[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15020-15022]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07236]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85553; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule

April 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 27, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective April 1, 2019. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to
introduce a Floor Broker Volume Rebate Program (``FB Volume Rebate'')
for Floor Broker organizations (each a ``Floor Broker'').
    The Exchange proposes to offer Floor Brokers the opportunity to
qualify for a $5,000 rebate each month that the Floor Broker increases
its Average Daily Volume (``ADV'') by a certain percentage over one of
two benchmarks. Specifically, a Floor Broker may qualify for the FB
Volume Rebate by increasing its contract sides in billable manual ADV
by at least 50% over the greater of:
    (i) 20,000 contract sides in billable manual ADV; or
    (ii) The Floor Broker's total billable manual ADV in contract sides
during the second half of 2018--i.e., July through December 2018.
    As proposed, the Exchange would exclude Customer volume, Firm
Facilitation trades, and QCCs from the calculation of a Floor Broker's
billable manual ADV for purposes of the FB Volume Rebate. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to exclude from the FB Volume Rebate any volume
included in the calculation to achieve the Firm Monthly Fee Cap and the
Strategy Execution Fee Cap, regardless of whether either of these caps
is achieved, because fees on such volume are already capped and
therefore such volume does not increase billable manual volume.
    For example, if a Floor Broker achieves 30,000 contract sides
(i.e., an increase of 50% over 20,000--the minimum volume requirement
under the first benchmark), that Floor Broker would qualify for the
monthly $5,000 FB Volume Rebate. However, if that Floor Broker's
billable manual ADV in contract sides during the second half of 2018
was 30,000, that Floor Broker would have to achieve at least 45,000
contract sides (i.e., an increase of 50% over 30,000) to receive the
rebate--as the FB Volume Rebate applies to the ``50% over the greater
of'' the two benchmarks, which in this case would be the Floor Broker's
2018 second half of year volume.
    As described above, the Exchange proposes to enumerate which volume
would be excluded from the calculation for the FB Rebate Volume. If not
specifically enumerated, volume would be eligible to be included in the
calculation. For example, Floor Brokers that participate in the Floor
Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive

Program (the ``FB Prepay Program'') \4\ may apply the same monthly
contract sides in billable ADV to qualify for both the FB Volume Rebate
and the Percentage Growth Incentive available via the FB Prepay Program
provided the Floor Broker meets the (different) requirements of each
incentive program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Section III.E (Floor Broker Fixed Cost
Prepayment Incentive Program), available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf, (providing that the
Percentage Growth Incentive allows participating Floor Broker's
[sic] to qualify for incrementally larger discounts on prepaid
Eligible Fixed Costs by increasing their ADV during 2019 by
incrementally increasing percentages (i.e., 30%, 65% or 100%,
respectively), above the greater of: (i) 11,000 contract sides in
billable manual ADV; or (ii) 110% of the Floor Broker's total
billable manual ADV in contract sides during the second half of
2017--i.e., July through December 2017).
    \5\ Consistent with the Exchange's practice of applying monthly
credits/rebates, the FB Volume Rebate (when achieved) would be paid
monthly on a one-month lag (i.e., if a Floor Broker achieves the
benchmark in May 2019, the $5,000 Rebate will be applied in July
2019); whereas the Percentage Growth Incentive earned in 2019 would
be paid in January 2020. See, e.g., Fee Schedule, Section III.E
(providing that ``[p]articipating Floor Broker organizations that
qualify for the Percentage Growth Incentive will receive their 2019
rebate in January 2020'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section III.E of the Fee Schedule to
reflect the FB Volume Rebate by adding a new heading under Section E
entitled ``Floor Broker Programs,'' renumbering current Section III.E
as Section III.E.1 and adding the proposed FB Volume Rebate as proposed
Section III.E.2 to the Fee Schedule.\6\ The proposed FB Volume Rebate
is designed to encourage Floor Brokers to increase their ADV in
billable manual contract sides, regardless of whether the Floor Broker
participates in the FB Prepay Programs [sic], as this should encourage
more manual volume to be directed to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to the
Table of Contents. See proposed Fee Schedule, Table of Contents,
Preface, Section III.E., 1., 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\8\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to introduce the FB Volume Rebate is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.
First, the Exchange is offering two alternative means to achieve the
same rebate to ensure that Floor Brokers that are new to the Exchange
(or Floor Brokers that did not execute more than 20,000 ADV in contract
sides in the second half of 2018) could nonetheless be eligible for the
FB Volume Rebate. The Exchange believes that 20,000 ADV is a reasonable
minimum threshold above which a participating Floor Broker would need
to increase volume in order to earn the proposed rebate. For Floor
Brokers that exceeded the 20,000 ADV in the second half of 2018, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to use each Floor Broker's
historical volume as a benchmark against which to measure future growth
to earn the proposed rebate. Regardless of which benchmark a Floor
Broker's growth is measured against, all Floor Brokers that aim to
achieve the rebate would be required to increase volume executed on the
Exchange. Thus, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to qualifying Floor Brokers equally
and because Floor Brokers serve an important function in facilitating
the execution of orders via open outcry, which as a price-improvement
mechanism, the Exchange wishes to encourage and support.
    Moreover, offering incentives to encourage Floor Broker executions
of manual volume is not new or novel as other options exchanges provide
incentives to other specific market participants for achieving volume
levels, including the Percentage Growth Incentive on the Exchange for
Floor Brokers that participated in the FB Prepay Program.\9\ For
example, the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') offers a $9,000 or $15,000
rebate to Cboe floor brokers that execute an average of 14,000 or
25,0000, respectively, ``customer and/or professional customer and
voluntary professional open-outcry contracts per day over the course of
a calendar month in all underlying symbols,'' with certain enumerated
exclusions.\10\ Like similar offerings on the Exchange and at other
options exchange, the Exchange believes the proposed FB Volume Rebate
would similarly incent Floor Brokers to increase their billable volume
executed in open outcry on the Exchange, which would benefit all market
participants by expanding liquidity and providing more trading
opportunities, even to non-Floor Broker market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4.
    \10\ See Cboe Fee Schedule, footnote 25 (at p. 19), available
here: http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
The Exchange notes that, unlike Cboe, it excludes Customer
executions from qualifying volumes, while Cboe specifies excluded
indices and symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed organizational and non-
substantive changes to the rule text to incorporate the proposed FB
Volume Rebate under Section III.E of the Fee Schedule would provide
clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule
Exchange rules and would to protect investors and the investing public
by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and comprehend.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because while the proposed change benefits Floor Brokers that reach the
qualifying volume thresholds, Floor Brokers serve an important function
in facilitating the execution of orders via open outcry, which promotes
price discovery on the public markets. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed change only affects trading on
the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change makes the Exchange
a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange
market participants.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it
establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-09 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-NYSEAMER-2019-09. 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-NYSEAMER-2019-09 and should be submitted
on or before May 3, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07236 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24535-24543]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0012]
RIN 2127-AM54

