[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65824-65826]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76207; File No. SR-BYX-2015-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.24, Retail Price Improvement Program

October 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 14, 2015, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.24, which governs
the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program (``Retail Program''),
to distinguish between retail orders routed on behalf of other broker-
dealers and retail orders that are routed on behalf of introduced
retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis, as further
described below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24, which governs the
Exchange's Retail Program,\5\ to distinguish between orders routed on
behalf of other broker-dealers and orders routed on behalf of
introduced retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis,
as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In November 2012, the Commission approved the RPI Program on
a pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303
(November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-
019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange established the Retail Program in an attempt to
attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing
price improvement to such order flow. Under the Retail Program, Retail
Member Organizations \6\ (``RMOs'') are permitted to submit Retail
Orders.\7\ All Exchange Users \8\ are permitted members to submit
Retail Price Improvement Orders (``RPI Orders''),\9\ which are designed
to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in the form of
non-displayed interest that is better than the national best bid that
is a Protected Quotation (``Protected NBB'') or the national best offer
that is a Protected Quotation (``Protected NBO'', and together with the
Protected NBB, the ``Protected NBBO'').\10\ In addition, RMOs may
optionally designate Retail Orders to be identified as Retail on the
Exchange's proprietary data feeds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Retail Member Organization is a Member (or a division
thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under Rule 11.24 to
submit Retail Orders.
    \7\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a RMO, provided
that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to
price or side of market and the order does not originate from a
trading algorithm or any computerized methodology.
    \8\ A ``User'' is defined ``as any member or sponsored
participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System.'' See
Rule 1.5(cc).
    \9\ A ``Retail Price Improvement Order'' is defined in Rule
11.24(a)(3) as an order that consists of non-displayed interest on
the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBB or
Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. See
Rule 11.24(a)(3).
    \10\ The term Protected Quotation is defined in Rule 1.5(t) and
has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS Rule
600(b)(58). The terms Protected NBB and Protected NBO are defined in
Rule 1.5(s). The Protected NBB is the best-priced protected bid and
the Protected NBO is the best-priced protected offer.
    \11\ See Rule 11.24(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 11.24(b)(1) currently states that ``[t]o qualify as a
Retail Member Organization, a Member must conduct a retail business or
handle retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.'' \12\ Rather
than stating that one way to qualify as an RMO is to ``handle'' retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer, the Exchange proposes to
state that a Member may qualify as an RMO if it ``routes'' retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. The Exchange believes that
providing routing services on behalf of other broker-dealers with
retail order flow was the intended meaning of the provision and that
the term ``handle'' is vague. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
description

