[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16025-16028]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69054; File No. SR-BOX-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fee Schedule for Trading on BOX

March 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the

``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 28, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule for
trading on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. In
particular, the Exchange proposes to extend a pilot program applicable
to Liquidity Fees and Credits for PIP Transactions through August 31,
2013 (the ``Program''). The Program has been in effect on BOX since
February 2012 and is scheduled to expire February 28, 2013. While
changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing, the changes will become operative on March 1, 2013. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to extend a pilot program
applicable to Liquidity Fees and Credits for PIP Transactions through
August 31, 2013 (the ``Program''). The Program has been in effect on
BOX since February 2012 and is scheduled to expire February 28,
2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62512 (January 31,
2012), 77 FR 5590 (February 3, 2012) (Commission Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of the BOX Credits and Fees for PIP
Transactions on a pilot basis) (SR-BX-2011-046), and 66979 (May 14,
2012), 77 FR 29740 (May 18, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness to adopt the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX which
included the Program) (SR-BOX-2012-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transactions in the BOX PIP are assessed either a fee for adding
liquidity or provided a credit for removing liquidity regardless of
account type. PIP Orders (i.e., the agency orders opposite the Primary
Improvement Order \6\) receive the ``removal'' credit and Improvement
Orders \7\ are charged the ``add'' fee. In particular, the Program
permits a fee for adding liquidity or a credit for removing liquidity
of $0.75, regardless of account type, for PIP transactions where the
minimum price variation is greater than $0.01 (i.e., all non-Penny
Pilot Classes, and Penny Pilot Classes where the trade price is equal
to or greater than $3.00, excluding QQQ, SPY, and IWM).\8\ The Exchange
proposes that this $0.75 liquidity fee and credit applicable to these
PIP transactions continue to be operative on a pilot basis until August
31, 2013, in addition to any applicable Exchange Fees as described in
Section I of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An Improvement Order is a response to a PIP auction.
    \7\ A Primary Improvement Order is the matching contra order
submitted to the PIP on the opposite side of an agency order.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that the Program also includes a fee for
adding liquidity or a credit for removing liquidity of $0.30,
regardless of account type, for PIP transactions where the minimum
price variation is $0.01 (Penny Pilot classes where trade price is
less than $3.00, and all series in QQQ, SPY & IWM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the pilot, the Exchange agrees to submit to the
Commission on a monthly basis during the pilot period, and make
publicly available on the Exchange Web site: (A) PIP transaction data
in series traded in penny increments compared to series traded in
nickel increments, subdivided by when BOX is at the NBBO and when BOX
is not at the NBBO, including: (1) Volume by number of contracts
traded; (2) number of contracts executed by the Initiating Participant
as compared to others (``retention rate''); (3) percentage of contracts
receiving price improvement when the Initiating Participant is the
contra party and when others are the contra party; (4) average number
of participants responding in the PIP; (5) average price improvement
amount when the Initiating Participant is the contra party; (6) average
price improvement amount when others are the contra party; and (7)
percentage of contracts receiving price improvement greater than $0.01,
$0.02 and $0.03 when the Initiating Participant is the contra party and
when others are the contra party; and (B) effective spread data for PIP
transactions, specifically (1) average effective spread; (2) median
effective spread; and (3) mode of the effective spread.\9\ This data
will allow the Commission to further evaluate the effect of the fee
structure on competition and the extent of price improvement for orders
executed in the PIP, in the affected series, over a longer period of
time with a data set less subject to the effect of potentially
anomalous periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Effective spread'' as provided will be the execution price
of the PIP Order to buy less the midpoint of the NBBO at the time
the PIP begins, multiplied by two, and the midpoint of the NBBO at
the time the PIP begins less the execution price of the PIP Order to
sell, multiplied by two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
BOX Options Participants and other persons using its facilities.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which, among other things,
requires that rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, to protect investors and the public interest, and to not
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act. In particular, the proposed extension will allow
the Program to remain in effect without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide the proposed credit to any Participant that removes liquidity
from the BOX PIP. The Exchange further believes these credits will
attract order flow to BOX, resulting in greater liquidity to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for adding liquidity and credits for removing liquidity
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such fees and
credits apply uniformly to all categories of Participants, across all
account types.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for PIP
transactions to be reasonable. BOX operates within a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
any of several other competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. The BOX credits and fees for PIP
transactions are intended to attract order flow to BOX by offering
incentives to all market participants to submit their orders to the PIP
for potential price improvement. BOX notes that the fees collected will
not necessarily result in additional revenue to BOX, but will simply
allow BOX to provide the credit incentive to Participants to attract
additional order flow to the PIP. BOX believes it is appropriate to
provide incentives to market participants to use PIP, resulting in
potential benefit to customers through potential price improvement, and
to all market participants from greater liquidity on BOX.
    In particular, the proposed change will allow the fees charged on
BOX to remain competitive with other exchanges as well as apply such
fees in a manner which is equitable among all BOX Participants. The
Exchange believes that the PIP transaction fees and credits it assesses
are fair and reasonable and must be competitive with fees and credits
in place on other exchanges.
    During the Program, BOX has provided the Commission data so the
Commission could assess the impact of the Program on the
competitiveness of the PIP auction and extent of price improvement
obtained for customers. The reports in Exhibit 3 to the Form 19b-4
include statistics on percent and amount of price improvement, the
number of responders to a PIP auction, and the retention rates of
Initiating Participants and those market makers who received PIP
directed orders. This data also includes information on both penny and
non-penny series, although the Program only applies to PIP transactions
in non-penny series.
    Overall, the data shows that BOX's PIP provides very significant
price improvement for non-penny series both before and during the
Program. Thus, the data provided by BOX for the non-penny series does
not suggest any significant adverse impact of the Program on the
competitiveness of the PIP auction or the extent of price improvement
for orders executed in the PIP in those series. PIP execution quality
data is relevant for the consideration of broker-dealers when managing
their best execution obligations.
    The Exchange believes the data provided reflects no adverse impact
of the Program on the competitiveness of the PIP auction or the extent
of price improvement in series that trade in non-penny increments. As
such, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act.