Side Underride Guards

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This ANPRM responds to Section 23011(c) of the November 2021
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly referred to as
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which directs the Secretary to
conduct research on side underride guards to better understand their
overall effectiveness, and assess the feasibility, benefits, costs, and
other impacts of installing side underride guards on trailers and
semitrailers. The BIL further directs the Secretary to report the
findings of the research in a Federal Register notice to seek public
comment. In addition, this ANPRM also responds to a petition for
rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition
(TSC).

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
docket receives them not later than June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
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 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their
name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names
is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully considered.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for
confidentiality are governed by 49 CFR part 512. NHTSA is currently
treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief
Counsel at [email protected] or you may contact him for a
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket at the address given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Ms. Lina Valivullah, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone)<PHONE_NUMBER>, (email)
[email protected].
    For legal issues: Ms. Callie Roach, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590, (telephone)<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(email) [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Overview
    a. Side Underride Guards
    b. Petitions and Related Rulemakings
    c. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    d. GAO Recommendation
    e. Purpose of This ANPRM
III. Research, Benefits, and Costs
    a. Crash Data
    b. Side Underride Guard Effectiveness
    c. Benefits
    d. Costs
    e. Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
    f. Sensitivity Analysis
    g. Summary of Analysis
IV. Request for Comment
V. Rulemaking Analyses
VI. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    This ANPRM responds to Section 23011(c) of the BIL that directs the
Secretary to complete research on side underride guards to better
understand their overall effectiveness, and to assess the feasibility,
benefits, and costs of, and any impacts on intermodal equipment,
freight mobility, and freight capacity associated with, installing side
underride guards on new trailers and semitrailers. The BIL further
directs the Secretary to report the findings of the research in a
Federal Register notice to seek public comment. NHTSA is also issuing
this ANPRM in response to a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Karth and
TSC (the Petitioners) to begin studies and rulemakings on side
underride guards and front override guards on trucks. NHTSA initiated
research on side underride guards following a March 2019 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation to conduct additional
research on side underride guards to better understand the overall
effectiveness and cost associated with these guards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO Report to Congressional Requestors, ``Truck Underride
Guards--Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research
Needed,'' March 14, 2019, (GAO-19-264), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM summarizes a 2022 NHTSA report that presents an analysis
of the potential effects of a requirement for side underride guards on
new trailers and semitrailers pursuant to Section 23011(c) of the BIL
and the March 2019 GAO recommendation. The report, titled, ``Side
Impact Guards for Combination Truck Trailers: Cost-Benefit Analysis,''
is referred to as the ``2022 NHTSA report'' in this ANPRM and is
provided in the docket to this ANPRM.\2\ The report details analyses of
crash databases for estimating annual fatalities and serious injuries
in side underride crashes and NHTSA's analysis of the benefits and
costs of requiring trailers to be equipped with side underride guards
to mitigate injuries and fatalities resulting from side underride
crashes involving light passenger vehicles and trailers and
semitrailers. This report provides a preliminary estimate that would
inform any benefit-cost analysis that NHTSA would conduct under E.O.
12866 if the agency were to propose a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) to require side underride guards on trailers and semi-
trailers. NHTSA estimates that 17.2 lives would be saved and 69 serious
injuries would be prevented annually when all trailers in the fleet are
equipped with side underride guards. The discounted annual safety
benefits when side underride guards are equipped on all applicable
trailers and semitrailers are estimated to range from $129 million to
$166 million at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The total discounted
annual cost (including lifetime fuel cost) of equipping new trailers
and semitrailers with side underride guards is estimated to range
between $970 million and $1.2 billion at 3 and 7 percent discount
rates. The resulting cost per equivalent life saved is in the range of
$73.5 million to $103.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The report may be obtained by downloading it or by
contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number
provided at the beginning of this document. Note that the report
uses the term ``combination truck (CT)'' to mean ``tractor-
trailer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency requests comments that would help NHTSA assess and make
judgments on the benefits, costs, and other impacts of side underride
guards to increase protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in
crashes into the sides of trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM
summarizes NHTSA's research and requests comment on the accuracy of the
estimated benefits, costs, and other impacts of requiring side
underride guards on heavy trailers and semitrailers.
    NHTSA requests comments on approaches to potentially mitigate or
eliminate these horrific crashes given the disparity in vehicle size
and crash outcome. Are there alternative engineering solutions to
mitigate underride crashes into the sides of trailers? Are there non-
regulatory actions that could be taken to decrease side underride
crashes? Public comment, with supporting data or analysis, is sought
for advanced technologies and design solutions to reduce deaths and
serious injuries resulting from underride crashes into the sides of
trailers.

