparency will be improved and price competition will be
promoted. By their very nature, these benefits are broad-based and
pervasive.
    Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36310 (September 29, 1995),
60 FR 52792 (October 10, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minimum quotation sizes and liquidity ranges of the Original
Proposal and the revised proposals are as follows:

                                                Original Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tier size range                       Min. shares            Minimum liquidity range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.0001...............................         $0.0199          10,000  $1.00...................         $199.00
$0.02.................................          0.2599           1,000  $20.00..................          259.90
$0.26.................................          0.5099             500  $130.00.................          254.95
$0.51.................................          0.9999             200  $102.00.................          199.98
$1.00.................................          174.99             100  $100.00.................       17,499.00
$175.00...............................  ..............               1  $175.00.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                Revised Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tier size range                       Min. shares            Minimum liquidity range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.0001...............................         $0.0999          10,000  $1.00...................         $999.00
$0.10.................................          0.1999           5,000  $500.00.................          999.50
$0.20.................................          0.5099           2,500  $500.00.................        1,274.75
$0.51.................................          0.9999           1,000  $510.00.................          999.90
$1.00.................................          174.99             100  $100.00.................       17,499.00
$175.00...............................  ..............               1  $175.00.................  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These revisions increase the minimum quotation sizes for price
points between $0.02 and $1.00 (as compared to the Original Proposal).
Specifically, the minimum quotation size required for securities priced
between $0.02 and $0.0999 would be increased from 1,000 shares to
10,000 shares; between $0.10 and $0.1999 would be increased from 1,000
shares to 5,000 shares; between $0.26 and $0.5099 would be increased
from 500 shares to 2,500 shares; and between $0.51 and $0.9999 from 200
shares to 1,000 shares. Therefore, under the revised tiers, for
securities priced from $0.10 up to $1.00, the required minimum dollar
value of displayed liquidity would range from $500.00 to $1,274.75--
dollar amounts FINRA believes represent both appropriate minimum dollar
value of displayed liquidity for members and reasonable dollar values
for customer orders to be eligible for display on an inter-dealer
quotation system.
    Thus, FINRA believes that these revised tier sizes and
corresponding liquidity minimum amounts are in the best interest of the
market for OTC Equity Securities and investors in that they facilitate
the display of additional liquidity by market makers and of
approximately 95% of all customer limit orders reviewed.\14\ In
addition, FINRA expects that--as the SEC has found in the context of
its display rule--the improved display of customer limit orders
resulting from the revised minimum quotation sizes will enhance the
quality of published quotations for OTC Equity Securities and enhance
competition and pricing efficiency in the market for OTC Equity
Securities, which also should have a positive impact on capital
formation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FINRA analyzed a random sample of over 100 million customer
limit orders in OTC Equity Securities that were reported to FINRA
during a six-month period.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A, 61 FR 48290
(September 12, 1996) (``SEC Display Rule Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, FINRA believes that the resulting increased display of
customer limit orders will improve the public availability of quotation
information, increase quote competition, market efficiency, best
execution and disintermediation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also SEC Display Rule Adopting Release.

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

    The revised tiers also would continue to yield the other benefits
discussed in the Original Proposal, including simplifying the existing
Rule by reducing the number of minimum quotation tiers from nine tiers
to six tiers and requiring a round lot of one hundred shares for all
securities priced at or above $1.00.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A round lot of 100 shares applies to most NASDAQ and NYSE
listed securities. The Commission notes that those OTC Equity
Securities priced at or above $175 are proposed to have a minimum
quotation size that would equal the round lot size applicable to
those securities, which is one share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing that the proposed rule change be implemented for
all OTC Equity Securities displayed on an inter-dealer quotation system
on a pilot basis for a period of one year from the effective date. The
effective date of the minimum quotation size pilot will be 120 days
from Commission approval. FINRA will provide the Commission with
trading data, as necessary, to evaluate the impact of the pilot.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, 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-FINRA-2011-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-058. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-058 and should be
submitted on or before May 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9593 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58915-58923]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 177

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 392

[Docket Numbers PHMSA-2010-0319 (HM-255) & FMCSA-2006-25660]
RIN 2137-AE69 & 2126-AB04

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing; Safe Clearance

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA and PHMSA amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs),
respectively, to prohibit a driver of a commercial motor vehicle or of
a motor vehicle transporting certain hazardous materials or certain
agents or toxins (hereafter collectively referenced as ``regulated
motor vehicle'') from entering onto a highway-rail grade crossing
unless there is sufficient space to drive completely through the grade
crossing without stopping. This action is in response to section 112 of
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, as
amended by section 32509 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21). The intent of this rulemaking is to reduce
highway-rail grade crossing crashes.

DATES: This rule is effective October 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may review the final rule, the technical supporting
documents, economic analysis, environmental assessment, and public
comments for this proceeding identified by Federal Docket Management
System Numbers PHMSA-2010-0319 (HM-255) and FMCSA-2006-25660.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
the ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: At FMCSA: Mr. Thomas Yager, Driver and
Carrier Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    At PHMSA: Mr. Ben Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards,
(202) 366-8553 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule

    This action is in response to section 112 of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (HMTAA), as amended
by section 32509 of MAP-21. The intent of this rulemaking is to reduce
highway-rail grade crossing crashes. FMCSA and PHMSA implement the
statutory mandate enacted in section 112 of the HMTAA, as amended, by
changing the FMCSRs and HMRs, respectively, to prohibit drivers of
regulated motor vehicles from entering onto a highway-rail grade
crossing unless there is sufficient space to drive completely through
the grade crossing without stopping. The Agencies published the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this final rule on January 28, 2011
(76 FR 5120), which also included a history of actions from 1998
through 2006 that led to the 2011 NPRM.

