[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2574-2576]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00711]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Merced, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Merced Regional/MacReady
Field (formerly Merced Municipal/MacReady Field), Merced, CA, to
accommodate airspace redesign due to the decommissioning of the El Nido
VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) as the
FAA transitions from ground-based to satellite-based navigation. Also,
this action would remove Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface and would update the airport name to match the FAA's
aeronautical database. An editorial change would also be made to the
Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement''. These actions
are necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27, at the beginning of your

comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; 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 would amend Class E airspace at Merced Regional/MacReady Field,
Merced, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign in support of IFR
operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address
and phone number).
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed
in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Merced Regional/MacReady Field, Merced, CA,
to within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport (from a 6.1-mile radius),
and removing the segment extending southeast of the airport (2.6 miles
southeast of the El Nido VOR/DME) due to the decommissioning of the
navigation aid.
    Also, the FAA proposes to remove the Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface because it is wholly contained
within the Sacramento en route airspace area and duplication is not
needed.
    Additionally, the airport name would be updated from Merced
Municipal/MacReady Field to Merced Regional/MacReady Field) in the
associated Class E airspace areas, and an editorial change would be
made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing
``Airport/Facility Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement''.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017 and
effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Merced, CA [Amended]

Merced Regional/MacReady Field, CA
    (Lat. 37[deg]17'05'' N, long. 120[deg]30'50'' W)

    Within a 4.3-mile radius of Merced Regional/MacReady Field. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

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

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Merced, CA [Amended]

Merced Regional/MacReady Field, CA
    (Lat. 37[deg]17'05'' N, long. 120[deg]30'50'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Merced Regional/MacReady Field.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 10, 2018.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-00711 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69172-69173]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27447]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73598; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of the PIMCO Income Exchange-
Traded Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600

November 14, 2014.
    On May 1, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the
PIMCO Income Exchange-Traded Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 21, 2014.\3\ On June 24, 2014, the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ On
August 19, 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the

proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72170 (May 15,
2014), 79 FR 29231.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72458, 79 FR 36849
(Jun. 30, 2014). The Commission determined that it was appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission designated August
19, 2014 as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72867, 79 FR 50720
(Aug. 25, 2014). Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's
consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,'' and
``to protect investors and the public interest.'' See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may, however, extend the period for issuing an
order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more
than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for that determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on May 21, 2014.\8\ The 180th day after publication of
the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal
Register is November 17, 2014, and the 240th day after publication of
the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal
Register is January 16, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ See supra note 3 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ designates January 16, 2015 as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSEArca-2014-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27447 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Date:		May 2012

Subject:	Analyses of Data Received Between Proposal and Promulgation of
Part 60, Subpart Ga

		Nitric Acid NSPS Review

EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; Work Assignment No. 0-01

RTI Project No. 02103199.000.001

From:			Melissa Icenhour

To:			Nathan Topham

OAQPS/SPPD/MICG (D243-02)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Introduction

In submitting comments on the proposed rule, NSPS Review of Nitric Acid
(Subpart Ga), American Chemistry Council (ACC) mentioned that a separate
NOX emission standard should be developed for small single pressure
units. No additional continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data
were received during the public comment period. The EPA held a
teleconference with representatives of ACC on January 11, 2012. As a
result of the meeting, ACC volunteered to provide (CEMS) nitric oxides
(NOX) data for multiple monopressure nitric acid plants by the end of
the day on January 16, 2012  See Teleconference with American Chemistry
Council on January 11, 2012.

Submissions were received from Dow, DuPont, and LSB Industries (owners
of El Dorado Nitrogen). As shown in Table 1, the NOX emissions were
generally higher than the final emission limit. The average emissions
for some facilities could not be determined because hourly data was not
supplied. In the case of Dow Sterlington, concentration data were
supplied as 3 hour averages. Therefore the 30 operating day emission
rate could not be calculated. All data and analyses are contained in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750.

The following paragraphs summarize the data received from Dow, DuPont,
and LSB Industries.

Dow-Sterlington.

Dow submitted data for 1 nitric acid plant in Sterlington, Louisiana. As
discussed previously, Dow did not submit hourly averages so the analysis
was limited. There were 5,812 data points ranging from 0.0 lb NOX/ton
acid to 12.37 lb NOX/ton acid. The median was 0.42 lb NOX/ton acid and
the average was 0.72 lb NOX/ton acid.

