[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33130-33133]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0371]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Oakland Crane Arrival, San Francisco Bay, Oakland,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay during the transit of the M/V
ZHEN HUA 26, scheduled to arrive between June 24, 2021 and July 8,
2021. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from hazards associated with the ship-to-shore
gantry crane, which will extend more than 215 feet out from the
transiting vessel and affect the vessel's stability condition.
Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting

through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the
Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 24, 2021, to
11:59 p.m. July 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0371 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Anthony Solares, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did
not receive final details for the vessel's arrival and transit until
June 14, 2021. The Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by June
24, 2021 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. It is contrary to the public
interest to delay the effective date of this rule because the safety
zone must be effective by June 24, 2021 to protect vessels and persons
from the dangers associated with the crane arms extending over the
water from the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 as it transits a busy waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San
Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the
transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 between June 24, 2021 and July 8, 2021,
will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the
vessel during its transit to the Port of Oakland, while the vessel is
within the San Francisco Bay and areas shoreward of the line drawn
between San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 7 and San
Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Whistle Buoy 8 (LLNR 4190 & 4195)
in positions 37[deg]46.9' N, 122[deg]35.4' W and 37[deg]46.5' N,
122[deg]35.2' W, respectively. For this reason, a safety zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters around the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 during its transit to the
Everport Container Terminal in Oakland, CA.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on
June 24, 2021 until 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 2021, during the inbound
transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26. While the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 is within the
San Francisco Bay and areas shoreward of the line drawn between San
Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 7 and San Francisco Main
Ship Channel Lighted Whistle Buoy 8 (LLNR 4190 & 4195) in positions
37[deg]46.9' N, 122[deg]35.4' W and 37[deg]46.5' N, 122[deg]35.2' W,
respectively, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters
around and under the vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle
formed by connecting all points 500 feet out from the vessel. The
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, mariners, and vessels from
hazards associated with the ship-to-shore gantry crane arm, which will
extend more than 215 feet out from the transiting vessel.
    The M/V ZHEN HUA 26 may make a temporary stop in anchorage during
its transit to the Everport Container Terminal. The vessel would stop
temporarily to catch the proper tide window after transiting beneath
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
    The effect of the safety zone is to restrict navigation in the
vicinity of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26. Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area.
``Designated representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP)
in the enforcement of the safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. This
safety zone impacts a 500-foot-radius area of the San Francisco Bay in
San Francisco, CA for a limited duration. While the safety zone
encompasses a two-week period to account for uncertain transit delays
of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26, the safety zone will only be enforced for the
duration of the vessel's inbound transit, which is expected to last
less than 24 hours, and that period will be announced via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners. Vessels desiring to transit through the safety zone
may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small

entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone which prevents entry to a 500-foot radius area of the San
Francisco Bay for a limited period of time during a vessel's inbound
transit. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-055 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-055  Safety Zone; Oakland Crane Arrival, San Francisco
Bay, Oakland, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a
circle formed by connecting all points 500 feet out from the vessel, M/
V ZHEN HUA 26, during the vessel's inbound transit from a line drawn
between San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 7 and San
Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Whistle Buoy 8 (LLNR 4190 & 4195)
in positions 37[deg]46.9' N, 122[deg]35.4' W (NAD 83) and 37[deg]46.5'
N, 122[deg]35.2' W (NAD 83), respectively, to the Everport Container
Terminal in Oakland, CA. This transit includes a stop at anchorage to
assess the safe bridge clearance and transit beneath the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced between 12:01
a.m. on June 24, 2021, until 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 2021, during the
inbound transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26, or as announced via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during
which this zone will be enforced, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Marie B. Byrd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2021-13620 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1069]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2014-151]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bowhead
Mission Solutions, LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before January 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0916
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Nia Daniels, Office of Rulemaking, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
9677.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 2, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0916.
    Petitioner: Bowhead Mission Solutions, LLC.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: 45.23(b); part 21; 61.113(a) and (b);
91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a);
91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); 91.417(a) and
(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: Bowhead Mission Solutions, LLC,
operator of the small unmanned aircraft system Cinestar 8 Okto XL,
would like an exemption to conduct aerial photography for the
University of Nevada--Las Vegas' athletic department for activities at
the Sam Boyd Stadium for major sporting events.