would be better if it referred to routing services provided to another
broker-dealer with retail customers. The Exchange also proposes to
distinguish such routing services on behalf of another broker-dealer
from services provided by broker-dealers that carry retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background with respect to the proposed change, the Exchange
first would like to describe the terms ``introducing broker'',
``carrying firm'' or ``carrying broker-dealer'', and ``fully
disclosed,'' as such terms are commonly used in the securities
industry. An ``introducing'' broker-dealer is ``one that has a
contractual arrangement with another firm, known as the carrying or
clearing firm, under which the carrying firm agrees to perform certain
services for the introducing firm. Usually, the introducing firm
submits its customer accounts and customer orders to the carrying firm,
which executes the orders and carries the account. The carrying firm's
duties include the proper disposition of the customer funds and
securities after the trade date, the custody of customer securities and
funds, and the recordkeeping associated with carrying customer
accounts.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24,
1992), 57 FR 56973 (December 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a ``fully disclosed'' introducing arrangement is
``distinguished from an omnibus clearing arrangement where the clearing
firm maintains one account for all the customer transactions of the
introducing firm. In an omnibus relationship, the clearing firm does
not know the identity of the customers of the introducing firm. In a
fully disclosed clearing arrangement, the clearing firm knows the
names, addresses, securities positions and other relevant data as to
each customer.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a broker-dealer that is routing on behalf of
another broker-dealer, the Exchange does not believe that the routing
broker-dealer has sufficient information to assess whether orders are
truly retail in nature, and thus, requires an RMO routing on behalf of
other broker-dealers to maintain additional supervisory procedures and
obtain annual attestations, as described below, in order to submit
Retail Orders to the Exchange. In contrast, however, if a broker-dealer
is carrying a customer account on a fully disclosed basis, then such
carrying broker-dealer is required to perform certain diligence
regarding such account that the Exchange believes is sufficient to
assess whether a customer is a retail customer in order to submit
orders on behalf of such a customer to the Exchange as a Retail Order.
The carrying broker of an account typically handles orders from its
retail customers that are ``introduced'' by an introducing broker.
However, as noted above, in contrast to a typical routing relationship
on behalf of another broker-dealer, a carrying broker does obtain a
significant level of information regarding each customer introduced by
the introducing broker. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to state in
Rule 11.24(b)(1) that for purposes of Rule 11.24, ``conducting a retail
business shall include carrying retail customer accounts on a fully
disclosed basis.''
    Rule 11.24(b)(6) currently states, in part, that ``[i]f a Retail
Member Organization represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer
customer, the Retail Member Organization's supervisory procedures must
be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such
broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the
definition of a Retail Order.'' This includes obtaining attestations
from the other broker-dealers for whom the RMO routes. In addition to
the proposed changes to Rule 11.24(b)(1) described above, the Exchange
proposes to modify the language of Rule 11.24(b)(6) to again
distinguish between an RMO that conducts a retail business because it
carries accounts on a fully disclosed basis from an RMO that routes
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. As proposed, the additional
attestation requirements of Rule 11.24(b)(6) would apply to an RMO that
does not itself conduct a retail business but routes Retail Orders on
behalf of other broker-dealers. In turn, such attestation requirements
would not apply to an RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a
fully disclosed basis. In connection with this change, the Exchange is
proposing various edits to the existing rule text so that the reference
is consistently to ``other broker-dealers'' rather than ``broker-dealer
customers.''
    The Exchange believes that allowing an RMO that carries retail
customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to submit Retail Orders to
the Exchange without obtaining attestations from broker-dealers that
might introduce such accounts will encourage participation in the
Retail Program. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the carrying
broker has sufficient information to itself confirm that orders are
Retail Orders without such attestations. The Exchange still believes it
is necessary to require the attestation by broker-dealers that route
Retail Orders on behalf of other broker-dealers, because, in contrast,
such broker-dealers typically do not have a relationship with the
retail customer and would not be in position to confirm that such
customers are in fact retail customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the rule change proposed in this submission
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\15\ Specifically, the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it
highlights the parties for whom additional procedures are required
because they do not maintain relationships with the end customer (i.e.,
routing brokers) and still requires the RMO to follow such procedures
to ensure that such orders qualify as Retail Orders. As proposed,
however, an RMO would not be required to follow such procedures,
including obtaining annual attestations, to the extent such RMO
actually knows the end customer and carries the account of such
customer and thus can itself confirm that the orders qualify as Retail
Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow RMOs that carry retail
customer accounts to participate in the Program without imposing
additional attestation requirements that the Exchange did not initially
intend to impose upon them. By removing impediments to participation in
the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail
customers to the Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange believes that the amendment, by increasing the level of
participation in the Program, will increase the level of competition
around retail executions. The Exchange believes that the transparency
and competitiveness of operating a program such as the Program on an
exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors and
benefits retail investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to
encompass practices currently allowed on non-exchange venues.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\18\ The proposed rule change effects a change that
(A) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (B) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (C) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \19\ The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2015-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-45. 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 the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-45, and should be
submitted on or before November 17, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27219 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75600-75601]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0953]

Policy Statement on Occupational Safety and Health Standards for
Aircraft Cabin Crewmembers; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for a notice of
availability that was published in the Federal Register on December 7,
2012. In that document, the FAA announced a proposed policy statement
regarding the regulation of some occupational safety and health
conditions affecting cabin crewmembers on aircraft by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. The comment period is scheduled to
close on January 7, 2013. Several airline associations have requested
that the FAA extend the comment period for an additional 30 days to
allow time for their members to evaluate the impacts and implications
of the proposed policy and prepare comments.

DATES: The comment period for the Notice of availability published on
December 7, 2012, was scheduled to close on January 7, 2013, and is
extended until January 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-
0953 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: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    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 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: Gene Kirkendall, Part 121 Air Carrier
Operations Branch (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received.