The Sterlington nitric acid plant is a single pressure design, employing
extended absorption and NSCR as NOX abatement. The plant produces 200
tons per day of 100% nitric acid. However, this plant could improve the
performance of their NSCR by replacing the catalyst more often.
According to the facility, the design life of the catalyst is 15 years
but the actual life has been 25 years.

If modifications are made to this plant such that the plant becomes
subject to Subpart Ga, the plant could improve emissions reductions by
replacing the catalyst more often.

DuPont- Pascagoula.

DuPont submitted data for 1 nitric acid plant in Pascagoula,
Mississippi, and 1 nitric acid plant in Beaumont, Texas.

The Pascagoula plant began operation in 1992. It has a single pressure
design with no extended absorption and uses SCR as NOX abatement. The
plant produces 230 tons per day of 62% nitric acid. This plant could
also improve the performance of the abatement device by replacing the
catalyst more often. According to the facility, the design life of the
catalyst is 9 years but the actual life has been 13 years. The supplied
hourly averages show that the facility emits approximately 1.3 lb NOX
per ton acid except for one hour each day where the hourly average is
approximately 6.0 lb NOX per ton acid.

If modifications are made to this plant such that the plant becomes
subject to Subpart Ga, this plant could improve emissions reductions by
employing extended absorption and by improving the effectiveness of the
SCR by replacing the catalyst more often.

See Figure 1 for a plot of the 30 operating day rolling emission rates
for the Pascagoula plant during 2011. Emission rates range from 0.56 to
1.63 lb NOX/ton acid but 82% of the data were greater than 1.0 lb
NOX/ton acid.

DuPont-Beaumont.

The Beaumont plant began operation in 1971. It has a single pressure
design with no extended absorption and uses NSCR as NOX abatement. The
plant produces 250 tons per day of 63% nitric acid. Hourly data were not
supplied so the 30 operating day rolling emission rates could not be
calculated. The plant supplied 24 hour averages which range from 0.00 to
1.97 lb NOX/ton acid and averages 0.79 lb NOX/ton acid.

If modifications are made to this plant such that the plant becomes
subject to Subpart Ga, the plant could improve emissions reductions by
employing extended absorption or installing an SCR.

LSB Industries-East and West.

The East and West units began operation in 1962 and are not subject to
subpart G and are controlled by an SCR. The East unit produces 300 tons
of 52%-58% nitric acid per day and the West unit produces 288 tons of
52%-58% nitric acid per day. According to the facility, the design life
of the SCR catalyst is 11 to 15 years. The data submitted by the company
covered the period of January 2011 through December 2011. The catalyst
was replaced in August 2011, which means that the data from January
through July 2011 is likely to be higher than typical because the
catalyst was near the end of its useful life.

Also, the SCR unit is located after the gas expander. According to
Jeremy Richard of PSC Geismar (see document 0062 in docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750), the mixing of gas and ammonia within the SCR is
not ideal at this location. For best practice, the SCR should be located
before the gas expander. Therefore, the East/West units are poorly
performing plants and are not consistent with best system of emissions
reductions.

If modifications are made to these plants such that the plants become
subject to Subpart Ga, the plants could improve emissions reductions by
changing the location of the SCR, and replacing the catalyst more often.

See Figure 2 for a plot of the 30 operating day rolling emission rates
for the East nitric acid plant during 2011. Emission rates range from
4.4 to 13.0 lb NOX/ton acid and average 8.22 lb NOX/ton acid.

See Figure 3 for a plot of the 30 operating day rolling emission rates
for the West nitric acid plant during 2011. Emission rates range from
2.4 to 11.9 lb NOX/ton acid and average 6.1 lb NOX/ton acid.

LSB Industries-Cherokee No. 2 and DMW.

These nitric acid units have single pressure designs and only use
extended absorption for NOX abatement. Hourly data were not supplied for
the Cherokee No. 2 plant so the 30 operating day rolling emission rates
could not be calculated. The plant supplied 24 hour averages which range
from 0.04 to 3.83 lb NOX/ton acid and average 2.57 lb NOX/ton acid.

If modifications are made to these plants such that the plants become
subject to Subpart Ga, the plants could significantly reduce emissions
reductions by installing an SCR or an NSCR.