B. Costs and Benefits

    As explained in section VI. Regulatory Analyses below, FMCSA and
PHMSA expect 2.62 fewer crashes per year, when all States adopt rules
compatible with this Federal rule,\1\ and 0.3 fewer train
derailments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.000285 fewer incidents per grade crossing x 9,204 storage
space impacted grade crossings in States without a similar rule
equals 2.62 fewer crashes per year.
    \2\ 14 derailments/122 grade crossing incidents x 2.62 incidents
prevented equals 0.3 fewer train derailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA and PHMSA estimate the total annual benefits from crashes
avoided to be approximately $946,000. This consists of $473,000 in
reduced injuries, $1,800 in reduced hazardous material spills, $33,000
in reduced highway property damage, and $438,000 in reduced costs for
train derailments. Total implementation costs per year are estimated to
be $302,300 in the first year, based on the added costs to State
enforcement agencies of administrative, enforcement, or training
activities. The additional costs for driver training should be small as
the training would occur as a modification of emphasis in existing
railroad grade crossing training curricula. Railroad grade crossing
training curricula for drivers would include training to comply with
eight FMCSRs related to the safe operation of regulated motor vehicles
at railroad grade crossings and penalties for non-compliance with these
railroad grade crossing safe operation rules. In addition, drivers who
operate in States with existing laws similar to the regulations in this
final rule will be familiar with the requirements. The costs are
projected to be about $11,200 in each of the 27 states (including the
District of Columbia) that do not have an existing law or regulation
similar to the requirements in the final rule. Thus, the annual net
benefits from implementation of this final rule in the first year
should be about $644,000. In subsequent years, there would be no costs,
thus, $946,000 would be saved in subsequent years.
    Table ES-1 displays the 10-year average annual and discounted net
costs and benefits of the statute that we are implementing in this
final rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that the numbers for the 10-year costs and the discount
rates differ from what was presented in the NPRM's RIA due to a
discovery of a minor mathematical error, the updating to current
year costs with the new estimated average economic value of a
statistical life for injury crashes (VSL), and the removal of annual
fatality benefits, because zero fatal crashes were found in the
analysis period of 1998-2005. The estimated mean VSL is derived from
the DOT memorandum, ``Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses,'' February 28, 2013. See
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.

  Table ES-1--Total Estimated 10-Year Costs and Benefits for Implementing the Statute Mandating the Final Grade
                                           Crossing Storage-Space Rule
                                      [2013 dollars, in thousands, rounded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                10-year         10-year
                                    First year     Annual impact   10-year total  (Discounted at  (Discounted at
                                      impact       (years 2-10)                    3  percent) *   7  percent) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................            $946            $946          $9,460          $8,312          $7,109
Costs...........................             302               0             302             265             227
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits................             644             946           9,158           8,047           6,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Present values of 10-year costs are discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent as specified in OMB Circular
  A[dash]4, Regulatory Analysis, September 2004. Note that the first year costs and benefits are not discounted.

II. Background and Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Section 112 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization
Act of 1994 (HMTAA) [Pub. L. 103-311, Title I, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676,
August 26, 1994, as amended by section 32509 of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat.
405, 805, July 6, 2012] provides as follows:

    Sec. 112 Grade Crossing Safety.

    The Secretary of Transportation shall, within 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, amend regulations -
    (1) under chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code (relating
to transportation of hazardous materials), to prohibit the driver of
a motor vehicle transporting hazardous materials in commerce, and
    (2) under chapter 311 of such title (relating to commercial
motor vehicle safety) to prohibit the driver of any commercial motor
vehicle,

from driving the motor vehicle onto a highway-rail grade crossing
without having sufficient space to drive completely through the
crossing without stopping.

    The report by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation states that section 112 is intended to:

    Improve safety at highway-railroad crossings in response to
fatalities that have occurred from accidents involving commercial
motor vehicle operators who failed to use proper caution while
crossing. The number of fatalities resulting from such accidents
often is increased because of the presence of hazardous materials. .
. . [T]he Committee believes that imposing a Federal statutory
obligation on drivers of all commercial motor vehicles to consider
whether they can cross safely and completely[hellip]will help to
reduce the number of tragedies associated with grade crossing
accidents.