Background

    On November 29, 2012, the FAA issued a Notice entitled ``Policy
Statement on Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Aircraft
Cabin Crewmembers'' that published in the Federal Register on December
7, 2012 (77 FR 72998). Comments to that document were to be received on
or before January 7, 2013.
    By letter dated December 7, 2012, the Regional Airline Association
(RAA), on behalf of its member airlines, requested that the FAA extend
the comment period for a minimum of 30 days. The petitioner stated that
the additional time is necessary so that their members can assess the
extent of the proposed changes, as well as develop questions and
comments.
    By letter dated December 10, 2012, Airlines for America (A4A), the
RAA, and the National Air Carrier Association (NACA) also requested an
extension of the comment period, as the 30-day comment period over the
holiday season will make it extremely difficult for their respective
members to evaluate the impacts and implications of the proposed policy
and provide meaningful input to the FAA.
    While the FAA concurs with the petitioners' requests for an
extension of the comment period, it does not support a 30-day
extension. The FAA finds that providing additional time until January
22, 2013 is sufficient for these petitioners to analyze the proposed
policy statement and provide meaningful comment.
    Absent unusual circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any
further extension of the comment period for this notice.

Extension of Comment Period

    In accordance with Sec.  11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the petitions made by A4A, RAA, and
NACA for extension of the comment period. These petitioners have shown
a substantive interest in the proposed policy statement and good cause
for the extension. The FAA has determined that extension of the comment
period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause
exists for taking this action.
    Accordingly, the comment period is extended until January 22, 2013.

Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate by submitting
written comments, data, or views on the policy statement. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the policy statement,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if
comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this notice. The FAA will consider all comments it
receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will
consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may
change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

B. Availability of Notice

    An electronic copy of the notice may be obtained from the Internet
by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); or
    2. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket of this notice.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed policy
statement, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, December 14, 2012.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-30701 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24687-24688]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation
Maintenance Technical Schools

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information collected is needed to determine applicant
eligibility and compliance for certification of Civil Aviation
mechanics and operation of aviation mechanic schools.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0040.
    Title: Aviation Maintenance Technical Schools.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8310-6.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on February 4, 2016 (81 FR 6099). The collection of
information is necessary to ensure that Aviation Maintenance Technician
Schools meet the minimum requirements for procedures and curriculum set
forth by the FAA in FAR part 147. Applicants submit FAA Form

8310-6, Aviation Maintenance Technician School certificate and Ratings
Application, to the appropriate FAA district office for review. If the
application (including supporting documentation) is satisfactory, an
on-site inspection is conducted. When all FAR part 147 requirements
have been met, an aviation maintenance technician school certificate
with appropriate ratings is issued.
    Respondents: Approximately 174 representatives of aviation
maintenance technical schools.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3.17 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66,134 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy &
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-09696 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58049-58053]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0062]
RIN 2126-AC54

Unique Electronic Identification of Commercial Motor Vehicles

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests public comment on whether the agency should
amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to require every
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operating in interstate commerce to be
equipped with electronic identification (ID) technology capable of
wirelessly communicating a unique ID number when queried by a Federal
or State motor carrier safety enforcement personnel. In response to a
petition for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), FMCSA is considering such amendments to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the roadside inspection program by more fully
enabling enforcement agencies to focus their efforts at high-risk
carriers and drivers.

DATES: Comments on this notification must be received on or before
November 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2022-0062 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0062/document. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, 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: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this ANPRM as follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting comments
    B. Viewing comments and documents
    C. Privacy
II. Abbreviations
III. Legal Basis
IV. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
and E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
V. Background
VI. Discussion of the ANPRM and Questions

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (FMCSA-2022-0062), indicate the specific section of this document
to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion
or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0062/document, click on this ANPRM, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure.
If your comments responsive to the ANPRM contain commercial or
financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you
actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the
ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that
constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains proprietary
information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in
the public docket of the ANPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office
of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590-0001.
Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2062-0062/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this ANPRM, then
click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy

    DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its
regulatory process, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c). DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System), which
can be reviewed at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CBI Confidential Business Information
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DOT Department of Transportation
E.O. Executive Order
E-screening Electronic Screening
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
ID Identification
LPR License Plate Reader
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
OCR Optical Character Recognition
OMB Office of Management and Budget
U.S.C. United States Code
VIN Vehicle Identification Number