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

    While some have argued that the Program creates a disparity between
the fees an Initiating Participant pays and the fees a competitive
responder pays in the PIP that may make the Program discriminatory and
an undue burden on competition, the Exchange believes the Program
provides incentives for market participants to submit customer order
flow to BOX and thus, creates a greater opportunity for retail
customers to receive additional price improvement. The PIP provides the
opportunity for market participants to compete for customer orders, and
has no limitations regarding the number of Market Makers, Options
Participants that are not Market Makers, and customers that can
participate and compete for orders in the PIP. BOX asserts that
Participants are actively competing for customer orders, which is
clearly supported by the simple fact that price improvement occurs in
the PIP. Since the PIP began in 2004, customers have received more than
$400 million in savings through better executions on BOX, a monthly
average of more than $3.5 million over that time.
    BOX notes that its market model and fees are generally intended to
benefit retail customers by providing incentives for Participants to
submit their customer order flow to BOX, and the PIP in particular. BOX
makes a substantial amount of PIP-related data and statistics available
to the public on its Web site www.boxexchange.com. Specifically, daily
PIP volumes and average price improvement are available at: http://boxexchange.com/volumes_en; and BOX execution quality reports at:
http://boxexchange.com/executionQualityReport_en. The data
indisputably supports that the PIP provides price improvement for
customer orders.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the Program is more transparent
than payment for order flow (``PFOF'') arrangements and notes its
belief that the credit to remove liquidity on BOX is generally less
than what firms receive through PFOF.
    For the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition either
among BOX Participants, or among the various options exchanges, that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\15\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2013-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-09 and should be
submitted on or before April 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05715 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 4450]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Tenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Plenary Joint With WG-98;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration published a document in
the Federal Register of January 9, 2017, concerning the Tenth RTCA SC-
229 406 MHz ELT Plenary Joint with WG-98. The document contained the
incorrect location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

Correction

    In Federal Register, of January 9, 2017, in FR doc Vol. 82, No. 5,
on page 2435 in Column 3 Correct the caption ADDRESS to read:

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at: E.A.S.A., Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, D-50668 Cologne, Germany.

    Dated: January 10, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-00699 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58398-58399]
[DOCID:fr06oc05-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12514-000]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Application
READY For Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

September 30, 2005.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12514-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 28, 2004.
    d. Applicant: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    e. Name of Project: Norway and Oakdale Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Tippecanoe River in Carroll and White Counties,
Indiana. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Jerome B. Weeden, Vice President Generation;
Northern Indiana Public Service Company; 801 East 86th Avenue;
Merrillville, IN 46410;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's Rules of
Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission
to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. After logging into