II. Overview

a. Side Underride Guards

    Underride crashes are those in which the front end of a vehicle
impacts a generally larger vehicle and slides under the chassis of the
impacted vehicle. Side underride may occur in collisions in which a
passenger vehicle crashes into the side of a large trailer or
semitrailer (referred to in this ANPRM collectively as ``trailers'')
\3\ because the trailer bed is higher than the hood of the passenger
vehicle. In passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) crashes, the
passenger vehicle underrides to the extent that the side of the struck
vehicle intrudes into the passenger compartment. PCI crashes can result
in passenger vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities caused by
occupant contact with intruding components of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A trailer or semitrailer is typically drawn by another motor
vehicle referred to as a ``tractor''. The combination of the trailer
and the tractor is referred to as a ``tractor-trailer'' in this
ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM focuses on side underride guards on trailers to prevent
a passenger vehicle from sliding under the trailer in the event of a
collision. The guard must be strong enough to withstand the forces of
the crash. Other side structures that are sometimes installed on
trailers and semitrailers include aerodynamic skirts, which are
designed for fuel efficiency, and ``lateral protection devices,'' which
are intended to prevent pedestrians or cyclists from falling in front
of the trailer's rear wheels. Aerodynamic skirts and lateral protection
devices are generally not strong enough to prevent underride of a
passenger vehicle in a crash. Internationally, side underride guards on
trailers to prevent vehicle underride are not required by any country,
though some countries have a requirement for lateral protection
devices.
    There are currently no Federal requirements for side underride
guards on trailers. NHTSA specifies requirements for rear impact guards
on trailers in Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 223
and 224. FMVSS No. 223, an ``equipment standard,'' specifies
performance requirements for rear impact guards on new trailers and
semitrailers. FMVSS No. 224, a ``vehicle standard,'' requires most new
trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or more to be equipped with a rear
impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223.

b. Petitions and Related Rulemakings

    NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth
and the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) on

September 12, 2013, requesting that the agency increase the stringency
and applicability of current requirements for rear impact (underride)
guards and begin studies and rulemakings on side underride guards and
front override guards on trucks. In response, NHTSA published an ANPRM
on July 23, 2015, requesting comment on NHTSA's estimated costs and
benefits of requiring rear impact guards and retroreflective tape on
single unit trucks (SUTs).\4\ Additionally, NHTSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 16, 2015 to increase the
stringency of the current rear impact guard requirements by aligning
with Transport Canada's rear impact guard standard that ensures
protection to passenger car occupants in 56 kilometers per hour (km/h)
(35 miles per hour (mph)) impacts into the rear of trailers and
semitrailers.\5\ NHTSA completed this rulemaking by issuing a final
rule on July 15, 2022 to upgrade FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,''
and FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' to improve occupant
protection in crashes of passenger vehicles into the rear of trailers
and semitrailers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 43663, RIN 2127-AL57.
    \5\ 80 FR 78418, RIN 2127-AL58.
    \6\ 87 FR 42339, RIN 2127-AL58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the December 2015 NPRM, on February 4, 2021, Mr.
Jerry Karth and Ms. Marianne Karth, along with 23 other signatories,
submitted a ``Petition for Comprehensive Underride Supplemental
Rulemaking'' requesting enhanced front, side, and rear underride
protection on commercial motor vehicles. In response to the September
2013 and February 2021 petitions for rulemaking regarding requirements
for side underride guards, this ANPRM seeks comment on NHTSA's
estimated costs and benefits of requiring side underride guards on new
trailers and semitrailers.

c. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly referred to as the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL).\7\ Section 23011 of the BIL specifies
provisions for underride protection measures for trailers and
semitrailers. As discussed in detail below, the provisions direct the
Secretary to conduct additional research on side underride guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 23011(c)(1)(A) of the BIL directs the Secretary to
complete, not later than 1 year after enactment of the Act, additional
research on side underride guards to better understand the overall
effectiveness of the guards. Section 23011(c)(1)(B) requires the
Secretary to assess, among other matters, the feasibility, benefits,
and costs of, and any impacts on intermodal equipment, freight mobility
(including port operations), and freight capacity associated with,
installing side underride guards on new trailers and semitrailers with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. Section
23011(c)(1)(C) requires consideration of the unique structural and
operational aspects of intermodal chassis and pole trailers. Section
23011(c)(1)(D) directs the Secretary to develop performance standards
for side underride guards, if warranted.
    Section 23011(c)(3) of the BIL directs the Secretary to publish the
results of the side underride guard assessment specified in Section
23011(c)(1)(B) within 90 days of completion of the assessment and
provide an opportunity for public comment. Section 23011(c)(4) then
directs that, within 90 days from the date the comment period closes,
the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the assessment
results, a summary of comments received, and a determination whether
the Secretary intends to develop performance requirements for side
underride guards, including any analysis that led to that
determination.

d. GAO Recommendation

    In March 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published
a Report to Congressional Requesters on Truck Underride Guards.\8\
Based on the findings of this report, GAO recommended that the
Department of Transportation (DOT) take steps to provide a standardized
definition of underride crashes and data fields, share information with
police departments on identifying underride crashes, establish annual
inspection requirements for rear impact guards, and conduct additional
research on side underride guards. Specifically, regarding the
research, recommendation 4 of the report stated that ``The
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better
understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these
guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.''
The Department of Transportation (DOT) concurred with this
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ GAO Report to Congressional Requestors, ``Truck Underride
Guards--Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research
Needed,'' March 14, 2019, (GAO-19-264), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Purpose of This ANPRM

    In this ANPRM, the agency discusses the research and analysis of
side underride crashes detailed in its 2022 report and the potential
effects of a requirement for side underride guards on new trailers, and
requests comments on the information presented. The agency seeks
information that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the
benefits, costs, and other impacts of side underride guards to increase
protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in crashes into the
sides of trailers.

III. Research, Benefits, and Costs

    This section summarizes the analyses of crash data and estimates of
benefits, costs, and cost effectiveness of a requirement for side
underride guards on new trailers that is detailed in the 2022 NHTSA
report pursuant to Section 23011(c) of the BIL and the March 2019 GAO
recommendation.

a. Crash Data

    In order to estimate annual fatalities and injuries associated with
side underride crashes, NHTSA analyzed crash data involving light
passenger vehicles \9\ and tractor-trailers. The analysis focused on
crashes in which the tractor-trailer received damage to the side or
undercarriage and the passenger vehicle received damage to the front or
top of the vehicle. In other words, the analysis considered side
impact, sideswipe, and angled crashes between the two vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Light passenger vehicles include passenger cars, light
trucks, and vans with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) of 10,000
pounds or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data sources for this analysis included the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) 2008-2017, National Automotive Sampling System
General Estimates System (GES) 2008-2015, National Automotive Sampling
System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) 2006-2015, and Crash
Report Sampling System (CRSS) 2016-2017.\10\ NHTSA used 2008-2017 FARS
data to identify fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles and the
sides of trailers. GES data from 2011 to 2015 and CRSS data from 2016
and 2017 provided the general patterns of occupant injuries in crashes
of passenger vehicles with the sides of trailers. NASS-CDS data from
2006 to 2015 were used to estimate the relative velocity distributions
associated with occupant injury severities in side underride crashes.
The