See Figure 4 for a plot of the 30 operating day rolling emission rates
for the DMW plant during 2011. Emission rates range from 3.0 to 5.1 lb
NOX/ton acid and average 3.88 lb NOX/ton acid.

Conclusions.

The additional data received included nitric acid plants that are not
currently subject to subpart G, are not currently controlled, or are
generally not employing the best system of emissions reductions (BSER).
These facilities may need to install additional controls to comply with
subpart Ga if they are modified or reconstructed and trigger the
standard. See Impacts of Nitric Acid NSPS Review-NOX (Updated memo for
Final NSPS). However, these facilities do not illustrate that an
emission standard of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid is not achievable and thus
would not have impacted the level of the standard in the final rule.

Table 1. Facility Data Received in January 2012

Plant	Location	Unit	Year nitric acid plant constructed	Year of Data
Type	Control device	30 operating day rolling emission rate

	Highest Emission Rate

 (lb NOX/ton acid)

Dow	Sterlington	-----	1976	2011	Monopressure	NSCR	-----a

DuPont	Beaumont	-----	1971	2009-2010	Monopressure	NSCR	-----b

DuPont	Pascagoula	-----	1992	2011	Monopressure	SCR	1.63

LSB Industries

East	1962	2011	Monopressure	SCR	13.02

LSB Industries

West	1962	2011	Monopressure	SCR	11.87

LSB Industries

Cherokee	Unknown	2011	Monopressure	None	-----b

LSB Industries

DMW	Unknown	2011	Monopressure	None	5.11

a Only 3 hour averages were supplied.

b Hourly data were not supplied.Figure 1.  DuPont Pascagoula Nitric
Acid Plant in 2011

Figure 2. LSB Industries East Nitric Acid Plant in 2011

Figure 3. LSB Industries West Nitric Acid Plant in 2011

Figure 4. LSB Industries DMW Nitric Acid Plant in 2011


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52241-52243]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0480]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption
Renewal; CRST The Transportation Solution (Formerly Known as CRST
Expedited, Inc.)

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

ACTION: Notice of exemption renewal; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to provisionally renew the
exemption currently held by CRST The Transportation Solution (CRST)
(formerly known as CRST Expedited, Inc.) from the requirement that a
commercial driver's license (CDL) holder with the proper CDL class and
endorsements be seated in the front seat

of the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) at all times while the commercial
learner's permit (CLP) holder is engaged in behind-the-wheel training
on public roads or highways. Under the terms and conditions of the
exemption, a CLP holder who has passed the skills test but not yet
received the CDL document may drive a CRST CMV accompanied by a CDL
holder who is not necessarily in the passenger seat, provided the CLP
driver possesses documentation of passing from the State that
administered the skills test. The exemption renewal is for five years.

DATES: This renewed exemption is effective September 24, 2023, and
expires on September 24, 2028. Comments must be received on or before
September 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2015-0480 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice (FMCSA-2015-0480). Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to 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 www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits
comments from the public on the exemption renewal request. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2015-0480), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number FMCSA-2015-0480 in the ``Search'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Documents'' button,
then click the ``Comment'' button associated with the latest notice
posted. Another screen will appear; insert the required information.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual, an
organization, or anonymous. Click ``Submit Comment.''
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(2) and 49
CFR 381.300(b) to renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for a 5-year period if it finds that ``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.'' CRST has requested a five-year extension of the current
exemption in Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0480.

III. Background

Current Regulation(s) Requirements

    FMCSA's CDL regulations in 49 CFR 383.25 establish minimum
requirements for the CLP to be considered a valid CDL during behind-
the-wheel training of a CLP holder on public roads or highways. Section
383.25(a)(1) requires a CDL holder with the proper CDL class and
endorsements necessary to operate the CMV to accompany a CLP holder and
be physically present in the front seat of the CMV next to the CLP
holder at all times or, in a commercial passenger vehicle, directly
behind or in the front row behind the driver, and must have the CLP
holder under observation and direct supervision.

