[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 7378]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-05]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; ArgenTech
Solutions, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation 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 February 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0024
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, 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 20590-0001, 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 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2020.
Giles Strickler,
Acting Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0024.
    Petitioner: ArgenTech Solutions, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.113; 91.7;
91.103(b)(2); 91.109; 91.119(b) & (c); 91.121; 91.151; 91.203(a) & (b);
91.405; 91.407; 91.409; & 91.417.
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the petitioner to operate its AgTS FireEye vertical takeoff
and landing unmanned aircraft system, with a maximum gross takeoff
weight of 71 pounds, for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial
data acquisition and training over certain rural aeras of the United
States. Operations will be conducted within visual line of sight and
under 400 feet above ground level.

[FR Doc. 2020-02487 Filed 2-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 24288-24289]
[DOCID:fr02my07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2916-073]

East Bay Municipal Utility District; Notice of Application for
Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

April 25, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use Of Project Lands And Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2916-073.
    c. Date Filed: April 18, 2007.
    d. Applicant: East Bay Municipal Utility District.
    e. Name of Project: Lower Mokelumne River Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Mokelumme River, in
Amador, Calaveras, and San Joaquin Counties, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Leo J. O'Brien, Manager, Water Resource
Planning, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, 375 Eleventh Street,
Oakland, CA 94607-4240.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: May 25, 2007.
    k. Description of Request: East Bay Municipal Utility District is
requesting Commission approval to construct a pumping plant, power
substation, architectural berming, and storage tank, and install 16,500
feet of tunneled pipeline, within the project boundary to

facilitate the movement of water from the Freeport Regional Water
Project through a pipeline near Camanche Reservoir. The facilities
would not withdraw any water from Camanche Reservoir.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable. Please include the project
number (P-2916-073) on any comments or motions filed. All documents
(original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8337 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24836-24837]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11496]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10499; 34-83308; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-
Frank Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting in Atlanta, GA. The public is
invited to submit written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 14, 2018 from 8:30
a.m. until 2:15 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or
before June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Knowles Conference Center at
Georgia State University College of Law, 85 Park Place Northeast,
Atlanta, GA 30303. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's
website at www.sec.gov. Written statements may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to [email protected]. Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review

your statement more efficiently, please use only one method.
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a
discussion of the Commission's Proposed Regulation Best Interest and
the proposed restriction on the use of certain names or titles; a
discussion regarding the Commission's Proposed Form CRS Relationship
Summary, including effective disclosure and design; a discussion
regarding disclosure enhancements for municipal and corporate bonds
(which may include a recommendation of the Market Structure
Subcommittee); subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative
work session.

    Dated: May 23, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11496 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20445-20448]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09507]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85771; File No. SR-PEARL-2019-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 100, Definitions, Rule 200, Trading Permits, Chapter III, Business
Conduct, Rule 506, Collection and Dissemination of Quotations, Chapter
VII, Exercises and Deliveries, Chapter VIII, Records, Reports and
Audits, Chapter IX, Summary Suspension, Chapter XI, Hearings, Review
and Arbitration, Chapter XIII, Doing Business With The Public, Chapter
XIV, Order Protection, Locked and Crossed Markets, Chapter XV, Margins,
Chapter XVI, Net Capital Requirements, Chapter XVII, Consolidated Audit
Trail Compliance Rule and Chapter XVIII, Index Options

May 3, 2019.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on April 24, 2019, Miami PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to make a number of minor, non-
substantive edits to Exchange Rule 100, Definitions, Rule 200, Trading
Permits, Chapter III, Business Conduct, Rule 506, Collection and
Dissemination of Quotations, Chapter VII, Exercises and Deliveries,
Chapter VIII, Records, Reports and Audits, Chapter IX, Summary
Suspension, Chapter XI, Hearings, Review and Arbitration, Chapter XIII,
Doing Business With The Public, Chapter XIV, Order Protection, Locked
and Crossed Markets, Chapter XV, Margins, Chapter XVI, Net Capital
Requirements, Chapter XVII, Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule
and Chapter XVIII, Index Options for purposes of clarification and
uniformity.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 100, Definitions, to
make minor non-substantive edits to harmonize the rule text to that of
the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'').
Currently, Exchange Rule 100 does not include a definition for the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald. In order to ensure conformity, the
Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 100 to adopt the definition
for MIAX Emerald that is nearly identical to rule text found in