S. Rep. No. 103-217, at 11 (December 9, 1993), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1763, 1773). In sum, section 112 specifically directs DOT
to prohibit drivers of motor vehicles subject to Federal hazmat law and
the HMRs issued thereunder and the commercial motor vehicle operators
subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 311 and the FMCSRs issued thereunder from
driving ``onto a highway-rail grade crossing without having sufficient
space to drive completely through the crossing without stopping.''
PHMSA and FMCSA are carrying out this statutory mandate in this final
rule.
    With respect to section 112(1), PHMSA has been delegated the
authority in Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal
hazmat law), chapter 51 of Title 49 U.S.C., to ``designate material . .
. or a group or class of material as hazardous when the Secretary
determines that transporting the material in commerce in a particular
amount and form may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or
property'' and to ``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate,
and foreign commerce'' which apply to a person who ``transports
hazardous material in commerce.'' 49 U.S.C. 5103(a), (b)(1); see 49 CFR
1.97(b)(2).
    With respect to section 112(2), FMCSA has been delegated authority
under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II,
98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984), as amended, to ``prescribe
regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety'' in order to ensure
that ``commercial motor vehicles are . . . operated safely.'' See 49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(1); \4\ 49 CFR 1.87(f). Other factors under 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1) (commercial motor vehicle maintenance, equipment, and
loading), and factors under section 31136(a)(2) (responsibilities on
drivers not to impair safe commercial motor vehicle operation) and (3)
(physical condition of drivers enables safe commercial motor vehicle
operation) are not germane to this rulemaking. Section 31136(a)(4)
(commercial motor vehicle operation does not have deleterious effect on
driver's physical condition) is only indirectly related in that this
rule will protect drivers from certain accidents/crashes. Finally,
given the minimal distances and time required to avoid prohibited rail
grade crossings, the lack of opportunity for motor carriers, shippers,
receivers, and transportation intermediaries to communicate timely with
drivers regarding decisions to cross, and the obvious personal safety
risk to the commercial motor vehicle operator of attempting to cross
where the is not sufficient space, the Agency considers any risk of
driver coercion under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5) (commercial motor vehicle
operator not to be coerced by motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary into operating commercial motor vehicle in
violation of certain regulations) in connection with this rulemaking to
be negligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of section 31136, ```commercial motor vehicle'
means a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in
interstate commerce to transport passengers or property, if the
vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of
at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater; is designed or used to
transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for
compensation; is designed or used to transport more than 15
passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport
passengers for compensation; or is used in transporting material
found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous materials
under section 5103 of this title and transported in a quantity
requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
under section 5103.
    49 U.S.C. 31132(1); see also 49 CFR 390.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. History

    PHMSA and FMCSA published the NPRM for this final rule on January
28, 2011 (76 FR 5120). That notice included a history of FMCSA's and
its predecessor's actions from 1998 through 2006 that led to the 2011
NPRM. The 2011 NPRM provides a discussion of the history of this
proceeding, including the survey of State statutes on grade crossings
laws, grade crossing safety outreach activities, and the 2006 public
meeting that provided interested parties an opportunity to express
their views before issuance of the January 28, 2011 NPRM.
    Since publication of the NPRM, section 112(2) was amended in MAP-21
to correct the statutory reference from chapter 315 to chapter 311
(``commercial motor vehicle safety'') of Title 49, United States Code.
This clarifies that the authority for FMCSA's final rule is the
direction to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle
safety'' in section 31136. Accordingly, with respect to the final rule
issued by FMCSA, the definition of ``commercial motor vehicle'' in 49
U.S.C. 31132(1) and 49 CFR 390.5 applies to the prohibition being
adopted in 49 CFR 392.12.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FMCSA acknowledges a drafting error in the NPRM resulting in
an inconsistency between the preamble and the proposed regulatory
text. Whereas the preamble addressed FMCSA's authority over ``motor
carrier[s]'' and ``motor private carrier[s],'' terms used in chapter
315 of Title 49, the regulatory text in proposed 49 CFR 392.12
referenced ``commercial motor vehicle[s],'' as defined 49 CFR 390.5,
and consistent with chapter 311 of Title 49 and related provisions
in the FMCSRs, issued under the authority of Sec.  31136. See, e.g.
49 CFR 392.11 (Railroad grade crossings; slowing down required).
However, none of the commenters addressed that anomaly. The
amendments to section 112 of the HMTAA by MAP-21 ratified the
reference to ``commercial motor vehicle'' in 49 CFR 392.12 as
proposed in the NPRM and adopted in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to add a new paragraph 49 CFR
177.804(b) to the HMR, making the prohibition in 49 CFR 392.12
applicable to drivers of motor vehicles transporting a quantity of
hazardous materials requiring placarding under subpart F of 49 CFR part
172 or a material listed as select agent or toxin listed in 42 CFR part
73. As discussed, this would make the prohibition against driving onto
a highway-rail grade crossing without having sufficient space to drive
completely through the crossing without stopping applicable to
``drivers of motor vehicles of any size that are used to transport
[these materials]. Additionally, it includes drivers engaged in
intrastate or interstate commerce.'' 76 FR at 5122; see also id. at
5123-24.
    However, 49 CFR 177.804(b) is no longer available, because in a
final rule published on February 28, 2011, PHMSA (in coordination with
FMCSA) adopted a new Sec.  177.804(b) providing that ``a person
transporting a quantity of hazardous materials requiring

placarding under 49 CFR part 172 or any quantity of a material listed
as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73 may not engage in, allow,
or require texting while driving.'' 76 FR 10771, 10778. PHMSA (also in
coordination with FMCSA) adopted a new Sec.  177.804(c) on December 2,
2011, providing that ``a person transporting a quantity of hazardous
materials requiring placarding under Part 172 [of 49 CFR] or any
quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part
73 may not engage in, allow, or require use of a hand-held mobile
telephone while driving.'' 76 FR 75470, 75485-6.
    Therefore, as all the recent joint PHMSA and FMCSA rules have been
applicable to ``a person transporting a quantity of hazardous materials
requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 172 or any quantity of a
material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73,'' PHMSA
is consolidating this final rule with the anti-texting and anti-mobile-
telephone rules by creating a new introductory phrase at 49 CFR
177.804(b) that reads as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule;
and adopting three subparagraphs: (b)(1) the substance of the
prohibition proposed in the NPRM; (b)(2) the prohibition against
texting while driving; and (b)(3) the prohibition against using a hand-
held mobile telephone while driving. The cross-reference to the
definition of ``hazardous materials'' in 49 CFR 383.5 is deleted
because it is not needed. As in the current provisions against texting
and hand-held mobile telephone use previously located in 49 CFR
177.804(b) and (c), these categories appear to be the materials with
which the Senate Report had concern in stating that the ``number of
fatalities resulting from [highway-rail grade crossing] accidents often
is increased because of the presence of hazardous materials.'' 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1773.

