[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79456-79460]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0109]
RIN 2127-AM04

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Test Procedures

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is issuing this ANPRM to seek public comment on whether
any test procedures for any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) may be a candidate for replacement, repeal, or modification,
for reasons other than for considerations relevant only to automated
driving systems (ADS). This document is a continuation of the Agency's
efforts to improve the FMVSS and minimize burdens. The Agency takes
this action in response to its review of the FMVSS and to public
comments solicited by DOT in a 2017 notice on its regulatory reform
efforts. The commenters requested that NHTSA amend test procedures for
air brakes and occupant crash protection. NHTSA has also identified
some possible additional test procedure issues and discusses them in
this Notice. In addition, this ANPRM also seeks comments and supporting
information relating to any other test procedures which may be a
candidate for replacement, repeal or modification, not just those
specifically discussed in this Notice.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than February 8, 2021. See
the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information
section of this document for more information about written comments.

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

DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Confidential Information: If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of
your complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA, at
the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Versailles, Office of
Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Example Test Procedures
    A. FMVSS No. 103
    B. FMVSS No. 104
    C. FMVSS Nos. 105/135
    D. FMVSS No. 121
    E. FMVSS No. 126
III. Questions Requesting Further Information From the Public
IV. Public Participation
V. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

I. Background

    On October 2, 2017, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
published a Notice in the Federal Register inviting ``the public to
provide input on existing rules and other agency actions that are good
candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification.'' \1\
DOT received almost 3,000 comments in response to this Notice, of which
approximately twenty-three addressed rules and agency actions under the
scope of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In
response to these public comments, and on the Agency's own initiative,
the agency is planning to issue a series of advance notices of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRMs) on various regulatory reform topics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 45750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM specifically discusses test procedures \2\ that may be
candidates for replacement, repeal, or modification. This Notice does
not address the performance requirements within the standards, but only
the test procedures specified in the standards for NHTSA to use to
verify compliance. Additionally, this Notice does not address issues
related to test procedures relevant only to technologies for automated
driving systems (ADS), commonly referred to as automated or self-
driving vehicles. Comments on test procedures that may be candidates
for repeal, replacement, or modification to permit the introduction and
certification of ADS would be more appropriate for the ANPRM for RIN
2127-AM00 \3\ or one of the topic-specific ANPRMs. NHTSA also notes
that the specific test procedures discussed in the remainder of this
Notice are not meant to be an exclusive listing of the test procedures
that may be suitable candidates for replacement, repeal, or
modification. Rather, these tests procedures are intended to serve as
examples for why a test procedure might be a candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As used in this notice, ``test procedures'' includes test
conditions, test procedures, and test devices (e.g., dummies and
crash barriers).
    \3\ 84 FR 24433, May 29, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Example Test Procedures

    As discussed in this section, NHTSA, partially in response to
comments, has identified possible examples of test procedures that
might be candidates for replacement, repeal, or modification. These are
discussed below to illustrate the kinds of test procedures for which
the Agency would like to seek comment for this Notice. DOT received a
few comments from trade associations that addressed test procedure
changes. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (``EMA''; DOT-
OST-2017-0069-2786) commented on the test procedures of FMVSS No. 121,
but, as discussed below, NHTSA would like more information on the
request to understand better EMA's suggestion. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance''; DOT-OST-2017-0069-2700), raised
issues relating to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209. The Association of Global
Automakers (``Global''; DOT-OST-2017-0069-2772) raised the same issue
as the Alliance relating to FMVSS No. 208, but did not address FMVSS
No. 209. Both the Alliance and Global suggested changes to FMVSS Nos.
208 and 209 that appear to go beyond test procedure changes. Because
these comments require consideration of both performance requirements
and test procedures, the comments are discussed in the ANPRM for RIN
2127-AM05, which deals with regulatory barriers in the performance
requirements for non-ADS vehicles.