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This proposed rule is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31502(b)
(originally enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935). DOT is
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) to ``prescribe requirements for--(1)
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety
of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications
and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of
equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of
operation.''
    This proposed rule is also based on the authority granted by 49
U.S.C. 31136(a) (originally enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1984 (1984 Act)). DOT has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) to
regulate drivers, motor carriers, and CMVs. ``At a minimum, the
regulations shall ensure that--(1) commercial motor vehicles are
maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the
responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the
physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely . . . ; and (4)
the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious
effect on the physical condition of the operators'' (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)). In 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5) (enacted as part of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141,
126 Stat. 405, 818, July 6, 2012)), there is a fifth requirement to
ensure that ``(5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not
coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation
intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a
regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313
of this title.''
    In addition, 49 U.S.C. 31133(a) (enacted as part of the 1984 Act)
includes more general authority to ``(8) prescribe recordkeeping . . .
requirements; . . . and (10) perform other acts the Secretary considers
appropriate.''
    FMCSA is considering establishing requirements consistent with
these statutory provisions that would enable safety officials to more
efficiently and accurately identify a vehicle's motor carrier
designation (or motor carrier on record) while in operation via
wireless electronic means.
    FMCSA is seeking to facilitate more accurate, focused enforcement
to help the Agency meet the mandate of 49

U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are ``operated safely.'' A rule
stemming from information gathered as a result of this ANPRM would not
address the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4), and
because it would only have indirect and minimal application to drivers
of CMVs, FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers to violate the rule
would not occur (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)).

IV. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Plannng and Review) and
E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this ANPRM is not a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these orders.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to provide a
meaningful opportunity for public participation. Accordingly, the
Agency has asked commenters to answer a variety of questions to elicit
practical information about alternative approaches, including the
associated costs and benefits of those approaches, and relevant
scientific, technical, and economic data.

V. Background

    FMCSA's primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries and
fatalities involving large trucks and buses.\1\ There are an estimated
12 million large trucks and buses (also known collectively as CMVs)
registered to operate on America's roadways.\2\ Enforcement of safety
regulations for CMV operations is a major factor in providing safer
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 U.S.C. 113.
    \2\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ourroads/about-campaign (last
accessed Mar. 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the consistent growth in the CMV industry, the number of
vehicles to regulate far outpaces enforcement resources. As such, the
use of technology for CMV identification is key to efficient and
productive safety regulatory oversight. Ease of identification of CMVs
allows enforcement personnel to make timely and informed decisions to
support their mission critical operations.
Electronic ID Technologies
    Electronic ID technologies provide a means of identifying CMVs
either parked or in motion. Some technologies are also capable of two-
way communication of information. The technologies in use for
identifying CMVs operating in the United States and its Territories
include license plate readers (LPRs), wireless mobile data services,\3\
These technologies are used to assist businesses in tracking their
inventory and operations. In addition, they also assist State and local
agencies in roadside enforcement activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Report to Congress. ``Safety and Efficiency Effects of
Replacing Transponders with License Plate Readers to Screen Trucks
at Inspection or Weigh Stations.'' Pursuant to House Report 115-750
accompanying House Bill 6072 and the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Pub. L. 116-
6, 133 Stat. 13, Feb. 15, 2019). https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-06/Transponder%20Based%20Weigh%20Station%20Technology%20Report%20Enclosure%20FINAL%20June%202020.pdf (last accessed June 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA currently does not require CMVs to be equipped with a system
capable of transmitting a unique electronic ID (referred to as
electronic ID in remainder of the document) for operation. However,
FMCSA provides grant funding to States for technology projects that
electronically identify a CMV, verify its size, weight, and credentials
information, and review its carrier's past safety performance while the
vehicle is in motion and then communicate safely to the driver to
either pull in or bypass the roadside inspection station. Per Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) policy, vehicles that are:
(1) properly credentialed; (2) operated by a motor carrier with a
history of safe operations; and (3) within weight limits (if the site
is instrumented for weight measurements) are allowed to bypass
inspection facilities (although such vehicles are still subject to
random inspection).\4\ Electronic screening (e-screening) projects are
designed to identify high-risk motor carriers/CMVs for roadside
inspection, and to reduce operating costs for safe and legal motor
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/grants/motor-carrier-safety-assistance-program-grant-comprehensive-policy (last accessed
Apr. 27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LPR systems combine the use of a specialized plate-reader camera
with advanced optical character recognition (OCR) software that can
identify and match license plates with existing registration data. The
readers, which can be mounted on stationary poles and police cruisers,
or are available as handheld devices, also log the time and date of
each scan, the vehicle's GPS coordinates, and pictures of the license
plate and/or vehicle. These types of systems are often used to identify
traffic violations such as speeding and failure to stop at red lights.
State CMV enforcement officers use LPR systems in conjunction with
FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System to further
identify the motor carrier responsible for safety.
    Similarly, a USDOT number reader uses a high-resolution image of
the side of a CMV and incorporates OCR software to obtain a machine-
readable DOT number in real time at highway speeds. Although a USDOT
number reader and a LPR serve a limited identification function as
compared to the ID technology under consideration, those devices may
require more resources to identify the motor carrier responsible for
safety, and a LPR or USDOT reader may not always capture the license
plate or USDOT number accurately. These issues may result in compliant
carriers being stopped for roadside inspections and, conversely, non-
compliant or high-risk carriers being excluded from roadside
inspections. Unnecessary inspections on otherwise compliant carriers
leave less time for enforcement personnel to identify and conduct
inspections of higher-risk carriers, and they also diminish the value
of the advance e-screening for compliant carriers. Lack of inspections
on non-compliant higher risk carriers may result in adverse safety
events.
    A transponder is a device that acts as both a transmitter and
responder and is used to wirelessly receive and transmit data to
automatically identify and track the object (vehicle) to which the
transponder is affixed. The transponder is then associated with an
account holder for identification purposes. These devices are often
utilized for toll collections.
    Section 4126 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug.
10. 2005) required transponder use as part of Commercial Vehicle
Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program's Core deployment.\5\
States installed dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) transponder
systems because those were the prevalent technology at the time the
CVISN program was authorized. In 2013, FMCSA issued internal guidance
clarifying that transponders include both DSRC and cellular mobile
radio