effects of other crash factors on the number of fatalities and
effectiveness of side underride guards were also considered in the
analysis. In addition, the agency reviewed documents cited by the
Petitioners in the context of side underride crashes for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Information on NHTSA's databases are available at Crash
Data Systems [bond] NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop a better understanding of vehicle underride into the
side of tractor-trailers, NHTSA conducted a review of Police Crash
Reports (PCRs) of all two-vehicle crashes involving a light vehicle
crashing into the side of a tractor-trailer in 2017 FARS. In addition
to the coded elements in the PCR, the review included the crash
narrative, interviews, scene diagrams, and photographs. The PCR review
provided details to determine the impact location on the tractor-
trailer, whether underride and/or PCI of the light passenger vehicle
occurred, whether the impact speed was less than or equal to 64 km/h
(40 mph), and whether side underride guards located between front and
rear trailer wheels would have mitigated fatalities and injuries. For
cases with insufficient information to determine underride, the agency
conducted further investigations to obtain crash and vehicle damage
details. Of the 184 PCRs reviewed in the 2017 FARS data files, NHTSA
determined that 92 crashes of a light passenger vehicle into the side
of tractor-trailers involved underride while FARS reported only 52
crashes with underride. NHTSA also determined that among the 184 cases,
105 light passenger vehicle fatalities occurred in crashes with
underride while FARS reported only 59 fatalities in crashes with
underride. Based on this information, NHTSA estimated that the actual
number of fatalities associated with side underride was 78 percent
higher than reported in FARS (= 105/59-1). As noted in the 2019 GAO
report on underride, previous evaluations of underride data have
indicated that vehicle underride is underreported in FARS. The PCR
review provided a best estimate of the current underreporting of side
underride crashes in the FARS data files. The agency's analysis of side
underride crashes therefore adjusts for the level of underreporting in
FARS.
    To obtain a more accurate estimate of fatalities associated with
side underride crashes, NHTSA considered the extent of underreporting
of side underride crash fatalities determined from the detailed review
of PCRs of front-to-side crashes of a passenger vehicle and a tractor-
trailer identified in the 2017 FARS data together with results from an
analysis of the 2008-2017 FARS data files. Analysis of the FARS data
revealed that the annual average number of light passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities in crashes with the sides of tractor-trailers was
212, of which 50 fatalities (about 24 percent) were attributed to side
underride crashes. NHTSA estimated, taking into account the 78 percent
greater number of underride fatalities than that reported in FARS, that
on an annual average, there are 89 (= 50 x 1.78) light passenger
vehicle occupant fatalities in two-vehicle crashes with tractor-
trailers (trailer along with the vehicle with motive power drawing the
trailer or semitrailer) where a light passenger vehicle strikes the
side of a tractor-trailer and underrides it.
    From the analysis of NASS-GES 2011-2015 and the CRSS 2016-2017 data
files, NHTSA estimated there are 230 serious injuries to light
passenger vehicle occupants in underride crashes into the side of
trailers. After applying the estimated 78 percent greater number of
side underride fatalities than that in NHTSA databases to serious
injuries, we estimate an average of 409 (= 230 x 1.78) serious injuries
to light passenger vehicle occupants in underride crashes into the side
of trailers annually.
    The agency reviewed additional documents cited by the Petitioners
in the context of side underride crashes. In a 2012 paper, Brumbelow
used the Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) \11\ data files for the
three-year period from 2006 to 2008 and estimated that on an annual
average, there are 530 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in two-
vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle impacting the side of a
truck.\12\ Brumbelow noted that 20 percent of the side-impacted trucks
were straight trucks and the remaining were tractor-trailers or
tractors without trailers. Brumbelow also noted that TIFA did not
provide information on the impact location (impact with tractor,
between tractor and trailer, between front and rear axles of the
trailer, or behind the trailer rear wheels), and that not all of the
fatalities and injuries in the crashes were due to underride. In a 2017
news release, IIHS stated that in 2015, 301 passenger vehicle occupants
were killed in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle
impacting the side of a tractor-trailer.13 14 Additional
information on the data source and the percentage of crashes with
underride was not provided in this 2017 news release. Since the data in
these two documents cited by the petitioners are not specific to
vehicle underride, the data could not be used to estimate fatalities or
injuries in crashes involving vehicle underride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ TIFA contains records for all medium and heavy trucks that
were involved in fatal traffic crashes in the 50 States of the
United States and the District of Columbia for the years 1980 to
2010. The TIFA database provides additional detail beyond that in
the FARS data files. Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) and Buses in
Fatal Accidents (BIFA) [bond] National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).
    \12\ Matthew L. Brumbelow (2012) Potential Benefits of Underride
Guards in Large Truck Side Crashes, Traffic Injury Prevention, 13:6,
592-599, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2012.666595.
    \13\ IIHS News Release, ``IIHS crash tests reveal benefits of
underride guards for the sides of semitrailers,'' 2017.
    \14\ IIHS also cited requirements in some U.S. cities for ``side
guards on city-owned and/or contracted trucks.'' However, these are
lateral protection devices for protecting pedestrian and bicyclists,
and are unlikely to prevent vehicle underride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA used the available crash data along with the detailed PCR
reviews to account for any underreporting of side underrides and
associated fatalities. The data sources used form the most
comprehensive set available to determine the number of fatalities and
serious injuries to light vehicle occupants in side underride crashes
with trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM seeks comment on whether
additional data sources provide information about the frequency of side
underride crashes, injuries, and fatalities or whether the data sources
on which NHTSA relied could be improved.