A. FMVSS No. 103

    Compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 103,
Windshield defrosting and defogging systems (49 CFR 571.103), is
determined by the Agency using a test procedure incorporated from SAE
Recommended Practice J902 (August 1964 or March 1967), which is
predicated on a vehicle's having a conventional internal combustion
engine (ICE). The Agency is considering whether these procedures should
be revised or modified for vehicles with other types of propulsion and
requests comment on this issue.

B. FMVSS 104

    Determination of compliance with the performance requirements of
FMVSS 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems (49 CFR 571.104), has
the same test procedure issue as FMVSS 103 since it is also predicated
on the vehicle's having an ICE. In addition, should the test procedure
be updated for newer systems with rain sensor technology?

C. FMVSS 105/135

    FMVSS 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems (49 CFR 571.105),
is applicable to multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (kg;
7,716 pounds (lbs)) or more equipped with hydraulically or electrically
actuated brakes. The standard has not been updated since 1976. NHTSA
has a similar brake standard, FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle brake
systems (49 CFR 571.135), which went into effect in 1995 and applies to
hydraulically braked vehicles, but with a GVWR less than 3,500 kg.
Should the Agency revise the test procedures in either of these brake
standards to improve clarity or efficiency for compliance?
    For example, the FMVSS Nos. 105/135 braking tests could be revised
consistent with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems (49 CFR
571.122), as it relates to the number of stopping attempts for each
specified test condition. FMVSS Nos. 105/135 specifies, in most test
conditions, the completion of no fewer than six stops regardless of
which of the stops, or how many of them, meet the stopping distance
performance requirement. FMVSS No. 122, on the other hand,

permits the skipping of the remaining stops (if any) for that test and
allowing the next test to be performed once a passing stop is obtained,
even if that occurs before the specified number of stops are made.
Should FMVSS Nos. 105/135 be updated and would this change reduce
testing time and cost without compromising the safety evaluation of the
braking system?

D. FMVSS No. 121

    EMA commented that, despite a number of revisions in the past,
FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems (49 CFR 571.121), has not kept pace
with advances in heavy-duty air brake components and systems. While
indicating that a number of modifications would be appropriate to
address this issue, EMA did not elaborate on them. The Agency requests
more information about the modifications that would update the standard
to keep pace with advances in heavy-duty air brake components and
systems, and why, specifically, they are needed.

E. FMVSS No. 126

    Section 6.3.4 of FMVSS No. 126, Electronic stability control
systems (49 CFR 571.126), specifies the use of outriggers \4\ when
testing MPVs, trucks, and buses, but not when testing passenger cars.
Today's vehicle market includes crossover vehicles which are classified
as MPVs but which are typically based on passenger car platforms,
unlike traditional MPVs, which are based on light truck platforms. What
evidence is there that crossover vehicles perform more like passenger
cars than traditional MPVs, and how would updating the test procedure
to remove the outriggers be justified? If the Agency was to specify the
use of outriggers based on criteria other than just vehicle
classification, what would commenters recommend for criteria? Would
modifying the criteria improve efficiency and reduce the need for these
devices in some testing, thereby reducing costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An outrigger is a stabilizing device attached to the vehicle
to protect the vehicle and/or driver from rollover during test
maneuvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Questions Requesting Further Information From the Public