service (CMRS) technology, in recognition that CMRS transponders
accomplish what is needed and may be more widely available and less
costly. With the passage of the FAST Act, and its requirement that the
Secretary ``establish an innovative technology deployment [(ITD)] grant
program to make discretionary grants to eligible States for the
innovative technology deployment of commercial motor vehicle
information systems and networks,'' \6\ FMCSA replaced the CVISN
program with the ITD program. Unlike the SAFETEA-LU provision, the ITD
provision in the FAST Act did not specifically require transponder use.
Accordingly, FMCSA amended its 2016 MCSAP Grant Comprehensive Policy
\7\ for a broader, performance-based approach to accomplishing e-
screening by-pass, while still maintaining consistency with many of the
concepts and definitions (including the broader definition of
transponders) from the CVISN program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term Core deployment was defined in paragraph (g)(3) to
mean the deployment of systems in a State necessary to provide the
State with certain capabilities, including ``(C) Roadside electronic
screening to electronically screen transponder-equipped commercial
vehicles at a minimum of one fixed or mobile inspection site in the
State and to replicate this screening at other sites in the State.''
    \6\ See 49 U.S.C. 31101(l)(3) (added by sec. 5101(a) of the FAST
Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1514, 1520-1521, Dec. 4, 2015)).
    \7\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Motor%20Carrier%20Safety%20Assistance%20Program%20Grant%20Comprehensive%20Policy%20v3.0%20Final%2006-10-2016.pdf (last accessed June 15,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two major transponder-based by-pass providers that cover
a large portion of continental United States and Canada. In addition,
there are a few known State systems that provide this functionality as
well as other products (e.g., LPR and DOT number readers) that use the
performance-based approach to provide the same service without using a
traditional transponder.
    Some vehicles are equipped with internet connectivity through
wireless networks. Trucking companies offer wireless connections
through cellular coverage areas by connecting existing wireless devices
to a commercial mobile radio service. Using these services, operators
of vehicles can send and receive electronic messages, order parts, and
find loads.
    FMCSA is undertaking an operational test of Level VIII Electronic
Inspections to enhance its current process for monitoring and enforcing
motor carrier and driver safety compliance. This test will provide
insight into several of the issues being considered in this rulemaking.
The electronic inspections being examined as part of the operational
test effort would enable FMCSA to assess on-the-road safety compliance
while a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) is still in motion, minimizing
disruption to the motor carrier and therefore, supply chain, and doing
so in a way that significantly reduces large trucks and bus emissions
across the Nation. This effort would also enable FMCSA to collect more
safety data about more carriers, with the goal of further reducing
injuries and fatalities resulting from large truck and bus crashes.
CVSA Petition for Rulemaking
    On July 26, 2010, CVSA submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that FMCSA amend Sec.  390.21 to require that every
commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Sec.  390.5, used in interstate
commerce be equipped with an electronic device capable of communicating
a unique ID number when queried by a law enforcement roadside
system.\8\ CVSA contended that implementation of a mandate requiring an
electronic ID would ``facilitate efficiency and efficacy in the
roadside inspection program by more fully enabling roadside enforcement
agencies to target their efforts at high-risk operators, while at the
same time, providing an incentive for safe and legal operations.'' In
the petition, CVSA did not recommend specific technologies or identify
specific systems or solutions; it did, however, provide an extensive
list of minimum suggested functional requirements. CVSA also did not