b. Side Underride Guard Effectiveness

    Side underride guards are not currently required on trailers by any
country. At the time of this analysis, the agency is aware of only one
side underride guard system intended to mitigate side underrides and
PCI that has been crash tested by a third party and is available for
installation on trailers in the United States. The AngelWing guard,
manufactured by AirFlow Deflector, is largely constructed of steel and
has an off-the-shelf weight of 450 to 800 pounds depending on the
specific configuration.\15\ In 2017, the IIHS tested the AngelWing side
underride guard. In the first evaluation, a midsize sedan struck the
side of a trailer at 56 km/h (35 mph). The first crash was conducted
with only an aerodynamic fiberglass side skirt on the trailer and
resulted in vehicle underride. In the second crash, the trailer had the
AngelWing device installed; the guard bent in the crash but the sedan
did not underride the trailer. Another crash test was conducted by IIHS
later in 2017 at 64 km/h (40 mph) with similar results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AirFlow Deflector, https://airflowdeflector.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Side underride guard designs that have not been finalized, tested,
and

made available for purchase and installation on trailers have not been
included in this analysis of guard costs and benefits because
information needed for conducting the analysis are not available for
these designs. For example, a ``lateral protection system'' made by
Canadian firm PHSS Fortier for trailers in the United States was not
included because test results, pricing information, and effectiveness
data are unavailable.\16\ NHTSA requests information on side underride
guards that have been fully developed and tested and are currently
available for installation on trailers in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The system comprises multiple vinyl belts and weighs
approximately 540 pounds (245 kg). The system is designed to
function as a side underride guard, aerodynamic skirt, and
pedestrian/cyclist guard. It reportedly has been tested by PHSS
Fortier at impact speeds up to 35 mph. https://protectionlaterale.ca/en/our-product-lateral-protection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the PCR review of 184 relevant cases in the 2017 FARS data
files, NHTSA estimated that 19.9 percent of side underride fatalities
occurred at impact speeds below 64 km/h (40 mph). For evaluating the
benefits of side underride guards, the subset of crashes at impact
speeds below 64 km/h (40 mph) are relevant because 64 km/h (40 mph) is
the maximum impact speed at which the existing side underride guard
considered in this analysis have demonstrated passenger vehicle
occupant protection.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AngelWing side guard tested by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) mitigated underride of light passenger
vehicles in crashes into the side of trailers at impact speeds up to
64 km/h (40 mph). https://airflowdeflector.com/angelwing_underride-1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the effect of a side underride guard requirement on
safety outcomes, we need an estimate of the effectiveness of side
underride guards on trailers in mitigating fatalities and serious
injuries. Based on NHTSA's PCR review and the available AngelWing side
guard test data, NHTSA assumed (1) side underrides occur where a side
guard would be located (between the fifth wheel/kingpin and rear
axles), and (2) a zero-percent failure rate of side guards in
preventing underride for vehicles that strike the side guards at impact
speeds of 64 km/h (40 mph) or less. The agency also estimated the
latent risk of fatality and serious injury when a side guard
successfully transforms what would have been an underride into a
frontal collision using a NHTSA analysis of fatality risk in frontal
collisions as a function of change in velocity.\18\ Taking into account
seat belt use along with the latent risk of fatality, the agency
estimated a 3 percent fatality risk in mitigated side underrides.
Subtracting this estimated fatality risk in mitigated side underrides
yields a 97 percent effectiveness of side underride guards in
mitigating fatalities in underride crashes into the side of trailers at
impact speeds 64 km/h (40 mph) or less. A similar process was used for
estimating the effectiveness of side underride guards in mitigating
serious injuries. NHTSA estimated 85 percent effectiveness of side
underride guards in mitigating serious injuries in underride crashes
into the side of trailers at impact speeds 64 km/h (40 mph) or less.
Details of the methods used for estimating effectiveness of side
underride guards are provided in the 2022 NHTSA report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Wang, J.-S. (2021). MAIS (05/08) Injury Probability Curves
as Functions of Delta-V. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Benefits

    Section 6 of Executive Order 12866 directs NHTSA to conduct a
benefit/cost analysis of any proposed regulatory requirements.
    NHTSA estimated the benefits of equipping trailers with side
underride guards by first calculating the total number of fatalities
and serious injuries avoided if all trailers were equipped with side
underride guards.
    NHTSA estimated that there are annually 89 light vehicle occupant
fatalities and 409 serious injuries in two-vehicle crashes with
tractor-trailers where a light passenger vehicle strikes the side of a
tractor-trailer and underrides it. This estimate accounts for the 78
percent higher number of underride fatalities than that in NHTSA's
crash databases. Since only 19.9 percent of side underride crashes are
at impact speed 64 km/h (40 mph) or less for which side underride
guards would be effective, NHTSA estimates the target population for
side underride guards as 17.7 (= 89 x 0.199) fatalities and 81 (= 409 x
0.199) serious injuries. Using side underride guard effectiveness of 97
percent for mitigating fatalities in crashes with impact speeds less
than or equal to 64 km/h and 85 percent for mitigating serious
injuries, NHTSA estimated that 17.2 (= 17.7 x 0.97) lives would be
saved and 69 (= 81 x 0.85) serious injuries would be prevented annually
when all trailers in the fleet are equipped with side underride guards.
    NHTSA uses a ``value of statistical life'' (VSL) to monetize
benefits of lives saved and injuries prevented by regulations. The VSL
for NHTSA's analysis is based on the 2021 Department of Transportation
Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis,\19\
with a VSL of $11.9 million in 2020 dollars. NHTSA's analysis
incorporates components of the economic costs of fatalities and
injuries, including medical, EMS, market productivity, household
productivity, insurance administration, workplace, legal, congestion,
travel delay, and the nontangible value of physical pain and loss of
quality of life (i.e., quality adjusted life years, QALYs).\20\ NHTSA's
analysis applies the same process to estimate the economic costs of
serious injuries associated with side underride crashes. Using these
comprehensive costs of fatalities and injuries, NHTSA estimated that
the discounted lifetime safety benefits in 2020 dollars when side
underride guards are equipped on all applicable trailers and
semitrailers would be $165.9 million at a 3 percent discount rate and
$128.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate. This represents a benefit
of approximately $640 per trailer or semitrailer at a 3-percent
discount rate ($490 per trailer or semitrailer at a 7% discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in
Economic Analysis [verbar] US Department of Transportation.
    \20\ The comprehensive economic costs of injury are detailed in
the 2022 NHTSA Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates do not account for the potential effects of
advanced driver assistance technologies (ADAS) such as automatic
emergency braking, blind spot detection, and lane keeping technologies,
which could reduce the number of crashes even without the presence of
underride guards. ADAS is expected to help mitigate underrides by
preventing collisions and mitigating impact speeds, which would reduce
the number of fatalities and serious injuries relevant to this
analysis, but NHTSA does not have sufficient data to account for this
effect. Additionally, because side underride occurs predominantly at
impact speeds above 40 mph, protective effects from ADAS above 40 mph
could generate a large increase in the safety benefits. However, we do
not have information available on the degree to which side underride
guards may offer passenger vehicle occupant protection above the test
speed of 40 mph. The agency requests data on additional factors that
affect the estimated benefits of side underride guards on trailers and
semitrailers.