MIAX Emerald Rule 100. Accordingly, MIAX PEARL proposes to adopt the
following definition for MIAX Emerald to be included in Exchange Rule
100: ``The term `MIAX Emerald' means MIAX Emerald, LLC.'' The Exchange
believes that adopting the definition of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX
Emerald, in Exchange Rule 100 creates consistency between MIAX PEARL
and MIAX Emerald.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 100 to make a
minor non-substantive edit by deleting the term ``PEARL'' and its
definition for purposes of clarification and uniformity throughout the
Exchange's rulebook as well as to conform the term ``MIAX PEARL'' to
how it is defined by the Exchange's affiliates, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald. Currently, the
Exchange's rulebook makes references to ``MIAX PEARL'' as well as
``PEARL.'' All references to MIAX PEARL in the rule text of the
Exchange, as well as the rule text of MIAX and MIAX Emerald, should be
to ``MIAX PEARL,'' and not the single term ``PEARL.'' Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to delete the singular term ``PEARL'' and its
definition in Exchange Rule 100.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the definitions for
``Exchange'' and ``MIAX PEARL'' in Exchange Rule 100 in order to delete
the part of the definition for ``Exchange'' and ``MIAX PEARL'' which
currently provide that the singular term ``PEARL'' is a reference to
MIAX PEARL. Exchange Rule 100 currently defines Exchange as follows:
``The term `Exchange' means the national securities exchange known as
MIAX PEARL, LLC, MIAX PEARL or PEARL.'' Pursuant to this proposal, the
definition for Exchange would be as follows: ``The term `Exchange'
means the national securities exchange known as MIAX PEARL, LLC, or
MIAX PEARL.'' Exchange Rule 100 currently defines MIAX PEARL as
follows: ``The term `MIAX PEARL' means the MIAX PEARL, LLC, the
Exchange or PEARL.'' Pursuant to this proposal, the definition for MIAX
PEARL would be as follows: ``The term `MIAX PEARL' means the MIAX
PEARL, LLC, or the Exchange.''
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend several rules and chapters to
make minor non-substantive edits to harmonize the rule text to that of
the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald. Presently, MIAX is
referred to in the Exchange's rulebook as ``MIAX Options Exchange.''
The Exchange proposes to delete the words ``Options Exchange'' from all
references to MIAX throughout the Exchange's rulebook. Exchange Rule
100 currently defines MIAX as follows: ``The term `MIAX Options
Exchange' means Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC.''
Pursuant to this proposal, the definition for MIAX would be as follows:
``The term `MIAX' means Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC.''
The Exchange also proposes that all other references throughout the
Exchange's rulebook to ``MIAX Options Exchange'' would be amended to
delete the words ``Options Exchange,'' such that all references will be
to the singular word ``MIAX.'' The proposed amendments would be to
``MIAX Options Exchange'' references in Rule 200, Trading Permits,
Chapter III, Business Conduct, Chapter VII, Exercises and Deliveries,
Chapter VIII, Records, Reports and Audits, Chapter IX, Summary
Suspension, Chapter XI, Hearings, Review and Arbitration, Chapter XIII,
Doing Business With The Public, Chapter XIV, Order Protection, Locked
and Crossed Markets, Chapter XV, Margins, Chapter XVI, Net Capital
Requirements, Chapter XVII, Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule
and Chapter XVIII, Index Options. This proposal is for purposes of
clarification and uniformity throughout the Exchange's rulebook as well
as to conform the term ``MIAX'' to how it is defined by the Exchange's
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MIAX Rule 100 and MIAX Emerald Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 200, Trading
Permits, to adopt similar rule text for the waive-in application
process to obtain a trading permit for MIAX PEARL that is currently in
place on MIAX Emerald for applicants holding a MIAX or MIAX Emerald
trading permit. MIAX Emerald Rule 200 provides that a holder of a MIAX
or MIAX PEARL trading permit in good standing is eligible to receive
one MIAX Emerald trading permit in the same Membership category to
trade on MIAX Emerald.\4\ Member \5\ applicants of MIAX and MIAX PEARL
are not required to submit a full application for membership on MIAX
Emerald, but rather only need to complete selected MIAX Emerald forms
concerning their election to trade on MIAX Emerald, consent to MIAX
Emerald's jurisdiction, and other operational matters.\6\ This waive-in
application process is similar to arrangements in place at other
exchanges.\7\ The Exchange believes that its affiliate, MIAX, would
also make a nearly identical change to MIAX Rule 200.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See MIAX Emerald Rule 100.
    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ See MIAX Emerald Rule 100.
    \7\ See, e.g., Nasdaq MRX, LLC Rule 302(a) (containing similar
expedited waive-in membership process for members of the Nasdaq ISE,
LLC and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC); MIAX Emerald Rule 200(c) (containing
similar expedited waive-in membership process for members of MIAX);
and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. Rule 3.1(c)(1) (containing similar
expedited waive-in membership process for members of Cboe).
    \8\ See SR-MIAX-2019-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX PEARL Rule 200(c)(1) currently has in place the waive-in
application process for holders of MIAX trading permits who want to
apply for a trading permit on MIAX PEARL. Exchange Rule 200(c)(1)
currently provides as follows:

    Holders of MIAX Options Exchange trading permits. A holder of a
MIAX Options Exchange trading permit in good standing is eligible to
receive one MIAX PEARL Trading Permit. A holder of a MIAX Options
Exchange trading permit who wishes to apply to the Exchange is not
required to complete and submit an Exchange application. Instead
only Exchange forms concerning election to trade on the Exchange,
submitting to Exchange jurisdiction, and operational matters need be
completed and tendered.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 200(c)(1) to provide
that holders of MIAX Emerald trading permits may also utilize the
waive-in application process to obtain a MIAX PEARL trading permit as
MIAX Emerald is an affiliate of the Exchange. This proposal also
includes adopting explanatory rule text in parenthesis similar to rule
text adopted by MIAX Emerald. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 200(c)(1) to provide as follows:

    Holders of MIAX or MIAX Emerald Trading Permits. A holder of a
MIAX or MIAX Emerald trading permit in good standing is eligible to
receive one MIAX PEARL Trading Permit in the same Membership
category to trade on MIAX PEARL (i.e., a MIAX Registered Market
Maker or a MIAX Emerald Registered Market Maker is eligible to
become a MIAX PEARL Market Maker and a MIAX Electronic Exchange
Member or a MIAX Emerald Electronic Exchange Member is eligible to
become a MIAX PEARL Electronic Exchange Member). A holder of a MIAX
or MIAX Emerald trading permit who wishes to apply to the Exchange
is not required to complete and submit an Exchange application.
Instead only Exchange forms concerning election to trade on the
Exchange, submitting to Exchange jurisdiction, and operational
matters need be completed and tendered.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the rule text of Exchange Rule
200(c)(2) for applicants of a MIAX PEARL trading

permit who do not already hold a MIAX or MIAX Emerald trading permit.
Exchange Rule 200(c)(2) currently provides as follows:

    Applicants Not Holding MIAX Options Exchange trading permits. An
applicant not holding a MIAX Options Exchange trading permit seeking
to hold a MIAX PEARL Trading Permit (``Applicant'') must submit an
application to the Exchange in accordance with such procedures as
shall be established by the Exchange. In addition, the following
shall apply:

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 200(c)(2) to include a
provision for applicants of a MIAX PEARL trading permit who do not
already hold a MIAX Emerald trading permit to conform to the rule text
of MIAX Emerald. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange
Rule 200(c)(2) as follows:

    Applicants Not Holding MIAX Trading Permits. An applicant not
holding a MIAX or MIAX Emerald trading permit seeking to hold a MIAX
PEARL Trading Permit (``Applicant'') must submit an application to
the Exchange in accordance with such procedures as shall be
established by the Exchange. In addition, the following shall apply:

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text of Exchange Rule
200(d) to make a minor non-substantive corrective edit. Exchange Rule
200(d) currently provides as follows:

    Every Trading Permit holder must have and maintain membership in
another registered options exchange other than the MIAX Options
Exchange (that is not registered solely under Section 6(g) of the
Exchange Act). If such other registered options exchange has not
been designated by the Commission, pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the
Exchange Act, to examine Members for compliance with financial
responsibility rules, then such Applicant must have and maintain a
membership in FINRA.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 200(d) to adopt rule
text to provide that every trading permit holder of MIAX PEARL must
have and maintain membership in another options exchange other than
MIAX or MIAX Emerald to conform to the rule text of the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX Emerald. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rule 200(d) as follows:

    Membership in Another Registered Options Exchange. Every Trading
Permit holder must have and maintain membership in another
registered options exchange other than the MIAX or MIAX Emerald
(that is not registered solely under Section 6(g) of the Exchange
Act). If such other registered options exchange has not been
designated by the Commission, pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the
Exchange Act, to examine Members for compliance with financial
responsibility rules, then such Applicant must have and maintain a
membership in FINRA.