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule

Overview of Comments

    FMCSA and PHMSA received 16 comments to the jointly issued NPRM.
Comments were received from two truck drivers, four private
individuals, and the following industry associations, State agencies,
and advocacy groups:

Association of American Railroads (AAR)
American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA)
National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC)
Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA)
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Nebraska Department of Roads (NEDR)
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).

    A private individual, the AAR, and the NCDOT fully support the
proposal. The CVSA and the CPUC support the proposal, but believe it
will be difficult to enforce.
    Other comments and responsive considerations are as follows.

Require Others To Mark Crossings

    The two truck drivers, ATA, NACD, NTTC, and Advocates recommend
that FMCSA and PHMSA require State and local jurisdictions to specially
mark and provide signs at the 21,208 grade crossings that the proposal
identified as likely having limited clear storage distances to
accommodate commercial motor vehicles.
    Response. As FMCSA and PHMSA indicated in the NPRM, recommendations
to require States and local jurisdictions have been made previously.
The Agencies have a clear mandate from Congress to prohibit a driver of
a regulated motor vehicle from driving the vehicle onto a highway-rail
grade crossing without having sufficient space to drive completely
through the crossing without stopping. FMCSA and PHMSA lack authority
to require the States and local governments to install markings and
signage as suggested.
    Further, as discussed in the NPRM, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has funding available annually under the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) \6\ for a variety of highway safety
improvement projects. Eligible projects include (1) construction and
improvement of a railway-highway grade crossing safety feature,
including the installation of protection devices; (2) installation,
replacement, and other improvements of highway signage and pavement
markings or projects to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity
that address a highway safety problem consistent with a State strategic
highway safety plan; and (3) installation of traffic control or other
warning devices at locations with high crash potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) (``Highway Safety Improvement
Program''). Improvements qualify as ``highway safety improvement
project[s]'' under 23 U.S.C. 148(a). See also 23 CFR part 924,
Highway Safety Improvement Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, FHWA has funding available under the Railway-Highway
Crossings Program (23 U.S.C. 130) for the elimination of hazards at
grade crossings. FMCSA and PHMSA have brought commenters' suggestions
to the attention of FHWA. We noted in the NPRM that competition for
limited HSIP resources means that States and other public authorities
must decide whether and when particular grade crossings might get
pavement markings and signage and that not all grade-crossing
improvements are likely to be funded.

Logistical Challenges

    In its comments, ATA noted that there are logistical challenges in
implementing and enforcing the rule. OOIDA noted that the Agencies
erroneously assumed drivers are aware of crossings consisting of
inadequate storage space and that alternative routes exist.
    Response. While we acknowledge commenters' concerns, FMCSA and
PHMSA do not believe the logistical challenges warrant a further delay
in issuing the rule. The rule places upon drivers the responsibility to
approach grade crossings with caution and to avoid going through the
crossing unless there is enough room to completely clear the tracks
without stopping. Admittedly, this may be difficult without knowing in
advance all the crossings that may be along the route, the space around
those crossings, and where there are traffic control devices and
intersections that could result in a driver being forced to stop
unexpectedly before clearing the track. The Agencies encourage
enforcement discretion in those circumstances. However, the statutory
mandate is clear and the Agencies do not have discretion whether to
issue the rule, as drafted. The Agencies note that motor carriers are
required by Sec. Sec.  397.67 and 397.101 to plan routes for certain
hazardous material shipments and create a written route plan document
for the driver. To the extent practicable, this mandatory planning
should include preparation for grade crossings.
    In addition, the Agencies remind all those involved with the
arrangement for transportation services that the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found situations where shippers
and receivers often know of the logistical and physical challenges
truck drivers would face in getting to their loading and delivery
locations, yet fail to communicate those challenges to the carrier and
driver.\7\ Therefore, motor

carriers and brokers should ask shippers and receivers about any
logistical or physical challenges that might exist near, or on the
roads leading to, loading and delivery locations. The Agencies
recognize that avoidance of problematic grade crossings will not always
be practicable. However, in many cases, industry will have
opportunities to effectively address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2002. Collision
Between Amtrak Train 97 and Molnar Worldwide Heavy Haul Company
Tractor-Trailer Combination Vehicle at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
in Intercession City, Florida, on November 17, 2000, Highway
Accident Summary Report. NTSB/HAR-02/02. Washington, DC. The NTSB
determined ``that the probable cause of the November 2000 collision
of Amtrak train 97 with the tractor-combination vehicle was the
failure of the Kissimmee Utility Authority, its construction
contractors and subcontractors, and the motor carrier to provide for
the safe passage of the load over the grade crossing.'' http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/HAR0202.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access to Grade Crossing Information