d. Costs

    NHTSA used the existing AngelWing system as the basis for the
price, weight, and installation costs of side underride guards on
trailers. Initial hardware cost for the AngelWing was listed at $2,897

per trailer at the time of data collection. We acknowledge that broad
adoption of side underride guards would likely lead to considerable
changes in the market, and thus it is feasible that the market would
experience downward price pressure due to increasing returns to scale
and competition from other potential suppliers. However, we do not have
sufficient information to project the impact on prices, and thus apply
the unadjusted price for this analysis. Installation is stated to
require fewer than two hours for two people. We assumed an average of
1.5 hours per person per trailer. With two people, we estimate 3 labor
hours per trailer at $31 per hour \21\ for a total labor cost of $93
per trailer. The average total cost of installing side underride guards
on a trailer, including hardware and labor, was therefore estimated to
be $2,990 in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for an
automotive repair worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that a requirement for side underride guard would apply
to 260,000 new trailers and semitrailers sold annually. Given these
figures, the total annual initial cost for equipping all applicable new
trailers with side underride guards would be approximately $778
million. This cost estimate does not include any additional costs
associated with reinforcing trailers to accommodate the side underride
guards and any associated changes to trailer loading patterns. We
acknowledge that such costs would add to total hardware, installation,
and operating costs. However, we do not have sufficient information
available to estimate these additional costs.
    We also calculated lifetime incremental fuel costs for applicable
trailers in the fleet subject to a side underride guard requirement.
With an estimated ratio of one Class 8 truck per two trailers, the
equivalent of 130,000 trucks would carry new trailers equipped with
side underride guards. We assumed that 40 percent of all applicable new
trailers would be equipped with aerodynamic side skirts, which reduce
per-mile fuel costs. With a weight increase of 450 to 800 pounds per
trailer, requiring side underride guards is estimated to increase
lifetime fuel costs for new trailers entering the fleet each year by
approximately $250 million to $430 million at a 3 percent discount
rate, and approximately $200 million to $340 million at a 7% discount
rate. Incremental fuel costs represent between approximately one-fourth
and two-fifths of estimated total costs, depending on the side
underride guard weight and the discount rate.
    Under a side underride guard requirement, total annual costs for
new trailers were estimated to increase by $1.02 billion to $1.20
billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and $970 million to $1.12 billion
at a 7 percent discount rate, depending on the weight of the guards.
The cost per trailer would be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 at a 3-
percent discount rate, and $3,740 to $4,300 at a 7% discount rate. We
assumed that the annual sales of trailers and semitrailers would remain
the same in the future, and consequently the annual cost of equipping
new trailers with side underride guards and the discounted lifetime
fuel costs remain the same in future years.
    These estimated cost impacts do not include additional costs that
accrue due to incremental wear and tear on equipped trailers. Side
underride guards may impose non-uniform loads on trailer floors, adding
stresses that decrease trailer lifetimes in the absence of repair. It
is possible that side underride guards would obstruct proper safety
inspections of the underside of the trailer. They may also strike or
entangle with road structures and loading area components, leading to
additional repair costs or restricted access to destinations. Another
unquantified cost could result from restrictions on trailer axle
configurations. The rear axles of trailers are commonly able to be
moved fore and aft to adjust to loading conditions; losing this
capability would add to operating costs. We seek comment on these
potential effects of installing side underride guards. Furthermore, the
estimated costs do not include any potential effects of side underride
guards on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity, and on
increased greenhouse gases and other pollutants resulting from
increased fuel consumption. We seek comment on the practicability and
feasibility of side underride guards regarding intermodal operations
and effects of side underride guards on intermodal equipment, freight
mobility, freight capacity, and port operations.

e. Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness

    The estimated benefits and costs discussed in the preceding
sections were used to calculate the net benefits for a side underride
guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers. The estimated annual
benefits, costs, and net benefits are summarized in Table 1. The
benefits and costs were also used to estimate the cost effectiveness
(cost per equivalent life saved). These values are summarized in Table
2.

    Table 1--Estimate of Annual Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Net
                                Benefits
 [Equipping 260,000 eligible new CT trailers with side underride guards,
                      in millions of 2020 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                Scenario                       rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits:
    Central Case........................          $165.9          $128.5
Total Costs:
    Low Cost Estimate: 450-Pound Side            1,022.5           972.7
     Guard Weight.......................
    High Cost Estimate: 800-Pound Side           1,203.8         1,117.2
     Guard Weight.......................
Net Benefits (total benefits less total
 costs):
    Low Cost Estimate, Central Case.....          -856.7          -844.2
    High Cost Estimate, Central Case....        -1,037.9          -988.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Table 2--Estimated Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
                      [in millions of 2020 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                Scenario                       rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Cost Estimate, Central Case.........           $73.5           $90.3
High Cost Estimate, Central Case........            86.6           103.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Sensitivity Analysis