Application for Renewal of Exemption

Background

    On September 23, 2016, FMCSA granted CRST a five-year exemption
from 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) because CLP holders who have passed the CDL
skills test are professionally qualified and eligible to obtain a CDL,
which indicates that CRST would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety obtained by complying
with the regulation (81 FR 65696). On October 19, 2018, CRST requested
renewal of its original exemption. FMCSA granted the request for
renewal for an additional five-year period. The renewed exemption
expires on September 24, 2023.
    CRST has requested an additional five-year renewal of the
exemption. CRST believes that FMCSA should renew the exemption because
it results in safer drivers. CRST noted that:

    As it respects CRST's CLP holders, these drivers have already
successfully passed all required CDL skills testing, and related
prerequisites, required to lawfully take receipt of the CDL. What
remains for CRST CLP holders is to travel to the DMV [Department of
Motor Vehicles] in their respective home state to obtain physical
receipt of their CDL. The only difference between a CRST CLP holder
who has passed their skills testing via a registered ELDT training
provider with the documentation of successful skills testing results
in the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System
(CSTIMS), and other newly credentialed CDL drivers is the physical
possession of the CDL document.

    CRST estimates that approximately 1,000 new drivers per year will
operate

a CMV under the exemption, if the renewal is granted. It states that
allowing the CLP drivers to operate under the exemption would not
result in a degradation of safety because ``there is no material
difference between the skill of a new driver that has passed the
required skills testing as part of their entry-level driver training
and a new driver that has just received their DMV-issued CDL
document.'' CRST assesses that the exemption will improve safety
because new CDL holders are allowed to drive unsupervised immediately
after receiving their documentation whereas CLP drivers operating under
this exemption will be accompanied by an experienced CDL holder
providing some guidance.
    A copy of CRST's request has been placed in the docket to this
notice.

IV. Equivalent Level of Safety

    FMCSA determined in 2016 and again in 2018 that CRST drivers would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption. FMCSA noted in its
October 19, 2018, notice that because these drivers have already met
all the requirements for a CDL, but have yet to pick up the CDL
document from their State of domicile, their safety performance is
expected to be the same as any other newly credentialed CDL holder.
Additionally, having a CDL driver accompany the CLP driver who has
successfully passed all required CDL skills testing and prerequisites,
provides some additional supervision that is otherwise not required for
newly credentialed CDL drivers in physical possession of the CDL
document.
    FMCSA is unaware of any evidence of a degradation of safety
attributable to the current exemption for CRST drivers. There is no
indication of an adverse impact on safety while CRST drivers have been
operating under the terms and conditions specified in the initial
exemption or 2018 exemption renewal.
    FMCSA therefore concludes that provisionally renewing the exemption
granted on October 19, 2018, for another five years, under the terms
and conditions listed below, will likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption.

V. Exemption Decision

A. Grant of Exemption

    FMCSA provisionally renews the exemption for a period of five years
subject to the terms and conditions of this decision and the absence of
adverse public comments that would cause the Agency to terminate the
exemption. The exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1),
is otherwise effective September 24, 2023, through September 23, 2028,
11:59 p.m. local time, unless renewed or revoked.

B. Applicability of Exemption

    The exemption relieves CRST from the requirement that a driver
accompanying a CLP holder be physically present in the front seat of a
CMV on the condition that the CLP holder (i) has successfully passed a
CDL skills test administered by the testing State and (ii) possesses
supporting documentation from that State.

C. Terms and Conditions

    When operating under this exemption, CRST and its drivers are
subject to the following terms and conditions:
    (1) CRST and its drivers must comply with all other applicable
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399);
    (2) The drivers must be in possession of a valid State driver's
license, a CLP with the required endorsements, and documentation from
the testing State that they have passed the CDL skills test;
    (3) The drivers must not be subject to any out-of-service order or
suspension of driving privileges; and
    (4) The drivers must be able to provide this exemption document to
enforcement officials.

D. Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under
the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same
exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.

E. Notification to FMCSA

    CRST must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5) involving any of its CMVs operating under the
terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following
information:
    (a) Name of the exemption: ``CRST''.
    (b) Date of the accident.
    (c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene.
    (d) Driver's name and license number.
    (e) Vehicle number and State license number.
    (f) Number of individuals suffering physical injury.
    (g) Number of fatalities.
    (h) The police-reported cause of the accident.
    (i) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations.
    (j) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time prior to
the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
[email protected].

F. Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. The exemption will
be rescinded if: (1) CRST and drivers operating under the exemption
fail 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 objects of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b). FMCSA further reserves the right to terminate this exemption
in the event it is no longer necessary due to revised regulatory
requirements.

VI. Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on CRST's
application for a renewal of the exemption. 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(b), FMCSA will take
immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-16850 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P