    OOIDA noted that maps, global positioning systems (GPS), and
internet-generated directions often do not include grade crossing
information, let alone storage space information. ATA suggested that
motor carriers are more frequently using GPS and other guidance
technologies to plot routes. Because these technologies can
specifically target certain locations if those locations have been
built into the technology's databases, ATA suggested the Agencies share
their data reflecting the locations of these grade crossings with GPS
device manufacturers. The Agencies should encourage manufacturers to
incorporate these points into their products so that grade crossings
can be displayed and detoured around when necessary.
    Response. The Agencies agree that data about the locations of
potentially problematic grade crossings should be made available to the
industry and GPS navigation system service providers, whenever
possible. The Agencies worked with the John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to conduct a variety of
supplemental analyses which augment the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) Grade Crossing Inventory System (GCIS) data that is available to
the public. The GCIS served as the initial basis for determining the
set of highway-rail grade crossings at which insufficient clear storage
distance may be a concern. Volpe supplemented data from the GCIS with
grade crossing latitude and longitude coordinate information available
through the FRA's Office of Policy and Program Development.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proprietary digital road network data files were also used
and analyzed for potential storage space issues on the basis of
geographic information system (GIS) techniques described in more
detail in the docketed study. The procedures the Agencies used to
create the dataset are fully explained in the technical supporting
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2013, FRA released a mobile phone application (app) for
Apple brand iPhoneTM and iPadTM users. The Rail
Crossing Locator mobile app provides users with access to grade
crossing inventory information and accident data from the GCIS
database. The application allows users to: locate crossings by USDOT
Crossing ID, address or geo-location; access inventory records
submitted by states and railroads; and view accident history. Users can
also select from multiple base map features to see the crossing
location, expand or narrow the buffer radius of a location, or get
detailed information about a specific crossing. The inventory record
for a public crossing will provide information about the presence of a
nearby intersection as follows: less than 75 feet, 75 to 200 feet, and
200 to 500 feet and if the intersection has a traffic signal. Although
this app will not provide complete information to ensure compliance
with the rule, it will assist drivers in more strategically planning
their routes. FMCSA and PHMSA remind regulated vehicle drivers of their
duty to follow both Sec.  392.82, prohibiting a driver from using a
hand-held mobile telephone while driving, and current Sec.  177.804(c),
being reorganized and renumbered as Sec.  177.804(b)(3) in this final
rule, prohibiting certain intrastate HM drivers from using a hand-held
mobile telephone while driving. Industry and GPS navigation system
service providers can now use the Rail Crossing Locator mobile app to
plot routes to comply with this final rule.

Exception When No Reasonable Alternative Routes Are Available

    The Nebraska Department of Roads and OOIDA suggested the rule
should include an exception to allow for situations where there is no
reasonable alternate route available. They argue that in rural States
and industrial areas there are many crossings where no reasonable
detour route exists. Nebraska also argued that the potential cost to
implement the rule in Nebraska would be an unfunded mandate.
    Response. As indicated above, in many situations, communications
among shippers, receivers, freight forwarders, brokers, and motor
carriers about issues in the vicinity of pick-up and drop-off points
that may make it difficult for large trucks, especially combination
vehicles, may help to address this issue. However, the Agencies
acknowledge alternative routes may not be available. In certain
circumstances, the railroad could be brought into the planning
conversation with regard to the train schedules as the specialized
equipment hauling industry does regularly and as the NTSB recommended
in its 2002 report about the November 17, 2000, crash in Intercession
City, FL.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2002. Collision
Between Amtrak Train 97 and Molnar Worldwide Heavy Haul Company
Tractor-Trailer Combination Vehicle at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
in Intercession City, Florida, on November 17, 2000, Highway
Accident Summary Report. NTSB/HAR-02/02. Washington, DC. The NTSB
determined ``that the probable cause of the November 2000 collision
of Amtrak train 97 with the tractor-combination vehicle was the
failure of the Kissimmee Utility Authority, its construction
contractors and subcontractors, and the motor carrier to provide for
the safe passage of the load over the grade crossing.'' http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/HAR0202.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistency With Executive Order 13563

    Citing Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' which President Obama issued in January 2011, a commenter
urged the withdrawal of the NPRM.
    Response. The final rule is required by statute and nothing in the
Executive Order suggests that the Agency should delay implementation of
statutory provisions for which the options for implementation are as
limited as the 1994 provision implemented in today's final rule. The
rule will reduce regulated motor vehicle-train crashes, while having
relatively small impacts on business productivity.

Intrastate Transportation of Hazardous Materials

    An anonymous commenter stated that ``the proposed rule is a direct
attack on the sovereignty of the several states'' on the alleged ground
that the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution authorizes Congress only ``[t]o regulate Commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes.''
    Response: In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-559 (1995),
and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 608-609 (2000), the
Supreme Court observed that ``modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence''
has ``identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may
regulate under its commerce power * * *
     ``First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of
interstate commerce . . .
     ``Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect
the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in
interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from
intrastate activities . . .
     ``Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power
to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to
interstate commerce, . . .

i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.''
(internal citations omitted).
    Accordingly, there is no doubt that Congress is empowered to
regulate ``activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.''
Congress has explicitly done this by providing that the purpose of the
Federal hazardous material transportation law ``is to protect against
the risks to life, property, and the environment that are inherent in
the transportation of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and
foreign commerce,'' 49 U.S.C. 5101, and defining ``commerce'' to
include ``trade or transportation in the jurisdiction of the United
States . . . that affects trade or transportation between a place in a
State and a place outside of the State.'' 49 U.S.C. 5102(1).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As enacted in 1975, the Hazardous Material Transportation
Act declared that it was ``the policy of Congress in this chapter to
improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of
Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against the risks to
life and property which are inherent in the transportation of
hazardous material in commerce.'' Public Law 93-633, Title I, sec.
102, 88 Stat. 2156 (Jan. 3, 1975). In the same Act, ``commerce'' was
defined to mean ``trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation,
within the jurisdiction of the United States, (A) between a place in
a State and any place outside of such State, or (B) which affects
trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described in clause
(A).'' Id., sec. 103(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Lopez and Morrison cases, the Supreme Court noted that,
``[w]here economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce,
legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.'' 514 U.S. at
560, 529 U.S. at 610. Here, the transportation of hazardous materials
in commerce directly involves an economic activity, and the safety of
intrastate transportation of hazardous materials has the potential of a
substantial effect on interstate transportation of both hazardous and
non-hazardous materials. Indeed, a crash at a highway-rail grade
crossing involving any motor vehicle transporting hazardous materials
necessarily has a direct effect upon the train involved in that crash,
and that grade crossing is part of the national railroad system.
Moreover, a grade crossing crash may result in injuries and fatalities
to members of the train crew as well as to the motor vehicle operator,
his or her passengers, and other persons in the vicinity of the crash.
    For these reasons, we disagree that the prohibition adopted in this
final rule is in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