    NHTSA also conducted a sensitivity analysis to consider the effects
of changes in cost assumptions and the effects of a larger target
population using the upper-bound underreporting factor from the FARS-
PCR analysis. The analytical inputs specified above in subsections a.
through e. (e.g., underreporting rate, hardware cost, vehicle miles
traveled) are the best representations of these values NHTSA could
develop based on available information and that set of inputs is
referred to as the ``central case.'' There is uncertainty in the
analytical inputs, however. In the sensitivity analysis, we explored
alternative values to identify the extent to which the relationship
between benefits and costs associated with a side underride guard
requirement changed as the inputs changed.
    NHTSA estimated 78 percent higher number of side underride
fatalities than that reported in FARS. Increasing the percent higher
number of side underride fatalities to that reported in FARS to 155
percent \22\ yields lifetime safety benefits of approximately $185
million to $240 million, at a 7 percent and 3 percent discount rate,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 155 percent is an upper bound of the higher number of
underride crash fatalities than that reported in FARS identified in
NHTSA's PCR review for crash speeds below 40 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the central case, we used a hardware cost equal to the assumed
baseline price for the AngelWing system. A 20 percent reduction in the
cost would reduce annual hardware costs by an estimated $151 million to
$603 million. With no assumed change in installation costs, the total
annual hardware and installation cost would be an estimated $627
million, versus $778 million in the central case.
    We also considered a sensitivity case in which the trailer vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) increased by five percent due to capacity and
operational constraints under a side underride guard requirement.\23\
The additional fuel cost impacts involve the incremental costs of
carrying all trailer weight (the original trailer weight plus the side
underride guard weight) across the five percent increment of VMT. The
resulting estimated incremental fuel costs dominate all other impact
measures in both the central analysis and the sensitivity analysis; a 5
percent increase in VMT would result in increased lifetime fuel costs
of approximately $2.0 to $2.5 billion at a 7 percent and 3 percent
discount rate, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The additional weight of side underride guards could
potentially reduce cargo capacity due to weight limitations and
shift some cargo to new truck trips that would not otherwise have
taken place, leading to higher VMT and greater operational costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the estimates above, we were able to examine a variety of
sensitivity cases. In all sensitivity cases, as in the analysis of the
central case presented in subsection a. through e., the net benefits of
a side underride guard requirement for all new trailers remain
negative. In the best-case scenario (i.e., 155 percent greater number
of fatalities than that reported in FARS and 20 percent lower hardware
costs), the lifetime net benefits are still negative (approximately -
$630 to -$640 million at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate,
respectively). We seek comment on other factors that could affect the
estimated net benefits of mandating side underride guards on trailers.

g. Summary of Analysis

    The analysis discussed in this document indicates that equipping
all new trailers with side underride guards would reduce the number of
fatalities and serious injuries for passenger vehicle occupants
associated with side underride crashes into trailers. Equipping a new
trailer with side underride guards is estimated to generate
approximately $640 in lifetime discounted safety benefits at a 3
percent discount rate under the central range of assumptions evaluated,
or approximately $490 per trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The
total discounted lifetime costs of equipping new trailers with side
underride guards are estimated to be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 per
trailer at a 3 percent discount rate, or approximately $3,740 to $4,300
per trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. On a per trailer basis, the
total discounted lifetime costs of equipping new trailers and
semitrailers with side underride guards is six to eight times the
corresponding estimated safety benefits. The net benefits for a side
underride guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers are estimated
to be in the range of $844 million to $1,038 million. The cost per
equivalent life saved is estimated to be in the range of $73.5 million
to $103.7 million.
    The analysis considered a range of input assumptions to account for
uncertainty in the size of the target population, hardware costs, and
fuel consumption impacts. The target population of fatalities and
serious injuries could increase if: (1) the baseline level of relevant
fatalities and serious injuries is much larger than estimated; or (2)
side underride guards provided some protection to passenger vehicle
occupants at impact speeds above 40 mph. The PCR review offered a
thorough analysis of one year's crashes and established a meaningful
estimate of the rate of side underride underreporting in FARS. By
basing our estimated target population on the underreporting rate from
the PCR review, we are confident that we have represented the target
population accurately. Side underride occurs predominantly at impact
speeds above 40 mph, so protective effects above 40 mph could generate
a large incremental improvement above the safety benefits estimated in
this analysis. However, we do not have data available on the degree to
which side underride guards may offer passenger vehicle occupant
protection at impact speeds above 40 mph.
    The results of this study reflect existing side underride guard
designs. It is possible that future designs may: mitigate side
underride at higher speeds (increasing safety benefits); have lower
hardware costs (reducing costs); or weigh less (reducing costs). There
are also unquantified factors that would be expected to reduce net
benefits. The safety benefits may be smaller than estimated due to
decreases in crash risks associated with ADAS, leading to a smaller
baseline level of side underride fatalities and serious injuries. Cost
impacts may also be larger than estimated due to increased VMT.
However, we do not have any data to support modified characteristics in
place of our baseline assumptions.

    The analysis did not include any effects of side underride guards
on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity. It did not
take into consideration modifications to infrastructure, maintenance
and practicability and feasibility of intermodal operations for
trailers equipped with side underride guards.

IV. Request for Comment

    NHTSA requests comments that would help the agency assess and make
judgments on the benefits, costs, and other impacts of requiring side
underride guards on trailers. In providing a comment on a particular
matter or in responding to a particular question, interested persons
are asked to provide any relevant factual information to support their
opinions, including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and
the source of such information. For easy reference, the questions below
are numbered consecutively.
    1. The injury target population was obtained by reviewing crash
data and estimating side underride underreporting in FARS through PCR
reviews. We seek comment on the estimated injury target population
resulting from underride crashes with PCI into the side of trailers.
    2. The agency assumed side underride guard effectiveness of 97
percent for fatalities and 85 percent for serious injuries in light
vehicle crashes with PCI into the sides of trailers at speeds up to 40
mph. We seek comment on this effectiveness estimate.
    3. In estimating benefits, the agency assumed that side impact
guards would mitigate fatalities and injuries in light vehicle impacts
with PCI into the sides of trailers at impact speeds up to 40 mph. We
recognize, however, that benefits may accrue from underride crashes at
speeds higher than 40 mph. We seek information on quantifying possible
benefits of side impact guards in crashes at speeds above 40 mph.
    4. Are there other benefits that NHTSA has not considered that
could be used to justify a mandate for side underride guards? The
agency seeks information and supporting rationale concerning these
additional benefits of side underride guards.
    5. In estimating benefits, NHTSA did not account for the potential
effects of advanced driver assistance technologies (ADAS) which could
reduce the number of crashes independently of the presence of underride
guards. The agency requests data on additional factors that affect the
estimated benefits of side underride guards on trailers and
semitrailers.
    6. In estimating costs, the agency did not include the cost and
weight of strengthening the beams, frame rails, and floor of the
trailer to accommodate side underride guards. NHTSA seeks information
on changes that would be required and the additional costs resulting
from these changes.
    7. NHTSA's cost estimates were based on the AngelWing side
underride guard manufactured by Airflow Deflector. NHTSA seeks relevant
information on side underride guards that have been fully developed and
tested and are currently available for installation on trailers in the
United States.
    8. NHTSA did not take into consideration the practicability and
feasibility of side underride guards on trailer and semitrailer
operations. Could side underride guards scrape or snag on the road
surface when the vehicle travels over humped surfaces such as a
highway-rail crossing, or when the vehicle enters a steep loading dock
ramp? Could this interaction of side underride guards with the ground
disable movement of the trailer and significantly damage the side
underride guards, thereby requiring their replacement? We seek
information on the effects of side underride guards on trailer and
semitrailer operations.
    9. The analysis did not account for the effects of side underride
guards on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity, and
the practicability and feasibility of side underride guards in
intermodal operations. We seek information on the effects of side
underride guards on intermodal operations.

V. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive
Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. In this ANPRM, the agency requests
comments that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the
benefits, costs and other impacts, of strategies that increase the
crash protection to occupants of vehicles crashing into the side of
trailers and semi-trailers. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are
possible requirements for the installation of side underride guards on
new trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM is significant under E.O.
12866 and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The agency has made preliminary estimates of the costs and benefits
of the above strategy. Equipping a new trailer with side underride
guards is estimated to generate approximately $640 in lifetime
discounted safety benefits at a 3 percent discount rate under the
central range of assumptions evaluated, or approximately $490 per
trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The total discounted lifetime
costs of equipping new trailers and semitrailers with side underride
guards are estimated to be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 per trailer
at a 3 percent discount rate, or approximately $3,740 to $4,300 per
trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The net benefits for a side
underride guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers are estimated
to be in the range of -$844 million to -$1,038 million. The cost per
equivalent life saved is estimated to be in the range of $73.5 million
to $103.7 million.
    NHTSA requests comments on these estimates. Information from the
commenters will help the agency further evaluate the course of action
NHTSA should pursue in this rulemaking on side underride guards.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This ANPRM
would not establish any new information collection requirements.

Privacy Act

    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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Plain Language

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

     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the document easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

VI. Submission of Comments

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this rulemaking?

    In developing this ANPRM, we tried to address the concerns of all
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rulemaking.
We invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new
approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this
ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your
views on all aspects of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective
if you follow the suggestions below:

--Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
--Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
--If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate.
--Tell us which parts of the ANPRM you support, as well as those with
which you disagree.
--Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
--Offer specific alternatives.
--Refer your comments to specific sections of the ANPRM, such as the
units or page numbers of the preamble.

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for
confidentiality are governed by 49 CFR part 512. NHTSA is currently
treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief
Counsel at [email protected] or you may contact him for a
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too
late for us to consider it in developing the next step in this
rulemaking, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the
internet (http://regulations.gov).
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-08451 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: November 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 58370-58371]
[DOCID:fr12no09-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance
Jefferson County Airpark Steubenville, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use and to authorize the release of 1.8473 acres of
airport property for non-aeronautical development. The land consists of
a portion of a 3.728 acre parcel acquired under grant 3-390074-10.
There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the Jefferson County to
lease the property. The land is not needed for aeronautical use.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the lease of the subject airport property nor a determination
of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition
of proceeds from the lease of the airport property will be in
accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16,
1999.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered
or mailed to: Alex Erskine, Program Manager, Detroit Airports District
Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Erskine, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Great Lakes Region, Detroit Airports District
Office, DET ADO-614, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus,
Michigan 48174. Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>)/FAX Number (734-229-
2950). Documents reflecting this FZAA action may be reviewed at this
same location or at Jefferson County Airpark, Steubenville, Ohio.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parcel Legal Description

    Property located in the northeast and northwest quarters of Section
23, Township 6, Range 2, Cross Creek Township, Jefferson County, Ohio,
and being part of the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson
County, Ohio tract of 3.727650 acres, Official Record Volume 612, Page
400, Tax Map Parcel 1-F (hereinafter referred to as Board
tract) of the Jefferson County Recorder's Office, and known to the
Federal Aviation Administration as a combination of parts of Parcel No.
16 and Parcel No. 19 as shown on the Property Plan of FAA Site No.
l8562.A, Jefferson County Airpark, Steubenville, Ohio, said parcel
combination hereinafter to be known to the FAA as Parcel No. 19-B, and
being more fully described as follows:

    Beginning at a point on the curved northerly 100-foot right-of-
way of Airpark Drive where the right of way crosses the centerline
of a vacated portion of old County Road 33 and on a
northwesterly line of the aforementioned Board tract;
    Thence with lines of the Board tract the following three courses
and distances: N61[deg]40'14'' E, 232.32 feet to a point near the
centerline of the old road;
    Thence N 62[deg]20'16'' E, 216.00 feet to a point in the east
bound lane of the old road;
    Thence leaving the road, S 0[deg]54'16'' W, 451.07 feet to a
point on the northerly right-of-way of Airpark Drive;
    Thence along the right of way and through the Board tract the
following two courses and distances;
    N 52[deg]16'55'' W, 292.77 feet to a point of curve;
    Thence along a curve to the left, radius 299.11 feet and central
angle 32[deg]45'09'', an arc length of 170.98 feet, and chord of N
68[deg]39'29'' W, 168.66 feet to the place of beginning containing
1.8473 acres, leaving 1.88035 acres remaining in the Board tract.
    Also leaving 2.0235 acres in Airpark Parcel No. 16, and 0.0008
acre in Airpark Parcel No. 19.
    Basis of bearings is the record direction of the northerly
right-of-way line of Airpark Drive, being the next to last line
above-described.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan on October 1, 2009.
Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. E9-26938 Filed 11-10-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 4, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41894-41895]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0417; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Eveleth, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport,
Eveleth, MN. This action is the result of an airspace review caused by
the decommissioning of the Eveleth non-directional beacon (NDB). The
geographic coordinates of the airport are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, Eveleth, MN, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (86 FR 28728; May 28, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-
0417 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, Eveleth, MN.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within an 8.7-mile
(increased from a 7-mile) radius of Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport,
Eveleth, MN; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Eveleth NDB which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Eveleth, MN [Amended]

Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 47[deg]25'27'' N, long. 92[deg]29'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.7-mile radius of the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 29, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-16531 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P