    Finally, MIAX PEARL proposes to amend Exchange Rule 506, Collection
and Dissemination of Quotations, to make minor corrective changes to
the numerical and alphabetical list item identifiers to properly
conform to the hierarchical heading scheme used throughout the
Exchange's rulebook. Accordingly, Exchange Rule 506 sub-paragraphs
(d)(i) through (d)(ii) will be renumbered as (d)(1) through (d)(2).
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX PEARL believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in, securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule changes make a number of minor, non-
substantive corrective changes for purposes of clarification and
uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule changes correct errors in the hierarchical
heading scheme to provide uniformity in the Exchange's rulebook. The
Exchange notes that the proposed changes to Rule 100, Chapter III, Rule
506, Chapter VII, Chapter VIII, Chapter IX, Chapter XI, Chapter XIII,
Chapter XIV, Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII and Chapter XVIII do
not alter the application of each rule. As such, the proposed
amendments would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the
public regarding the Exchange's Rules. It is in the public interest for
rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for
confusion.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 200
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because the proposed changes will align MIAX PEARL Rule
200 with MIAX Emerald Rule 200 regarding trading permits. The Exchange
believes this consistency across exchanges would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that
members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand the application process for
trading permits. The Exchange also believes that although MIAX Emerald
rules may, in certain instances, intentionally differ from MIAX PEARL
rules, the proposed changes will promote uniformity with MIAX PEARL
with respect to rules that are intended to be identical. The Exchange
believes that this proposal will reduce the potential for confusion by
its Members that are also Members of MIAX Emerald if the only
differences between MIAX Emerald rules and MIAX PEARL rules are those
that are specific to each exchange.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed changes to Exchange Rule
200 promote just and equitable principles of trade and removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because MIAX PEARL and its affiliates, MIAX
and MIAX Emerald, have substantially the same Members, and by adopting
the waive-in application process for those Members already holding
trading permits on MIAX and/or MIAX Emerald, promotes the more
effective utilization of time and resources of the Exchange.
Furthermore, because MIAX and MIAX Emerald trading permit holders have
already been vetted, the Exchange's proposal to amend the waive-in
application process in Exchange Rule 200 aligns the trading permit
application process with that of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX
Emerald, preventing unnecessary regulatory burdens and promoting the
efficient administration of the Exchange's rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule changes will
have no impact on competition as they are not designed to address any
competitive issues but rather are designed to add additional clarity to
existing rules and to remedy minor non-substantive issues in the text
of various rules identified in this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes to
Exchange Rule 200 will impose any burden on intermarket competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because MIAX PEARL and its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, have
substantially the same Members, and by adopting the waive-in
application process for those Members already holding trading permits
on MIAX and/or MIAX Emerald promotes the more effective utilization of
time and resources of the Exchange. Furthermore, because MIAX and MIAX
Emerald trading permit holders have already been vetted, the Exchange's
proposal to amend the waive-in application process in Exchange Rule 200
aligns the trading permit application process with that of the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, preventing unnecessary regulatory
burdens and promoting the efficient administration of the Exchange's
rules.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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-PEARL-2019-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2019-16. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2019-16, and should be submitted
on or before May 30, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09507 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46071-46073]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AJ28

Additions to the Entity List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding four entities to
the Entity List under the destinations of Greece, Hungary, Ireland, and
North Macedonia. These four entities have been determined by the U.S.
Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 18, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR
parts 730 through 774)) identifies entities for which there is
reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts,
that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a
significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary
to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United
States, pursuant to Sec.  744.11(b). The EAR impose additional license
requirements on, and limit the availability of, most license exceptions
for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity
is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each
listed entity is identified in the ``License Review Policy'' column on
the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license
exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that
added the entity to the Entity List. The Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) places entities on the Entity List pursuant to parts 744
(Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and 746 (Embargoes and
Other Special Controls) of the EAR.
    The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of
the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where
appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to,
removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes
all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and
makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

Entity List Decisions

A. Additions to the Entity List

    The ERC determined to add Intellexa S.A., under the destination of
Greece, Cytrox Holdings Zrt., under the destination of Hungary,
Intellexa Limited, under the destination of Ireland, and Cytrox AD,
under the destination of North Macedonia, to the Entity List for
trafficking in cyber exploits used to gain access to information
systems, thereby threatening the privacy and security of individuals
and organizations worldwide. This activity is contrary to U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests under Sec.  744.11 of the EAR.
For these four entities, BIS imposes a license requirement for all
items subject to the EAR and will review license applications under a
presumption of denial.

Greece

     Intellexa S.A.

Hungary

     Cytrox Holdings Zrt.

Ireland

     Intellexa Limited.

North Macedonia

     Cytrox AD.

Savings Clause

    For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items
removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport,
or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this
regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of
export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on July 18, 2023, pursuant
to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or
within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the
previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or
transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) before August 17, 2023.
Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-
country) before midnight, on August 17, 2023, require a license in
accordance with this final rule.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-
4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities
and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves an
information collection approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System. BIS does not
anticipate a change to the burden hours associated with this collection
as a result of this rule. Information regarding the collection,
including all supporting materials, can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity
for public participation, and delay in effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--CONTROL POLICY: END-USER AND END-USE BASED

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026,
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3
CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice
of September 19, 2022, 87 FR 57569 (September 21, 2022); Notice of
November 8, 2022, 87 FR 68015 (November 10, 2022).