explain why motor carriers using vehicles equipped with electronic ID
would be more incentivized to engage in safe and legal operations, but
FMCSA assumes the incentive would be not being subject to unnecessary
roadside inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The petition for rulemaking and request for reconsideration
submitted by CVSA and the FMCSA denial letter can be found in the
docket for this ANPRM at https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=FMCSA-2022-0062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA denied the petition for rulemaking on May 24, 2013. While
FMCSA agreed that the use of automated systems to positively identify
CMVs via an electronic device placed on each CMV would be both feasible
and supportable given available technologies, the Agency stated it
would be inappropriate to grant the petition because the Agency lacked
information necessary to estimate the costs and benefits of an
electronic ID mandate. FMCSA noted that, before undertaking rulemaking,
it would be prudent to:
    (1) Fully explore the costs and safety benefits associated with a
rule to require the use of electronic ID systems on all CMVs;
    (2) Explore the currently available technological options; and
    (3) Work cooperatively with the Federal Highway Administration,
CVSA, and other interested parties to develop a technically sound,
cost-effective, long-term approach to identifying CMVs at roadside.
    On February 20, 2015, CVSA asked FMCSA to reconsider its denial
issued May 24, 2013, and provided information to address the
deficiencies the Agency had identified in the original petition
response. After considering the additional information provided by
CVSA, FMCSA granted the petition for rulemaking on November 2, 2015.
The petition, 2013 denial letter, request for reconsideration, and 2015
grant letter are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Electronic ID in the CMV Industry -- Studies or Reports
    The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2019, (Pub. L. 116-6, 133 Stat. 13, Feb. 15, 2019)
\9\ requested that DOT submit certain reports, including the report
``Safety and Efficiency Effects of Replacing Transponders with License
Plate Readers to Screen Trucks at Inspection or Weigh Stations: Report
to Congress.'' \10\ In the report, FMCSA studied the impact of
replacing existing e-screening transponder systems with LPRs at truck
inspection or weigh stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FMCSA notes that in the 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(Pub. L. 115-31, 131 Stat. 135, 742, May 5, 2017), FMCSA was
prohibited from using funds made available by that Act or previous
appropriations Acts to pay for costs associated with design,
development, testing, or implementation of a wireless roadside
inspection program until 180 days after the Secretary of
Transportation certifies to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that ``such program does not conflict with existing
non-Federal electronic screening systems, create capabilities
already available, or require additional statutory authority to
incorporate generated inspection data into safety determinations or
databases, and has restrictions to specifically address privacy
concerns of affected motor carriers and operators.'' As a result of
this language, effective May 6, 2017, FMCSA discontinued its
wireless roadside inspection pilot program, and announced it would
not be collecting, monitoring, or reviewing data related to the
wireless roadside inspection pilot program until Congress
appropriates funds for it to do so.
    \10\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-06/Transponder%20Based%20Weigh%20Station%20Technology%20Report%20Enclosure%20FINAL%20June%202020.pdf/ (last accessed June 14, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report found that LPR/USDOT number readers and transponders
each improve the ability to electronically identify CMVs while the
vehicle is in motion compared to the manual verification done at
roadside inspection sites. Specifically, LPR/USDOT number readers
identify the majority of the carrier population (at least 80 percent),
including carriers with poor safety records and those enrolled in a