Expand Applicability to All Vehicles

    A commenter suggested FMCSA and PHMSA should expand the
applicability of this final rule to ``all vehicles'' and ``not just
Commercial vehicles'' that cross highway-rail grade crossings. She
stated that this is a dangerous problem for all traffic as she lives
near a grade crossing and sees vehicles trapped on the tracks
regularly.
    Response. As discussed above, PHMSA has authority to prescribe
regulations for the transportation of hazardous material ``in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1).
For this reason, the HMRs do not apply to ``[t]ransportation of a
hazardous material by an individual for non-commercial purposes in a
private motor vehicle.'' 49 CFR 171.1(d)(6). Similarly, FMCSA has
authority to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle
safety.'' 49 U.S.C. 31136(a). But neither Agency has statutory
authority to regulate non-commercial vehicles, i.e., vehicles not
transporting persons or property in commerce. Accordingly, in HMTAA
section 112, Congress directed DOT to prohibit the driver of ``a motor
vehicle transporting hazardous materials in commerce'' or ``any
commercial motor vehicle'' from entering a highway-rail grade crossing
when there was not ``sufficient space to drive completely through the
crossing without stopping.'' (emphasis supplied). This final rule
carries out that mandate without going beyond the statutory authority
of the two Agencies.

V. The Final Rule

49 CFR 392.12

    This final rule implements the statutory mandate enacted in section
112 of the HMTAA, as amended. The rule prohibits regulated motor
vehicles from using certain grade crossings.
    To proceed through a grade crossing with inadequate storage
distance, a driver of a regulated motor vehicle will have to either
ignore the traffic control device or comply with the traffic control
device but violate the rule by driving onto the grade crossing without
having sufficient space to drive completely through the crossing
without stopping. As discussed earlier, the shipper, receiver, broker,
and motor carrier should communicate about problematic routes in
advance to avoid placing drivers in such untenable positions by re-
routing standard-sized regulated motor vehicles around such grade
crossings, using smaller regulated motor vehicles at the crossings, or
ensuring that the railroad company is informed well ahead of the
planned crossing time and is given an opportunity to inform train crews
and flagmen. Also, as discussed earlier, FRA's Rail Crossing Locator
mobile app will provide access to grade crossing inventory information
that will assist drivers in more strategically planning their routes to
avoid problematic grade crossings.

49 CFR 177.804

    To ensure that the statutory language of section 112, as amended,
applies to both interstate and intrastate motor carriers transporting
hazardous materials, PHMSA revises 49 CFR 177.804. PHMSA has revised
paragraph (b) by creating a new introductory phrase as set forth in the
regulatory text of this rule. New paragraph (b)(1) requires the driver
of a motor vehicle transporting this type and quantity of hazardous
materials to comply with the safe clearance requirements for highway-
rail crossings in 49 CFR 392.12. As such, motor carriers and drivers
who engage in the transportation of covered materials must comply with
the safe clearance requirements in Sec.  392.12 of the FMCSRs. Current
paragraph (b) has become paragraph (b)(2), and current paragraph (c)
has become paragraph (b)(3).

VI. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA and PHMSA have determined that this action is a non-
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, issued January 18,
2011 (76 FR 3821). FMCSA and PHMSA expect the final rule will have
minimal costs and generate minimal public interest. Of the 16 comments
submitted to the January 28, 2011 NPRM, none provided data or
information that would suggest the economic impact would meet or exceed
the threshold for the Executive Order.

Costs and Benefits of Rule Implementation

    The Agencies are required by statute to implement a rule
prohibiting drivers of regulated motor vehicles from entering a
highway-rail grade crossing unless there is sufficient space to clear
the crossing completely without stopping. The data available to FMCSA
indicate that those States with existing statutes or regulations
similar to the proposed Federal rule have somewhat lower crash rates at
grade crossings identified as having significant risk of storage-
related issues. While factors other than the States' storage-space
rules may be responsible for some crash rate