0
2. Supplement no. 4 to part 744 is amended by:
0
a. Under GREECE, adding an entry in alphabetical order for ``Intellexa
S.A.'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the country HUNGARY followed by the
entry ``Cytrox Holdings Zrt'';
0
c. Under IRELAND, adding an entry in alphabetical order for ``Intellexa
Limited''; and
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order the country NORTH MACEDONIA followed by
the entry ``Cytrox AD''.
    The additions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register
           Country                                 Entity                         License requirement     License review policy          citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREECE......................                                                          * * * * * *
                              Intellexa S.A., a.k.a., the following one alias:  For all items subject    Presumption of denial..  88 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
                              --Intellexa Anonymi Etaireia.                      to the EAR. (See Sec.                             NUMBER 7/19/2023].
                                                                                744.11 of the EAR).
                              Vouliagmenis Ave. & 14 Hatzievaggelou Elliniko,
                               16777, Greece; and Leof Vouliagmenis 47, 16777,
                               Elliniko, Greece; and Irodou Attikou Streeet 7,
                               Athens, Greece; and Karaoli Dimitriou 1 &
                               Vasiliss 1, 15231, Athens, Greece.
                                                                                * * * * * *
HUNGARY.....................  Cytrox Holdings Zrt, a.k.a., the following one    For all items subject    Presumption of denial..  88 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
                               alias:                                            to the EAR. (See Sec.                             NUMBER 7/19/2023].
                              --Cytrox Holdings Zartkoruen Mukodo                 744.11 of the EAR).
                               Reszvenytarsasag.
                              De[aacute]k Ferenc t[eacute]r 3. Budapest, 1052
                               Hungary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRELAND.....................  Intellexa Limited, a.k.a., the following one      For all items subject    Presumption of denial..  88 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
                               alias:                                            to the EAR. (See Sec.                             NUMBER 7/19/2023].
                              --Intellexa Ltd.                                    744.11 of the EAR).
                              3rd Floor, Ulysses House, Foley Street, Dublin
                               1, Dublin, Ireland, D01W2T2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH MACEDONIA.............  Cytrox AD, a.k.a., the following one alias:       For all items subject    Presumption of denial..  88 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
                              --Sytrox.                                          to the EAR. (See Sec.                             NUMBER 7/19/2023].
                              October 20, no. 1/1-1 Skopje, Karpos, North         744.11 of the EAR).
                               Macedonia; and Metropolitan Theodosij Gologanov
                               44, Skopje, Karpos, North Macedonia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *

Thea D. Rozman Kendler,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-15343 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26575-26581]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0156]
RIN 2126-AB53

Gross Combination Weight Rating; Definition

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to revise the definition of ``gross
combination weight rating'' (or GCWR) to clarify that a GCWR is the
greater of: the GCWR specified by the manufacturer of the power unit,
if displayed on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
certification label required by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), or the sum of the gross vehicle weight ratings
(GVWRs) or gross vehicle weights (GVWs) of the power unit and towed
unit(s), or any combination thereof, that produces the highest value.

DATES: You may submit comments by July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the rulemaking docket should refer to Docket ID
Number FMCSA-2012-0156 or RIN 2126-AB53, and be submitted to the
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    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

below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary Siekmann, Office of
Enforcement, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202)
493-0442 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA office hours are
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, contact Barbara Hairston, Acting Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments
VI. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2012-0156), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each 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 that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2012-0156'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a Comment''
in the ``Actions'' column. 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 and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read
Comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the
``Keyword'' box insert ``FMCSA-2012-0156'' and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in
the ``Title'' column, click on the document you would like to review.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you
provide. 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 of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    FMCSA proposes to clarify the applicability and enforceability of
the safety regulations by redefining GCWR. This proposed rule would
provide a uniform means for motor carriers, drivers, and enforcement
officials to determine whether a driver operating a combination vehicle
that does not display a GCWR is subject to the commercial driver's
license (CDL) requirements (49 CFR part 383) or the general safety
requirements (49 CFR part 390). This proposed rule also responds to
adverse comments from the direct final rule (DFR) published on August
27, 2012 (77 FR 51706). The DFR was initiated in reply to a petition
filed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on February 12,
2008, seeking changes in the definitions of ``commercial motor
vehicle'' (CMV) and ``gross combination weight rating.''

Benefits and Costs

    While this rule may affect some carriers and drivers not currently
subject to some or all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs), the Agency is unable to quantify this effect at this time.
This rulemaking only clarifies the definition of GCWR to eliminate
confusion surrounding the language of the existing definition and long-
standing enforcement practices. The rule will provide clear objective
criteria for determining the applicability of the FMCSRs when the GCWR
is the deciding factor. The cost, if any, would be borne by motor
carriers and drivers that had previously determined by reference to the
GCWR wording that their operations were not subject to certain safety
regulations, but that would now be required to achieve compliance with
the applicable rules.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of
1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA or 1984
Act), both of which provide broad discretion to the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) in implementing their provisions. In
addition this NPRM is based on broad authority from the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) [49 U.S.C. Chapter 313].
    The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary may prescribe requirements
for (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of,
and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)], and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operation [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2)].
These proposed amendments are based on the Secretary's authority to
regulate the safety and standards of equipment of for-hire and private
carriers.
    The 1984 Act gives the Secretary concurrent authority to regulate
drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].
Section 31136(a) requires the Secretary to publish regulations on CMV
safety. Specifically, the Act sets forth minimum safety standards to
ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and