traditional transponder-based bypass system. Transponder and app-based
(i.e., wireless network-based) systems offer improved identification
accuracy for a limited portion (13 percent) of the carrier population.
Participation in these systems is voluntary for fleets, and
participating fleets must maintain safety standards set by member
States to stay enrolled. The systems use the same algorithm to inform
inspection selection based on safety factors. However, the report found
that regardless of the e-screening system in use at a weigh or
inspection station, inspectors still often rely on visual cues and
other factors (e.g., site layout and capacity) to inform inspection
decisions.

VI. Discussion of ANPRM and Questions

    FMCSA is considering a rulemaking to require all CMVs operating in
interstate commerce to have an electronic ID system. FMCSA is therefore
soliciting further information regarding various aspects of electronic
identification including the best possible technical and operational
concepts along with associated costs, benefits, security,
vulnerability, privacy and other relevant deployment and operational
implications. The questions are organized by topic. As noted in the
instructions for submitting comments in Section I.A., above, FMCSA
requests that commenters provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.

1. General

    a. Should a device capable of transmitting an electronic ID be
permanently affixed or removable/transferrable to CMVs currently in
operation? Would FMCSA's rule need to specify?
    b. What data should be included as part of the electronic ID (e.g.,
carrier name, carrier contact information, vehicle ID number, license
plate number, USDOT number, and gross vehicle weight rating)?
     Should the information be limited to non-PII information?
If not, why not?
     Should it include information specific to the driver
(e.g., hours of service, Commercial Driver's License compliance, and
medical certification)?
     Should it also include information that may vary from trip
to trip (e.g., axle weight, pre-trip inspection date and time, and GPS
coordinates and time when requested)?
     Depending on how you answer the above questions, should
the electronic ID be transferrable in the event of a CMV sale?
     Depending on how you answer the above questions, who
should be responsible for providing the data set (see question 1.b.)
associated with the electronic ID for a CMV (i.e., driver, carrier,
third party)?
    c. Depending on the scope of the data you believe is necessary in
1.b., how should the data be transmitted and received?
     Can existing technology (e.g., ELDs) be used to collect
and transmit the electronic ID data and receive a response from
enforcement officials?
     How far in advance (time, distance) does a state need to
gather the electronic ID information to positively ID a vehicle and
message the vehicle whether further inspection is required?
     Should FMCSA propose a standard for the method of data
transmission, and, if so, what should it be, or do you believe a
voluntary standard can be developed?
    d. Are there reports or studies not already referenced above
available regarding the use of electronic devices to identify CMVs that
FMCSA may find useful in finding a technically sound, cost-effective,
long-term means to identify CMVs at roadside? If so, please provide the
references in your responses.
    e. Should the electronic ID be limited only to CMV power units
(e.g., motorcoaches, truck-tractors) or also include trailers?
    f. How would an electronic ID apply to rented or leased vehicles
that are operated by different carriers or parties throughout the
course of the year?
    g. How would or should an electronic ID be tied to States' CMV
record keeping (e.g., International Registration Plan registration,
Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM))?
    h. Are there privacy, health, or coercion concerns FMCSA should
consider in a future proposal?

2. Functionality

    a. Should the electronic ID framework be flexible so that
functionality could be added later, as new safety and other vehicle
technologies emerge?
    b. What operational and/or technical processes should be in place
for handling situations where messages or data concerning the
electronic ID do not send or receive correctly?
    c. How quickly can malfunctions in any electronic ID system be
located and corrected?
    d. What cybersecurity issues (e.g., ``spoofing,'' and interference)
should FMCSA consider in a future electronic ID proposal? Compare and
contrast such concerns with the current electronic ID systems.
    e. How could tampering be prevented if some or all data entry or
transfer is performed manually?

3. Populations Affected

    a. What is the population of trucks that already have a type of
electronic ID technology (e.g., PrePass, Drivewyze)?
    b. What is the percentage of carriers that are not identified
through current electronic screening capabilities? Please provide any
supporting studies or reports.