    In order to inform the Agency as it works toward possible
rulemaking proposals, NHTSA invites comments on any other test
procedures that are potential candidates for replacement, repeal, or
modification. NHTSA again emphasizes that the test procedures discussed
in Sections II and III of this notice are just examples of test
procedures that might be a candidate for replacement, repeal, or
modification, and thus illustrate the types of reasons why such a
change may be necessary. NHTSA requests comments on the specific test
procedure issues discussed above, other issues related to the test
procedures for the FMVSSs discussed above, and issues related to the
test procedures for any other FMVSS. For example, a test procedure may
specify testing that is no longer necessary, or may not be clear about
how to test vehicles with newer technology, or may even have the effect
of prohibiting the introduction of such vehicles. The Agency requests
that commenters provide as much research, evidence, or data as possible
to support their comments, as that information will be of great
assistance to the Agency as it considers whether to develop a proposal
to revise the procedure.
    In addition, commenters should consider the following general
questions when considering potential test procedure improvements:
    1. Do any test procedures specify the use of equipment that is
obsolete or no longer available at a reasonable cost? If so, what
options are available as replacements?
    2. Do any test procedures specify the use of equipment in a manner
that is more specific than necessary to ensure that the test procedure
be repeatable and reproducible?
    3. Are there test procedures in regulations from standards
organizations or other countries that evaluate compliance with the same
requirement as one in an FMVSS? If so, what evidence is there that the
test procedure provides an evaluation of compliance with the
requirement in a manner and to an extent equivalent to the current test
procedure in the FMVSS?
    4. What specific problems and challenges have testing laboratories,
researchers, or other entities encountered when trying to follow
existing test procedures in an FMVSS? For each problem or challenge,
please explain how it is currently addressed and any suggested
solutions for how it should be addressed in the future.
    5. Are there any test procedures that do not accurately reflect
real-world scenarios? If so, what evidence is there to show that a test
procedure needs to be updated to reflect real-world scenarios being
tested more accurately? Similarly, how can test procedures be updated
to represent a real-world scenario more accurately?
    6. Are there any loopholes in test procedures that could lead to a
passing test result without meeting the intent of a standard or
regulation? If so, how can such loopholes be closed by updating the
test procedure?

V. Public Participation

a. How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

    Your comments will help NHTSA improve its consideration of issues
raised by this ANPRM. NHTSA invites you to provide different views on
options NHTSA discusses, new approaches the agency has not considered,
new data, descriptions of how this ANPRM may affect you, or other
relevant information.
    NHTSA welcomes public review on all aspects of this ANPRM. NHTSA
will consider the comments and information received in developing a
potential proposal for updating test procedures for motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment. Your comments will be most effective if you
follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide solid evidence and data to support your views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at that estimate.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Refer your comments to the specific sections of (or
questions listed in) the ANPRM.

b. How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your primary comments should be written in English. To ensure that
your comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the
docket number of this document in your comments.
    Your primary comments should not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21), however, you may attach additional documents, such as
supporting data or research, to your primary comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document. Please note, if you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of
your submission.

    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. DOT's guidelines may be accessed
at www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

c. How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit comments by hard copy and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in the docket on www.regulations.gov. If they do
not appear within two weeks of posting, NHTSA suggests that you call
the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

d. How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information that you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
    In addition, you should submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you submit a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

e. Will the Agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that the docket receives before
the close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the
DATES section. To the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider
comments that the docket receives after that date.

f. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given in the ADDRESSES section. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the
internet, identified by the docket number at the heading of this
notice, at www.regulations.gov. Please note that, even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information
in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, NHTSA recommends that you periodically
check the docket for new material.

VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), supplements and reaffirms the
principles established by Executive Order 12866 by encouraging
harmonization of regulations across agencies and requiring agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice. Additionally, Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 require agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for
public participation. Accordingly, we have asked commenters to answer a
variety of questions to elicit practical information about alternative
approaches and relevant technical data on whether and how best to
update test procedures throughout 49 CFR part 571. These comments will
help the Department evaluate whether a proposed rulemaking is needed
and appropriate.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures. As discussed in this notice, the Agency lacks the necessary
information to develop a proposal at this time due to a number of
unanswered questions and unresolved considerations. However, NHTSA
anticipates that any proposal that was to result from this Notice could
have minor economic impact by clarifying how newer technology is
tested, or could result in cost-savings by eliminating unnecessary
aspects of test procedures. Therefore, this rulemaking has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of
the Office of Management and Budget.

b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs)

    This action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
no analysis is required for an ANPRM. However, small entities,
including small vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers, are
encouraged to comment if they identify any aspects of a potential
rulemaking that may apply to them.