operated safely [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)]; (2) the responsibilities
imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)]; (3) the physical condition of
CMV operators is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely
[49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)]; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators [49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)]. Section 32911 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 818,
July 6, 2012] enacted a fifth requirement, i.e., that the regulations
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
[Transportation of Hazardous Material] or chapter 313 [Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators] of this title'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].
    The proposed rule would clarify the applicability and
enforceability of the safety regulations when the original equipment
manufacturer does not provide the (optional) GCWR information on the
(required) NHTSA certification label. This rulemaking would give motor
carriers and the drivers they employ a practical means of determining
whether a particular combination vehicle is subject to the Federal
safety regulations concerning licensing, equipment, and inspection,
repair and maintenance, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). The
regulatory language would also result in consistent application of the
rules by Federal and State enforcement personnel. The rule would not
address the responsibilities or physical condition of drivers covered
by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) and (3), respectively, and would deal with 49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(4) only to the extent that a vehicle operated in
accordance with the safety regulations is less likely to have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of a driver. Before
prescribing any such regulations, however, FMCSA must consider the
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and
31502(d)).
    With regard to 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5), this rulemaking would not
change the long-standing prohibitions and penalties against operating a
CMV, as defined either in 49 CFR 383.5 or 49 CFR 390.5, without
complying with applicable requirements. Among other things, motor
carriers are currently prohibited from using unqualified CMV drivers,
and unqualified drivers are currently prohibited from operating CMVs.
This rule would have only a limited effect on the risk of driver
coercion by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation
intermediaries. The rule would enable drivers and the entities that are
in a position to coerce drivers into violating the FMCSRs, to determine
with a greater degree of certainty whether particular vehicle
configurations meet either of the CMV definitions under 49 CFR parts
383 or 390. This rule would help eliminate differences of opinion
between drivers and other entities regarding the applicability of the
rules and previously published guidance. As a result, entities in a
position to coerce drivers to operate in violation of the commercial
driver's license (CDL) requirements (49 CFR part 383), or
transportation that would be subject to the requirements under 49 CFR
parts 390-399, would either ensure each of their decisions is
consistent with the rules or be unable to avoid the fact that any
decision inconsistent with the rules represents an act of coercion.
    This rulemaking is also based on the broad authority of the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) [49 U.S.C. chapter
313]. The CMVSA required the Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations on minimum
uniform standards for the issuance of CDLs by the States and for
information to be contained on each license (49 U.S.C. 31305, 31308).
This proposed rule would provide a uniform means for motor carriers,
drivers, and enforcement officials to determine whether a driver
operating a combination vehicle that does not display a GCWR is subject
to the CDL requirements.

IV. Background

    The term ``commercial motor vehicle'' (CMV) is defined differently
in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5, as required by the underlying statutes (the
CMVSA and the MCSA, respectively). Both regulatory definitions,
however, like their statutory equivalents, depend (in part) on the GVWR
or GVW, whichever is greater, to determine whether a single-unit
vehicle is a CMV for purposes of the relevant safety regulations.
Although neither the MCSA nor the CMVSA referred explicitly to
combination vehicles, Congress clearly did not intend to exempt this
huge population of vehicles from the safety regulations applicable to
CMVs. FMCSA therefore adapted the statutory language used for single-
unit vehicles to combination vehicles, substituting GCWR or gross
combination weight (GCW), whichever is greater, for GVWR or GVW.\1\
Because GVW and GCW are used in the regulatory definition of CMV in
parts 383 and 390, enforcement officials and motor carriers may
determine the applicability of the safety regulations simply by
weighing the vehicles. In many situations, however, scales are not
readily available. That deficiency increases the importance of
correctly determining the GCWR as an alternate means of deciding
whether a combination is a CMV. Drivers, carriers and enforcement
officials should not have to search manufacturers' product literature
for the GCWR or FMCSA's Web site or commercial publications for
regulatory guidance. Instead, they should be able to rely on codified
regulations that are accessible and easy to understand and implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gross combination weight rating (GCWR) means the value
specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination
(articulated) vehicle. In the absence of a value specified by the
manufacturer, GCWR will be determined by adding the GVWR of the
power unit and the total weight of the towed unit and any load
thereon. (49 CFR parts 383.5 and 390.5)
    Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by
the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (49 CFR
parts 383.5 and 390.5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As FMCSA and its State partners increase their monitoring of
drivers and motor carriers through roadside inspections and other
enforcement interventions, industry officials and the enforcement
community have raised questions about the inconsistency between the
GCWR definitions used by FMCSA and NHTSA. The following sentence is
part of the GCWR definition in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5, but not in 49
CFR 571.3: ``In the absence of a value specified by the manufacturer,
GCWR will be determined by adding the GVWR of the power unit and the
total weight of the towed unit and any load thereon.'' This alternative
means of determining GCWR is not practical when scales are not
available, however.
    On February 12, 2008, the CVSA petitioned FMCSA to change the
definitions of CMV and GCWR as these definitions are proving
problematic for inspectors and industry when determining what is
considered to be a CMV and when a CDL is required. The Agency granted
the petition on August 18, 2011, and agreed to initiate a rulemaking.
On August 27, 2012, FMCSA published a DFR, with a request for public
comment, amending the definition of GCWR by removing the sentence
mentioned above (77 FR 51706). The FMCSA received comments from: Bryce
Baker; David S. McQueen; Dennis Eric Murphy; and, John F. Nowak.