4. Cost/Benefits

    a. What are the current and potential future safety benefits of
electronic IDs?
     Are there studies or reports that provide data to support
the benefits of electronic IDs?
     Would implementing an electronic ID requirement lower
crash rates, if so, how?
    b. How would requiring an electronic ID impact the overall
effectiveness of State CMV inspection programs?
    c. How much time would compliant motor carriers save if an
electronic ID were to be required?
    d. What is the cost of adding electronic ID technology by type
(e.g., transponder, wireless, software, etc.)?
    e. What is the cost of electronic ID equipment for States,
carriers, and drivers?
    f. What is the cost of maintaining/operating electronic ID
equipment (e.g., internet connection, inspection, repair, third party
contracting fees, etc.)?
    g. What is the additional administrative burden (time and costs not
already associated with vehicle or carrier registration) for
registering the electronic ID and updating the registration as
necessary to ensure that it is associated with the current motor
carrier responsible for safety?

5. Other

    a. Is there any other information associated with electronic IDs
that FMCSA should consider? Please describe.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-20643 Filed 9-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64673-64675]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0124; FRL-9211-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From
Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware. The revision amends existing
Section 2.0--Consumer Products to Delaware's Regulation 1141 (formerly
SIP Regulation No. 41)--Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from

Consumer and Commercial Products. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 19,
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0124. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89
Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34671), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR proposed approval
of the Delaware SIP revision that amends Regulation 1141/SIP Regulation
No. 41-- Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer
and Commercial Products. The SIP revision amends existing Section 2.0--
Consumer Products by adding the sale, distribution, and manufacturing
of 23 new categories of consumer products and product types to the list
of products already regulated by this rule. These categories include
personal hygiene and grooming, home cleaning, and cleaning of
electrical and electronic equipment. EPA received no comments on the
NPR to approve Delaware's SIP revision. The formal SIP revision was
submitted by the State of Delaware on June 22, 2009.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Regulation 1141 (formerly SIP Regulation No. 41), Section 2.0
establishes applicability to any person who sells, supplies, offers for
sale, uses or applies, or manufactures for sale consumer products in
the State of Delaware. The rule does not apply to a retailer who sells,
supplies, or offers for sale in the State of Delaware a particular
consumer product that does not comply with the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) standards, provided that retailer demonstrates that the
manufacturer or distributor of that product mislead that retailer into
believing that the product did comply with the VOC standards. The rule
sets compliance dates for specific VOC content limits in percent VOCs
by weight for consumer products and lists exemptions from the VOC
content limits. The rule also contains requirements for the following
consumer products: (1) Products requiring dilution, (2) ozone depleting
compounds, (3) aerosols adhesives, (4) antiperspirants or deodorants,
(5) charcoal lighter materials, and (6) floor wax strippers. Regulation
1141 provides alternative control plans (ACP) by allowing responsible
parties the option to voluntarily enter into separate ACP agreements
for the consumer products mentioned above. In addition, the rule
contains the following: (1) Criteria for innovative products exemptions
and requirements for waiver requests, (2) administrative requirements
for labeling and reporting, and (3) test methods for demonstrating
compliance. Further details of Delaware's regulation revisions can be
found in a Technical Support Document prepared for the June 18, 2010
proposed rulemaking action.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Delaware SIP revision that amends existing
Section 2.0--Consumer Products to Delaware's Regulation 1141 (formerly
SIP Regulation No. 41)--Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Consumer and Commercial Products.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 20, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule pertaining to
Delaware's amendment to Section 2.0--Consumer Products of Delaware's
Regulation No. 1141 (formerly SIP Regulation No. 41), does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
Regulation 1141, Section 2.0 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Delaware SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
 State regulation (7 DNREC        Title/subject       effective      EPA approval date    Additional explanation
           1100)                                         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
           1141 Limiting Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer and Commercial Products

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 2.0................  Specific Emission           4/11/09  10/20/10 [Insert page   Adds the sale,
                              Control Requirements.                number where the        distribution, and
                                                                   document begins].       manufacturing of 23
                                                                                categories of
                                                                                consumer products and
                                                                                product types.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-25314 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44248]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-13-003]

Houston Pipe Line Company, L.P.; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 15, 2008, Houston Pipe Line Company, L.P.
filed a Report of Refunds in compliance with the Commission's letter
order issued on June 18, 2008, in Docket Nos. PR08-13-000 and PR08-13-
001.
    Any person desiring to participate in this proceeding must file a
motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17403 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P