[FR Doc. 2015-00044 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48283-48284]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0061]

Union Pacific Railroad's Request To Amend Its Positive Train
Control Safety Plan

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on July
14, 2023, the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plan
(PTCSP) in order to add information on UP's Arrangement of its Onboard
positive train control (PTC) Apparatus, to correct regulatory reference
formatting, and to add a PTCSP section reference. As this RFA may
involve a request for FRA's approval of proposed material modifications
to an FRA-certified PTC system, FRA is publishing this notice and
inviting public comment on UP's RFA to its PTCSP.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by August 15, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0061. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification or discontinuance of a signal and
train control system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that,
on July 14, 2023, UP submitted an RFA to its PTCSP for its
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), which seeks
FRA's approval to add information on UP's Arrangement of Onboard PTC
Apparatus and provide other general edits to its PTCSP. That RFA is
available in Docket No. FRA-2010-0061.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on UP's RFA to its PTCSP
by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of UP's
RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the
timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable,
without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications
to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 236.1011(e).
Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA to its PTCSP at FRA's sole
discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-15824 Filed 7-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 30921]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Pro-Tech Industries, Inc., Vida Life International Ltd., Vitavea,
Inc., Western Power & Equipment Corp., and Westmont Resources, Inc.;
Order of Suspension of Trading

May 23, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Pro-Tech Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Vida Life International Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Vitavea, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended April 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Western Power & Equipment Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended April 30, 3008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Westmont Resources Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended February 28, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 23, 2014, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on June 6, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12433 Filed 5-23-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9173-9176]
[DOCID:fr03mr09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0038]
RIN 2127-AK44

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Air Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Interim final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document extends for six months a requirement that
trailers with antilock brake systems be equipped with an external
antilock malfunction indicator lamp. This requirement, which is
included in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that governs
vehicles equipped with air brakes, is currently scheduled to sunset on
March 1, 2009. As a result of this interim final rule, the sunset date
is September 1, 2009. We are taking this action in connection with our
consideration of a petition for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA) requesting that the requirement be made
permanent. In a separate document, we are proposing a further extension
of the requirement, to March 1, 2011. This interim final rule prevents
the occurrence of a potential time gap for the vehicles that are
subject to the requirement, should the agency ultimately decide to
further extend the time period.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendment made in this rule is effective
February 28, 2009.
    Comment Period: You should submit your comments early enough to
ensure that the Docket receives them not later than April 2, 2009.
Comments may be combined with ones on the accompanying notice of
proposed rulemaking, which is being published today using the same
docket number.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-
4931; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari Scott,
Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Agency Analysis
III. Interim Final Rule and Shortened Comment Period
IV. Public Participation
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    The final rule requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on truck
tractors, other air-braked heavy vehicles including trailers, and
hydraulic-braked trucks was published in the Federal Register (60 FR
13216) on March 10, 1995. As amended by that final rule, FMVSS No. 121,
Air Brake Systems, required two separate in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamps for each truck tractor, one for the tractor's ABS
(effective

March 1, 1997) and the other for the trailer's ABS (effective March 1,
2001). The final rule also required air-braked trailers to be equipped
with an externally mounted ABS malfunction lamp (effective March 1,
1998) so that the driver of a non-ABS equipped tractor or a pre-2001
ABS-equipped tractor towing an ABS-equipped trailer would be alerted in
the event of a malfunction in the trailer ABS.
    The requirement for the trailer-mounted ABS malfunction indicator
lamp is currently scheduled to expire on March 1, 2009. The agency
established this sunset date in light of the fact that, after this
eight-year period, many of the pre-2001 tractors without the dedicated
trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp would no longer be in long-haul
service. The agency based its decision on the belief that the typical
tractor life was five to seven years, and therefore decided on an
eight-year period for the external ABS malfunction indicator lamp
requirement. We further stated our belief that there would be no need
for a redundant ABS malfunction lamp mounted on the trailer after the
vast majority of tractors were equipped with an in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamp for the trailer.
    As we have moved closer to the March 1, 2009 sunset date, the
agency has received two petitions requesting that the requirement for
the ABS malfunction indicator lamp be extended or made permanent. These
petitions both came from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
an international not-for-profit organization comprised of local, state,
provincial, territorial and federal motor carrier safety officials and
industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The petitioner raised two main issues in requesting a permanent
extension. The first relates to ensuring that a driver or inspector can
determine the operational status of a trailer ABS, if the trailer is
not equipped with an external ABS lamp or the tractor is a pre-2001
tractor without the trailer in-cab ABS warning lamp. The second relates
to the use of the external trailer ABS warning lamp for diagnostic
purposes.