V. Discussion of Comments

    In response to the DFR, Mr. Bryce Baker of the Illinois Truck
Enforcement Association stated that the GCWR definition is relevant
only for determining the applicability of Class-A CDLs. Mr. Baker noted
that the current definition is problematic for two reasons. First,
manufacturers do not list GCWR on the vehicle certification label
required by NHTSA; instead, they list the vehicle's maximum towing
capacity. Even under the DFR definition, he argued, this makes it
impossible to determine whether a driver needs a Class-A CDL. Second,
Mr. Baker indicated that only manufacturers have information on the
GCWR, and that obtaining it requires significant time and makes
enforcement ``fruitless.''
    Mr. John F. Nowak commented that the definition of GCWR should not
be changed until GCWRs are readily available to law enforcement, motor
carriers, and drivers. Mr. Nowak believes that NHTSA rules should be
amended to require the manufacturer to include a GCWR in addition to
the GVWR. Mr. Nowak believes it is unclear as to how citations are
supposed to be issued when the GCWR cannot be established and how this
fact will impact motor carriers' safety ratings or Safety Measurement
System (SMS) scores. He suggested not citing carriers and/or drivers
for failing to provide the GCWR and that the GCWR definition should not
be changed until information on this rating is available and accessible
to law enforcement.
    Mr. David S. McQueen questioned the benefit of the rule in the
absence of a requirement for the GCWR to be displayed on the vehicle.
In that regard, he suggested that manufacturers would not be able to
predict what combinations would be used by motor carriers on any given
day.
    Mr. Dennis Eric Murphy stated that he agreed with the other
commenters' views that the GCWR should be marked on the truck in some
manner. He also believes FMCSA should use the manufacturer's GCWR and
prohibit motor carriers from operating vehicles loaded in excess of the
GCWR. He suggests that the determination whether a vehicle meets the
CMV definition should be made by adding the GVWR of the truck and
trailer together.
    All of these comments were deemed to be adverse responses to the
DFR. Therefore, as required by 49 CFR 389.39(d), the direct final rule
was withdrawn on October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65497).

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    FMCSA acknowledges the commenters' concerns but continues to
believe that the revision outlined in the DFR has merit. The Agency
therefore proposes that GCWR be re-defined as the greater of (1) the
GCWR specified by the manufacturer of the power unit, if displayed on
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) certification label
required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
or (2) the sum of the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) or gross
vehicle weights (GVWs) of the power unit and towed unit(s), or any
combination thereof, that produces the highest value. For instances in
which the manufacturer's GCWR indicates that the vehicle should not be
subject to the safety regulations, but the sum of the GVWRs, GVWs, or
the highest combination of those values, is greater than the
manufacturer's GCWR, the combination would be deemed to be a CMV
subject to the Federal rules.
    The Agency believes this GCWR definition would provide motor
carriers and enforcement officials with clear direction in determining
whether a multiple-unit vehicle is a CMV when (1) the manufacturer of
the power unit does not display a GCWR value on the FMVSS certification
label, or (2) the GCWR is displayed but the sum of the power unit and
trailer GVWRs, GVWs, or the highest combination thereof, exceeds the
manufacturer's GCWR. Using the revised definition, motor carriers and
enforcement officials could easily determine whether any type of
single-unit or combination vehicle was a CMV. The Agency requests
public comments on whether the proposed change would improve consistent
application of the rules or whether other alternatives might better
accomplish this objective.
    In consideration of the proposed revision of the definition of GCWR
in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5, FMCSA would withdraw regulatory guidance
concerning means of determining the applicability of the Federal safety
regulations. Specifically, the guidance to be withdrawn are questions 3
and 4 to 49 CFR 383.5 (April 4, 1997; 62 FR 16369, 16395), and
questions 3, 4 and 11 to 49 CFR 390.5 (April 4, 1997; 62 FR 16406-
16407). The text of the guidance to be withdrawn is presented below.
The Agency requests public comment whether the guidance would still be
needed in view of the proposed revision to the GCWR definition.

Guidance to 49 CFR 383.5

    Question 3: If a vehicle's GVWR plate and/or vehicle identification
number (VIN) number are missing but its actual gross weight is 26,001
pounds or more, may an enforcement officer use the latter instead of
GVWR to determine the applicability of the part 383?
    Guidance: Yes. The only apparent reason to remove the
manufacturer's GVWR plate or VIN number is to make it impossible for
roadside enforcement officers to determine the applicability of part
383, which has a GVWR threshold of 26,001 pounds. In order to frustrate
willful evasion of safety regulations, an officer may therefore presume
that a vehicle which does not have a manufacturer's GVWR plate and/or
does not have a VIN number has a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more if: (1)
It has a size and configuration normally associated with vehicles that
have a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more; and (2) It has an actual gross
weight of 26,001 pounds or more.
    A motor carrier or driver may rebut the presumption by providing
the enforcement officer the GVWR plate, the VIN number or other
information of comparable reliability which demonstrates, or allows the
officer to determine, that the GVWR of the vehicle is below the
jurisdictional weight threshold.
    Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than
26,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load,
may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the
vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of part
383?
    Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight
rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is
used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher
GVWR, Sec.  390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual
gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle.