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA does not believe that there would be sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
purpose of this rulemaking is not to adopt new safety performance
requirements which would preempt non-identical State requirements, but
merely to revise test procedures for existing safety performance
requirements that would not affect their stringency.

e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that

Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly
specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This
document is consistent with that requirement.

f. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this ANPRM. Any
information collection requirements and the associated burdens will be
discussed in detail once a proposal has been issued.

g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. As NHTSA has not yet developed specific regulatory
provisions, the NTTAA does not apply for purposes of this ANPRM.

h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

i. National Environmental Policy Act

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

j. Plain Language

    The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires
that Federal agencies write documents in a clear, concise, and well-
organized manner. While the Act does not cover regulations, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require each agency to write all notices in
plain language that is simple and easy to understand. 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 notice clearly stated?
     Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that
is not clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this ANPRM.

k. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95 and 501.5.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27001 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28585]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11461]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Pingify International, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 14, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of
trading in the securities of Pingify International, Inc. because of
concerns regarding potential manipulative activity in Pingify's common
stock that appears to be related to a promotional campaign currently
being conducted through various Internet Web sites. Pingify
International, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of
business located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Its stock is quoted on
OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group Inc., under the ticker: PGFY.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on
May 14, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on May 28, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11461 Filed 5-14-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


################################################################################
################################################################################
#
# MRM2 model including Canadian studies (32 observations)
#
################################################################################
################################################################################

# Note: to run the entire script, select everything, then click on "Run"
# otherwise "Run" will execute only the selected line

# Preliminary housekeeping
################################################################################
# set working directory to keep file paths short
setwd('C:/Users/55338/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/Wetland MRM - R Code/')

rm(list = ls(all = TRUE)) #first, clear R's workspace
options(prompt = "R> ", digits = 4) # show 4 digits by default
options(continue=" ") #remove continuation prompt
#
set.seed(37)  #sets the random number generator so we can reproduce results
#
tic<-proc.time() #start stop watch
#
# load packages we'll need
############################
library("xtable")
library("MASS")   #for draws from the multivariate normal
library("stats")  #for draws from the gamma
library("mvtnorm")#for draws from the multivariate t
library("MCMCpack") #for draws from the inverse gamma

################################################################################
#Load and Prepare Data
################################################################################
#
# read tab-delimited text data (easiest way to load)
# header=TRUE also loads variable names
#data<- read.table('./data/wetlanddataFeb2022.txt', sep="\t", header=TRUE)
data<- read.table('./data/wetlanddataJune2022_corrected.txt', sep="\t", header=TRUE)
#
# save in R-format, for future loading
#save(data, file = "./data/wetlanddataFeb2022.rda")
save(data, file = "./data/wetlanddataJune2022_corrected.rda")

# % contents of data
# %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# % 1   studyid         original unique study id
# % 2   obsid           original unique observation id
# % 3   lnwtp           log of wtp2021
# % 4   wlfresh         1=freshwater wetland, 0 = salt/coastal
# % 5   lnyear          log of yr of data collection - 1988
# % 6   lninc           log of inc2021
# % 7   sagulf          1 = S-Atlantic/Gulf, study involves AL,GA,SC,LA
# % 8   nema            1 = ME/mid-Atlantic, study involves DE,MD,NJ,PA,RI
# % 9   nmw             N/Mid-West, study involves KY,MI,NE,OH,WI
# % 10  CAN             1 = Canadian study
# % 11  local           f1= local scale (target pop at sub-state level)
# % 12  prov            1=provisioning function affected
# % 13  reg             1=regulating function affected
# % 14  cult            1=cultural function affected
# % 15  forest          1=forested wetland
# % 16  q0              baseline acreage
# % 17  q1              policy acreage
# % 18  volunt          1= pay mech = voluntary contribution
# % 19  lumpsum         1=single payment
# % 20  ce              choice experiment
# % 21  nrev            1=not peer-reviewed
# % 22  median          1=orig. wtp based on econometric medians
# % 23  q0alt            alternative definition of baseline acres - see notes
# % 24  q1alt            alternative definition of policy acres - see notes