II. Agency Analysis

    In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in
today's Federal Register, we are proposing to extend the trailer
indicator lamp requirement to March 1, 2011. Such an extension would
enable the agency to fully analyze CVSA's request that the requirement
be made permanent.
    Given the imminence of the March 1, 2009 sunset date, our decision
on the accompanying NPRM will not be made until after that date. To
prevent the requirement from expiring in the meantime, potentially
creating a confusing time gap in the trailer regulations should the
agency ultimately decide to extend it, we decided to issue this interim
final rule providing a six-month extension.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is extending the sunset date by six months, from
March 1, 2009 to September 1, 2009.

III. Interim Final Rule and Shortened Comment Period

    Given the imminence of the March 1, 2009 sunset date for the
requirement that trailers with antilock brake systems be equipped with
an external antilock malfunction indicator lamp, we find good cause for
this interim final rule providing a six-month extension. Without this
interim final rule, a confusing time gap in the vehicles subject to the
requirement could potentially occur, should the agency ultimately
decide to extend the requirement. Further, we find good cause to make
it effective on February 28, 2009. We are accepting comments on this
interim final rule.
    Furthermore, given the short timeframe of this interim final rule,
we are providing only a 30-day comment period. Because the full
duration of the extension is only six months, and due to the fact that
NHTSA will be considering the policy issues addressed in the
outstanding petitions during this period in the context of the
accompanying NPRM, we believe it is appropriate to provide a short
comment period.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O. 12866. The agency has considered the impact of this action
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it
is not ``significant'' under them.
    This document delays the sunset date of the antilock malfunction
indicator lamp requirement from March 1, 2009 to September 1, 2009.
Since trailers manufactured after March 1, 1998 have already been
complying with the requirement and the agency is merely extending the
requirement for an additional six months, the impact on costs is not
significant. Not supplying a lamp could result in a trailer that could
be made for a few dollars less. We estimate the costs to be so minimal
that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. I
hereby certify that this interim final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This interim final
rule merely extends for six months a sunset provision in FMVSS No. 121.
No other changes are made in this document. Small organizations and
small government units are not significantly affected since this action
does not affect the price of new motor vehicles. Trailer manufacturers
are not required to install new systems but rather continue to install
the systems they are already installing for an additional six months.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's interim final rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications
because it does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive effect in
at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the
standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is
this statutory command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and
administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be
unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has considered today's interim
final rule and does not currently foresee any potential State
requirements that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there
could not be any implied preemption.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    This document is not expected to affect children and it is not an
economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order
13045.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not
any information collection requirement associated with this interim
final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary consensus
standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining
to this interim final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This interim final
rule would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of
$100 million annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in
your comments on this proposal.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. Section 571.121 is amended by revising S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Antilock malfunction indicator.
    (a) In addition to the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>, each trailer and
trailer converter dolly manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and
before September 1, 2009, shall be equipped with an external antilock
malfunction indicator lamp that meets the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)
through (d).
* * * * *

    Issued: February 26, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-4492 Filed 2-27-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Forwarded by Denise Gerth/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 11/ 07/ 2005 03: 21 PM

Denise Gerth/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 11/ 04/ 2005 04: 43 PM T o Amy_ E._ Flynn@ omb. eop. g ov, Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop . gov c c Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US @ EPA, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Jim Ketcham Colwill/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Tom Helms/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Jan Tierney/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Sara Schneeberg/ DC/ USEPA/ U S@ EPA, Kevin McLean/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Kimber Scavo/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, William Nickerson/ DC/ USEPA/ US @ EPA, Thomas Gillis/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA , John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Mary Henigin/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Doug Grano/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ E PA, Dave Sanders/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA S u b j e c t 11/ 04/ 05 Version of Phase 2 Rule to Implement the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS The sentence on page 282 of the redline strikeout version that referenced 2008 was removed per my discussion with Amy. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks.

Denise M. Gerth Ozone Policy and Strategies Group U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 ( 919) 541 5550  telephone ( 919) 54l 0824  fax