Guidance to 49 CFR 390.5

    Question 3: If a vehicle's GVWR plate and/or VIN number are missing
but its actual gross weight is 10,001 pounds or more, may an
enforcement officer use the latter instead of GVWR to determine the
applicability of the FMCSRs?
    Guidance: Yes. The only apparent reason to remove the
manufacturer's GVWR plate or VIN number is to make it impossible for
roadside enforcement officers to determine the applicability of the
FMCSRs, which have a GVWR threshold of 10,001 pounds. Therefore, an
officer may therefore presume that a

vehicle which does not have a manufacturer's GVWR plate and/or does not
have a VIN number has a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more if: (1) It has a
size and configuration normally associated with vehicles that have a
GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more; and/or (2) It has an actual gross weight
of 10,001 pounds or more.
    Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than
10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load,
may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the
vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the
FMCSRs?
    Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight
rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is
used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher
GVWR, Sec.  390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual
gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle.
    * * *
    Question 11: A company has a truck with a GVWR under 10,001 pounds
towing a trailer with a GVWR under 10,001 pounds. However, the GVWR of
the truck added to the GVWR of the trailer is greater than 10,001
pounds. Would the company operating this vehicle in interstate commerce
have to comply with the FMCSRs?
    Guidance: Section 390.5 of the FMCSRs includes in the definition of
CMV a vehicle with a GVWR or GCWR of 10,001 or more pounds. The section
further defines GCWR as the value specified by the manufacturer as the
loaded weight of a combination (articulated) vehicle. Therefore, if the
GVWR of the truck added to the GVWR of the trailer exceeds 10,001
pounds, the driver and vehicle are subject to the FMCSRs.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), or within
the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5
dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 2, 1979). While this rule may
affect some carriers and drivers not currently subject to some or all
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), the Agency is
unable to quantify this effect at this time. This rulemaking only
clarifies the definition of GCWR to eliminate confusion surrounding the
language of the existing definition and long-standing enforcement
practices. The rule will provide clear objective criteria for
determining the applicability of the FMCSRs when the GCWR is the
deciding factor. The cost, if any, would be borne by motor carriers and
drivers that had previously determined by reference to the GCWR wording
that their operations were not subject to certain safety regulations,
but that would now be required to achieve compliance with the
applicable rules. The Agency believes this population to be negligible,
and that the costs of the rule would not begin to approach the $100
million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the
Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional
or public interest. This proposed rule therefore has not been formally
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L.
104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), the proposed rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because the proposed rule would only clarify existing
rules by providing clear objective criteria for determining the
applicability of the FMCSRs when the GCWR is not included on the FMVSS
certification label required by NHTSA.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law
or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA
has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and determined that it
does not have Federalism implications.

E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined
that this proposed rule will not create an environmental risk to health
or safety

that may disproportionately affect children.

E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Privacy Impact Assessment

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

E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. There is no new information collection requirement
associated with this NPRM.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Therefore, this NPRM is categorically excluded (CE)
from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph
6(b) of Appendix 2. The CE under paragraph 6(b) addresses rulemakings
that make editorial or other minor amendments to existing FMCSA
regulations. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for
inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under E.O. 13211.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore,
FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA proposes to amend title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, parts 383 and
390, as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs.
214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec.
1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140, Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.5 by revising the definition of ``gross combination
weight rating'' to read as follows:

Sec.  383.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Gross combination weight rating (GCWR) is the greater of:
    (1) A value specified by the manufacturer of the power unit if
displayed on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
certification label required by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; or
    (2) The sum of the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) or the
gross vehicle weights (GVWs) of the power unit and the towed unit(s),
or any combination thereof, that produces the highest value.
* * * * *

PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL

0
3. The authority citation for part 390 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144,
31151, and 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-
1678; secs. 212, 217, and 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748,
1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4114
and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 114,

1745; sections 32101(d) and 34934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405,
778, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
4. Amend Sec.  390.5 by revising the definition of ``gross combination
weight rating'' to read as follows:

Sec.  390.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Gross combination weight rating (GCWR) is the greater of:
    (1) A value specified by the manufacturer of the power unit if
displayed on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
certification label required by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; or
    (2) The sum of the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) or the
gross vehicle weights (GVWs) of the power unit and the towed unit(s),
or any combination thereof, that produces the highest value.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
April 19, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-10735 Filed 5-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P