differences, the Agencies believe the differential is large enough to
suggest that such rules have safety benefits. The number of States
which have voluntarily adopted storage-space rules also suggests that
the costs of implementing the requirements have not proven to be an
issue with the motor carrier industry. Based on the safety impacts seen
in the States that have adopted requirements similar to those addressed
in this rulemaking, FMCSA and PHMSA believe the rule will provide a
cost-beneficial enhancement to safety.
    In the cost and benefit discussions that follow, the Agencies
consider the costs and benefits applicable to the total population of
carriers affected by this rule. Because the final rule does not mandate
specific changes in carrier operations, driver training, or grade
crossing infrastructure enhancements and no specific comments were
received providing any data to change the Agencies' analyses, FMCSA and
PHMSA conclude that the cost impacts will not be significant. Because a
substantial number of States already have in place storage-space rules,
drivers of regulated motor vehicles operating in or through those
States should have the experience and knowledge needed to ensure
compliance. FMCSA and PHMSA do not believe the rule will require
special training of drivers operating in the other States. The Agencies
requested public comment on this issue, but received none.
    For regulated vehicles, the storage-distance related annual crash
rate per 1,000 grade crossings is 0.72 based on data from 1998-
2005.\11\ FMCSA and PHMSA found that the difference in this rate
between States that have laws/regulations similar to the Federal rule
adopted today and those that do not is 0.285 crashes per 1,000 grade
crossings per year. Thus, FMCSA and PHMSA expect 2.62 fewer crashes per
year, when all States adopt this Federal rule,\12\ and 0.3 fewer train
derailments.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 122 crashes/8 years/21,208 grade crossings with limited
storage space x 1,000 = 0.72.
    \12\ 0.000285 fewer incidents per grade crossing x 9,204 storage
space impacted grade crossings in States without a similar rule
equals 2.62 fewer crashes per year.
    \13\ 14 derailments/122 grade crossing incidents x 2.62
incidents prevented equals 0.3 fewer train derailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA and PHMSA estimate the total annual benefits from crashes
avoided to be approximately $946,000. This consists of $473,000 in
reduced injuries, $1,800 in reduced hazardous material spills, $33,000
in reduced highway property damage, and $438,000 in reduced costs for
train derailments. Total implementation costs per year are estimated to
be $302,000 in the first year, based on the added costs to State
enforcement agencies of administrative, enforcement, or training
activities. The additional costs for driver training should be small as
the training would occur as a modification of emphasis in existing
railroad grade crossing training curricula. Railroad grade crossing
training curricula for drivers would include training to comply with
eight FMCSRs related to the safe operation of regulated motor vehicles
at railroad grade crossings and penalties for non-compliance with these
railroad grade crossing safe operation rules. In addition, drivers who
operate in States with existing laws similar to the regulations in this
final rule will be familiar with the requirements. Thus, costs are
projected to be about $11,200 in each of the 27 states (including the
District of Columbia) that do not have an existing law or regulation
similar to the requirements in the final rule. Thus, the annual net
benefits from implementation of this final rule in the first year
should be about $644,000. In subsequent years, there would be $946,000
in annual savings.
    Table 1 displays the 10-year average annual and discounted net
costs and benefits of the statute that we are implementing in this
final rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note that the numbers for the 10-year costs and the
discount rates differ from what was presented in the NPRM's RIA due
to a discovery of a minor mathematical error, the updating to
current year costs with the new estimated average economic value of
a statistical life for injury crashes (VSL), and the removal of
annual fatality benefits, because zero fatal crashes were found in
the analysis period of 1998-2005. The estimated mean VSL is derived
from the DOT memorandum, ``Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses,'' February 28, 2013. See
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.

   Table 1--Total Estimated 10-Year Costs and Benefits for Implementing the Statute Mandating the Final Grade
                                           Crossing Storage-Space Rule
                                      [2013 dollars, in thousands, rounded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                10-Year         10-Year
                                    First year     Annual impact   10-Year total  (discounted at  (discounted at
                                      impact       (years 2-10)                    3 percent) *    7 percent) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................            $946            $946          $9,460          $8,312          $7,109
Costs...........................             302               0             302             265             227
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits................             644             946           9,158           8,047           6,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Present values of 10-year costs are discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent as specified in OMB Circular A-4,
  Regulatory Analysis, September 2004. Note that the first year costs and benefits are not discounted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), FMCSA and PHMSA have considered the effects of this regulatory
action on small entities and determined that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office
of Size Standards.
    FMCSA has determined that the requirements in this rulemaking apply
to a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small owner/operator
motor carriers and other small businesses employing drivers of
regulated motor vehicles). However, the final rule does not mandate
specific changes in carrier operations or driver training. Rerouting
(as estimated by the sensitivity analysis in the NPRM) and other
logistics costs that might be borne by small carriers are expected to
be minimal in comparison to overall operating costs and would be
incorporated into the carrier's cost of business to the extent that the
carrier found the delivery profitable.
    Additionally, there will probably be only minimal additional costs
for driver training as the training will probably

occur as a modification of emphasis in existing training curricula and
will not likely add extra time to the training requirement. The
widespread use of communications and mapping systems, electronic and
physical, as well as FRA's Rail Crossing Locator mobile app, also work
well to inform drivers of routing issues and provide assistance with
complying with this final rule.
    We estimate that a preponderance of this rule's implementation
costs--expected to be a one-time cost composed of government
administrative, enforcement, or training activities--will affect
transportation personnel in the 27 States, including the District of
Columbia, that do not have an existing law or regulation similar to the
Federal rule.
    Accordingly, the Administrators of FMCSA and PHMSA hereby certify
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531, et seq.) requires Agencies to evaluate whether an Agency action
would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1
million or more ($100 million, as adjusted for inflation) in any 1
year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates.
This rulemaking would result in private sector expenditures less than
the $143.1 million threshold. The analysis shows a positive net
benefit, with normal costs to industry falling far below the $143.1
million threshold.
    The Nebraska Department of Roads commented that the Agencies' rule
is an unfunded mandate, unless language is included to allow for
situations where there is no reasonable alternate route available. This
is speculative, as the Nebraska Department of Roads did not provide any
specific examples of this occurring within its road network. It is also
worth mentioning that the rule does not require States to take any
specific action, further reducing the claim of an unfunded mandate.
    PHMSA and FMCSA, therefore, believe that this rule would not impose
an unfunded Federal mandate.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action 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.