# Drop Rudd et al observations
################################
#data<-subset(data,data[,1]!=128)

# Drop Hindsley and Yoskowitz observations (remove comment to drop)
################################
#data<-subset(data,data[,1]!=130)

# Drop Nijhum thesis observations (remove comment to drop)
################################
#data<-subset(data,data[,1]!=132)

# 'attach' makes it possible to refer to the variables in the data frame by their
# names alone, rather than as components of the data frame (e.g., height rather
# than women$height).
attach(data)

# keep freshwater only
###############################
data<-subset(data,data[,4]==1)

# define y and X
###############################
q0<-data[,16]/1000
q1<-data[,17]/1000

# takes third column of data (lnwtp) to do log(wtp) - log(q1-q0) which = log(wtp/(q1-q0)). Log(WTP/change in acres)
y<-as.matrix(data[,3]-log(q1-q0))
n<-length(y)

# rep(1,n) creates the constant term (vector of 1's). Matrix combines this with variables in columns 1-15, (q0+q1)/2, 18-19
X<-as.matrix(cbind(rep(1,n),data[,5:15],(q0+q1)/2, data[18:19]))
k<-ncol(X)

# % contents of X
# %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# % 1   const           constant
# % 2   lnyear          log of yr of data collection - 1988
# % 3   lninc           log of inc2017
# % 4   sagulf          1 = S-Atlantic/Gulf, study involves AL,GA,SC,LA
# % 5   nema            1 = ME/mid-Atlantic, study involves DE,MD,NJ,PA,RI
# % 6   nmw             N/Mid-West, study involves KY,MI,NE,OH,WI
# % 8   local           f1= local scale (target pop at sub-state level)
# % 9   prov            1=provisioning function affected
# % 10   reg             1=regulating function affected
# % 11  cult            1=cultural function affected
# % 12  forest          1=forested wetland
# % 13  (q0+q1)/2
# % 14  volunt          1= pay mech = voluntary contribution
# % 15  lumpsum         1=single payment

################################################################################
# Starting values, priors, and tuners
################################################################################

r1<-100000  #burn-ins
r2<-100000  #keepers
R<-r1+r2

# generic OLS to get starting values
####################################

# solves for the betas or parameters using OLS
bols<-solve((t(X)) %*% X) %*% (t(X) %*% y)

# error between actual and predicted values.
e<-y-X%*%bols

# sum of squared residuals
SSR<-(t(e)%*%e)

# SSR/(n-k)
s2<-(t(e)%*%e)/(n-k)

#PRIORS:
###################
#for beta:
# initial settings for the normal distribution
mu0<-rep(0,k)
V0<-10*diag(k)

#for sig2:
# initial settings for the inverse gamma distribution (sig2 has inverse gamma and v0 has gamma).
# v0 is parameter for weighting.
v0<-1/2
tau0<-1/2

# STARTING VALUES
######################
betadraw<-bols
sig2draw<-as.vector(s2)

################################################################################
# call Gibbs Sampler function and run sampler
################################################################################

source("./functions/gs_normal_independent.R")  #call the function

int<-gs_normal_independent(X,y,n,k,r1,r2,mu0,V0,betadraw,v0,tau0,sig2draw)
# run the sampler - you should see a flurry of counters in the console,
# in steps of 1000's

betamat<-int[[1]]
sig2mat<-int[[2]]

################################################################################
# get convergence diagnostics
################################################################################

M<-rbind(betamat,sig2mat)

source("./functions/kdiagnostics_greater0.R")  #call the function
diagnostics=kdiagnostics_greater0(M) #apply the function

################################################################################
# output table
################################################################################
# coefficients, followed by sig2
metaout_df<-data.frame(diagnostics)
colnames(metaout_df)<-c("post. mean","post.std","p(>0)","nse","IEF","M*","CD")
rownames(metaout_df)<- c("const","lnyear","lninc","sagulf","nema","nmw", "CAN","local",
                  "prov","reg","cult","forest","(q0+q1/2)","volunt","lumpsum","sig2")

# you can now open the table in the "Global Environment" window and copy/paste it
# to Excel etc.
# Below file will write to output folder (./ represents current working directory).
#write.csv(metaout_df,file="./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_32obs.csv",row.names=TRUE)
write.csv(metaout_df,file="./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_32obs.csv",row.names=TRUE)

################################################################################
# save your output for further processing
################################################################################
#save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,metaout_df,file = "./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_32obs.rda")
save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,metaout_df,file = "./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_32obs.rda")

proc.time()-tic #capture run time


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49203]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1648-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. tariff
filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report for Illinois Power Generating
Company to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20171017-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2471-001.
    Applicants: ORNI 43 LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition of ORNI 43 LLC
to be effective 9/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2472-001.
    Applicants: ONGP LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition of ONGP LLC to
be effective 9/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-90-000.
    Applicants: Frenchtown II Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Frenchtown II Reactive Power
Filing to be effective 12/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20171017-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-91-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-17 2017 Grid
Management Charge--Cost of Service Study Update to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 10/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20171017-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-92-000.
    Applicants: Carroll County Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Tariff
Application to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20171017-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-93-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits Revised
Interconnection Agreement SA No. 3992 to be effective 12/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-94-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-18_Cedar Falls
Utilities request for approval of Attachment O-CFU to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-95-000.
    Applicants: Buchanan Energy Services Company, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 10/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-96-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-18_SA 2853 1st Rev
Certificate of Concurrence IMTCO-NIPSCO Agreement to be effective 7/19/
2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-97-000.
    Applicants: MS Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-98-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation LGIA AES
North America Development, LLC to be effective 8/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171018-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22985 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43223-43224]
[DOCID:fr26au09-148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28695]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
12 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective September 27, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before September 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-28695, using any of the
following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
Dean N. Brown, Matthew R. Floyd, Christian L. Gremillion, Frank D.
Konwinski, Jr., Christian E. Merseth, Kenneth D. Perkins, Terry W.
Pope, Daniel T. Rhodes, Stephen E. Shields, Ricky J. Siebels, Don S.
Williams, Robert L. Williams, Jr.
    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or

(3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972). Each of these 12 applicants
has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence
showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by September 25, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 12 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: August 19, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-20620 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47651]
[DOCID:fr06au10-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Joint CFTC-
SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (see also Pub. L.
111-117, Section 621) will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, August
11, 2010, in the first floor hearing room of the CFTC's Washington, DC
headquarters, which is located at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
St., NW.
    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public,
with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will be open at
8 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. This Sunshine Act
notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend
the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting will include: (i) Committee
organizational matters; and (ii) hearing two industry panels presenting
views and information regarding the market events of May 6, 2010.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 3, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19526 Filed 8-4-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29735-29736]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0169]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Washburn Board Across the Bay, Lake
Superior; Chequamegon Bay, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a permanent special local
regulation on Lake Superior within Chequamegon Bay for the annual
Washburn Board Across the Bay racing event. This annual event
historically occurs within the last 2 weeks of July and lasts for 1
day. This action is necessary to safeguard the participants and
spectators on the water in a portion of Chequamegon Bay between
Washburn, WI and Ashland, WI. This regulation would functionally
restrict all vessel speeds while within a designated no-wake zone,
unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Duluth or a designated representative. The area forming the
subject of this permanent special local regulation is described below.

DATES: This rule is effective July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0169 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade John Mack, Waterways
management, MSU Duluth, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

    COTP Captain of the Port, Duluth
    CFR Code of Federal Regulations
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FR Federal Register
    NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
    Sec.  Section
    U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 30, 2017 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal
Register (82 FR 15660) entitled ``Special Local Regulation; Washburn
Board Across the Bay, Lake Superior; Chequamegon Bay, WI.'' The NPRM
proposed to establish a no-wake zone within Chequamegon Bay on an
annual basis during the Washburn Board Across the Bay paddle craft
event, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related
to this paddle craft event. The aforementioned NPRM was open for
comment for 30 days in which no comments were received.

III. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on
March 30, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule will create a
permanent special local regulation in Chequamegon Bay for the annual
Washburn Board Across the Bay racing event that historically takes
place in the third or fourth week of July. The no-wake zone will be
enforced on all vessels entering into 100 yards of either side of an
imaginary line beginning in Washburn, WI at position 46[deg]36'52'' N.,
090[deg]54'24'' W.; thence southwest to position 46[deg]38'44'' N.,
090[deg]54'50'' W.; thence southeast to position 46[deg]37'02'' N.,
090[deg]50'20'' W.; and ending southwest at position 46[deg]36'12'' N.,
090[deg]51'51'' W. All vessels transiting through the no-wake zone will
be required to travel at an appropriate rate of speed that does not
create a wake except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated
representative. The precise times and date of enforcement for this
special local regulation will be determined annually.
    The COTP, Duluth, will use all appropriate means to notify the
public when the special local regulation in this rule will be enforced.
Such means may include publication in the Federal Register a Notice of
Enforcement, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and Local Notice to
Mariners. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the Special Local Regulation.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through the no-wake zone
which will be 200 yards wide and will impact only a small designated
area of Lake Superior in Chequamegon Bay between Washburn, WI and
Ashland, WI during a time of year when commercial vessel traffic is
normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
through the no-wake zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a no-wake zone being enforced for no
more than 5 hours along a prescribed route between Washburn & Ashland,
Wisconsin. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233

0
2. Add Sec.  100. 169 to read as follows:

Sec.  100. 169  Special Local Regulation; Washburn Board Across the
Bay, Lake Superior; Chequamegon Bay, WI.

    (a) Location. All waters of Chequamegon Bay within 100 yards of
either side of an imaginary line beginning in Washburn, WI at position
46[deg]36'52'' N., 090[deg]54'24'' W.; thence southwest to position
46[deg]38'44'' N., 090[deg]54'50'' W.; thence southeast to position
46[deg]37'02'' N., 090[deg]50'20'' W.; and ending southwest at position
46[deg]36'12'' N., 090[deg]51'51'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This annual event historically occurs within
the third or fourth week of July. The COTP, Duluth, will announce
enforcement dates via Notice of Enforcement, Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, on-scene designated representatives, or
other forms of outreach.
    (c) Regulations. Vessels transiting within the regulated area shall
travel at a no-wake speed except as may be permitted by the COTP,
Duluth or a designated on-scene representative. Additionally, vessels
shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft
and shall follow directions given by event representatives during the
event.

    Dated: May 26, 2017.
E.E. Williams,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2017-13559 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 10522]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-0957]

Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 397.100 Accuracy Requirements for
Indication of Temporal-Maximum Ultrasonic Power; Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the withdrawal of the compliance policy guide (CPG) Sec. 397.100
Accuracy Requirements for Indication of Temporal-Maximum Ultrasonic
Power. The Agency is taking this action because the CPG identified in
this notice contains policies that have been superseded by a subsequent
FDA action.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective February 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Takai, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5456, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are announcing the withdrawal of the CPG
entitled ``Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 397.100 Accuracy Requirements
for Indication of Temporal-Maximum Ultrasonic Power, 21 CFR
1050.10(c)(1)(ii).'' On January 20, 2023, FDA issued a final rule
entitled ``Radiological Health Regulations; Amendments to Records and
Reports for Radiation Emitting Electronic Products; Amendments to
Performance Standards for Diagnostic X-ray, Laser, and Ultrasonic
Products'' (88 FR 3638). The final rule repealed 21 CFR 1050.10, which
includes performance standards for ultrasonic therapy products.
Therefore, the policies in CPG Sec. 397.100 are no longer applicable,
and this CPG is being withdrawn.

    Dated: February 15, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-03509 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P