Executive Order 12630 (Takings of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 13132. FMCSA and PHMSA have determined that
this rulemaking does not have federalism implications in that it does
not have a substantial direct effect on 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.
This rulemaking is required by Federal law addressing a matter of
national concern. State statutory provisions were reviewed and the
Agencies are not aware of any State law that would be preempted by this
rulemaking. Furthermore, States have been involved actively throughout
the history of the rulemaking process. For example, State officials
were consulted on anticipated enforcement efforts impacted by this
rule.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA and PHMSA consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. FMCSA and PHMSA
have determined there are no current or new information collection
requirements associated with this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    The Agencies analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and determined under FMCSA's environmental procedures Order
5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that there is no adverse
impact to air quality because this final rule should result in a
decrease in highway and rail vehicle emissions as a result of fewer
crashes. We expect moderately positive impacts to public safety,
specifically at grade crossings, based on a decrease in the likelihood
of fatalities and injuries as a result of crashes due to insufficient
storage distance at grade crossings. There are no identified overall
negative environmental or socioeconomic impacts associated with the
final rule.
    The beneficial impacts of the final rule include the positive
effect on hazardous materials transportation, reduced locomotive idling
time otherwise incurred as follow-on trains are delayed by derailments
at grade crossings, and improved public safety, specifically at grade
crossings. There are also net positive socioeconomic benefits, to motor
and rail carriers in particular, in addition to positive indirect
impacts to aspects of the physical and human environment.
    FMCSA and PHMSA also analyzed this action under section 176(c) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. FMCSA and PHMSA recognize that the action taken in
this rulemaking could affect emissions of criteria pollutants from
regulated motor vehicles. The air emissions analysis is discussed in
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this rule. In determining whether
this action conforms to CAA requirements in areas designated as
nonattainment under section 107 of the CAA and maintenance areas
established under section 175A of the CAA, FMCSA and PHMSA are required
(among other criteria) to determine if the total direct and indirect
emissions are below or above de minimis levels. In the case of the
alternatives proposed in this Final Rule, FMCSA and PHMSA consider the
change in emissions to be an indirect result of the rulemaking action.
FMCSA and PHMSA are requiring drivers and motor carriers to avoid
railroad-grade crossings where not enough space exists to traverse the
crossing completely, which, directly, does not result in additional
emissions releases. Although emissions from additional VMT as a result
of re-routing are foreseeable, under the definition of `indirect
emissions' in 40 CFR 93.152, FMCSA and PHMSA lack the ability to
control emissions and do not have continuing program responsibility,
two of the four criteria that must be met. Therefore, this action is
exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement because it would
not affect the amount of direct or indirect emissions.\15\ Moreover,
based

on FMCSA's and PHMSA's analysis, it is reasonably foreseeable that the
action would not significantly increase total regulated motor vehicle
mileage, nor would it change how these vehicles operate, or the vehicle
fleet mix of motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EPA's April 5, 2010 final rule ``Revisions to the
General Conformity Regulations.'' Also included are EPA's detailed
discussion and clarification of its definitions of direct and
indirect emissions at 75 FR 17254, 17260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA and PHMSA conclude that the rule changes would have a
negligible impact on the quality of several environmental components
described in the EA and therefore would not require an Environmental
Impact Statement. Subsequently, FMCSA and PHMSA are issuing a Finding
of No Significant Impact with regard to potential environmental impact
of this action.
    A copy of the joint FMCSA and PHMSA Final Environmental Assessment
(Final EA) is included in both dockets, FMCSA-2006-25660 and PHMSA-
2010-0319 (HM-255). FMCSA and PHMSA sought public comment on its draft
environmental assessment and received no comments about it.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA and PHMSA evaluated the environmental effects of this final
rule in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and determined there are
neither environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor
any collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations. None of the alternatives analyzed in the
Agencies' EA, discussed under NEPA, would result in high and adverse
environmental impacts.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA and PHMSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The Agencies have determined this rule does not create an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children. None of the alternatives analyzed in the Agencies' EA,
discussed under NEPA, result in environmental risk to health or safety
disproportionately affecting children.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)

    FMCSA and PHMSA analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. This rulemaking is
required by law and does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments. Thus, the funding and
consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply and no tribal
summary impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA and PHMSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use. FMCSA and PHMSA determined that it will not be a
``significant energy action'' under that Executive Order because it
will not be economically significant and will not be likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 177

    Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Radioactive
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 392

    Highway safety, Motor carriers.
    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA and FMCSA amend title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 177, and chapter III, part
392, as set forth below:

PART 177--CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC HIGHWAY

0
1. The authority citation for part 177 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; sec. 112 of Pub. L. 103-311,
108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994); sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126
Stat. 405, 805 (2012); 49 CFR 1.97.

0
2. Section 177.804 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  177.804  Compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations.

    (a) General. Motor carriers and other persons subject to this part
must comply with 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR parts 390 through 397
(excluding Sec. Sec.  397.3 and 397.9) to the extent those regulations
apply.
    (b) Additional prohibitions. A person transporting a quantity of
hazardous materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 172 or any
quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part
73:
    (1) Must comply with the safe clearance requirements for highway-
rail grade crossings in Sec.  392.12 of this title;
    (2) May not engage in, allow, or require texting while driving, in
accordance with Sec.  392.80 of this title; and
    (3) May not engage in, allow, or require the use of a hand-held
mobile telephone while driving, in accordance with Sec.  392.82 of this
title.

PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

0
3. The authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section
112 of Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by
sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR
1.87.

0
4. Section 392.12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  392.12  Highway-rail crossings; safe clearance.

    No driver of a commercial motor vehicle shall drive onto a highway-
rail grade crossing without having sufficient space to drive completely
through the crossing without stopping.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97 (PHMSA) and 1.87 (FMCSA).

    By the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.

    By the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23375 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P