the e-Filing system, select ``Comment on Filing'' from the Filing Type
Selection screen and continue with the filing process.''
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. Description of the Project: The existing Norway Oakdale
Hydroelectric Project consists of the Norway development and the
Oakdale development and has a combined installed capacity of 16.4
megawatts (MW). The project produces an average annual generation of
65,000 megawatt-hours (MWh). All power is dispatched directly into the
local grid and is used within the East Central Area Reliability
Coordination Agreement.
    The Norway development includes the following constructed
facilities: (1) A 915-foot-long dam consisting of a 410-foot-long, 34-
foot-maximum-height earthfill embankment with a concrete corewall; a
225-foot-long, 29-foot-high concrete gravity overflow spillway with
flashboards; a 120-foot-long, 30-foot-high concrete gated spillway with
three 30-foot wide, 22-foot-high spillway gates; a 18-foot-wide, 30-
foot-high trash sluice housing with one 8-foot-wide, 11-foot-high gate;
and a 142-foot-long, 64-foot-wide powerhouse integral with the dam
containing four vertical Francis turbines-generating units with a rated
head of 28 feet, total hydraulic capacity of 3,675 cubic feet per
second (cfc) and a total electric output of 7.2 MW; (2) a 10-mile-long,
10-foot average depth, 1,291-acre reservoir; (3) a two-mile-long 69,000
volt transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
    The Oakdale development includes the following constructed
facilities: (1) A 1688-foot-long dam consisting of a 126-foot-long, 58-
foot-maximum-height east concrete buttress and slab dam connecting the
left abutment to the powerhouse; a 114-foot-long, 70-foot-wide
powerhouse integral with the dam containing three vertical Francis
turbines-generating units with a rated head of 42 to 48 feet, total
hydraulic capacity of 3,200 cubic feet per second (cfc) and a total
electric output of 9.2 MW; an 18-foot-wide structure containing a
nonfunctional fish ladder and a gated trash sluice; a 84-foot-long
ogee-shaped concrete gated spillway with two 30-foot wide, 22-foot-high
vertical lift gates; a 90-foot-long, six bay concrete gravity siphon-
type auxiliary spillway; and a 1,260-foot-long west earth embankment
with a maximum height of 58 feet and a 30-foot-wide crest; (2) a 10-
mile-long, 16-foot average depth, 1,547-acre reservoir; and (3)
appurtenant facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field (P-12514) to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the application, which has
already been given, established the due date for filing competing
applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations,
any competing application must be filed in response to and in
compliance with public notice of the initial application. No competing
applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this
notice.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5495 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28270-28274]
[DOCID:fr16my06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0272; FRL-8159-7]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality, and Pinal County Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Pima County
Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ), and Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portions of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM-10) emissions from open burning. We are approving local rules that
regulate this emission source under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 15, 2006. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0272, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rule revisions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve a Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that the
amended rules were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by
the ADEQ.

                               Table 1.--Submitted Rules for Direct Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local agency                    Rule No.                    Rule title            Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ........................  R18-2-602..................  Unlawful Open Burning......     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1501.................  Definitions................     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1502.................  Applicability..............     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1503.................  Annual Registration,            03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Program Evaluation and
                                                            Planning.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1504.................  Prescribed Burn Plan.......     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1505.................  Prescribed Burn Requests        03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            and Authorization.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1506.................  Smoke Dispersion and            03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Evaluation.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1507.................  Prescribed Burn                 03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Accomplishment; Wildfire
                                                            Reporting.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1508.................  Wildland Fire Use: Plan,        03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Authorization, Monitoring;
                                                            Inter-Agency Consultation;
                                                            Status Reporting.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1509.................  Emission Reduction              03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Techniques.
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1510.................  Smoke Management Techniques     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1511.................  Monitoring.................     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1512.................  Burner Qualifications......     03/16/04     12/30/04
ADEQ........................  R18-2-1513.................  Public Notification             03/16/04     12/30/04
                                                            Program; Regional
                                                            Coordination.
PCDEQ.......................  17.12.480..................  Open Burning Permits.......     10/19/04     12/30/04
PCAQCD......................  3-8-700....................  General Provisions.........     10/27/04     12/30/04
PCAQCD......................  3-8-710....................  Permit Provisions and           10/27/04     12/30/04
                                                            Administration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2005, the submittal of ADEQ Rule R18-2-602, ADEQ Rules
R18-2-1501 through R18-2-1513, PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480, and PCAQCD Rules
3-8-700 and 3-8-710 were determined by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved versions of ADEQ Rule R18-2-602 into the SIP on October
19, 1984 (49 FR 41026) and April 23, 1982 (47 FR 17485) as Rule R9-3-
402. We approved a version of combined ADEQ Rules R18-2-1501 through
R18-2-1513 into the SIP on April 23, 1982 (47 FR 17485) as Rule R9-3-
403.
    We approved versions of PCAQCD Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710 into the
SIP on April 28, 2004 (69 FR 23103).
    We approved a version of PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480 into the SIP as
combined Rules 204, section A; 204, section B; and Table 204 on April
16, 1982 (47 FR 16328).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
air district's programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of the revisions of ADEQ Rule R18-2-602 relative to
the SIP rule are as follows:
     602.B: The rule adds 11 definitions for improved clarity.
     602.D.1: The rule adds a list of types of burning that may
be permitted, to include construction burning, agricultural burning,
residential burning, prescribed burning, weed abatement, prevention of
fire hazard, and air curtain destructor operation.
     602.D.3.e: The rule adds a requirement for an applicant to
state the emission reduction techniques that will be used to minimize
fire emissions.
     602.D.3.f: The rule adds a requirement for daily reporting
on burns.
     602.D.3.g: The rule adds a requirement for notification
before ignition of the burn.
     602.D.3.h-o: The rule adds requirements to start burning
without black smoke, to attend the fire at all time, to have fire
extinguishing equipment on-site, to locate a waste burner over 50 feet
from any structure, to have a copy of the burn permit on site, to not
burn during a stagnation advisory or a time when Class I areas might be
affected, to not burn during an air pollution episode, and to allow the
Director or a public officer to extinguish the fire during unfavorable
conditions.
     602.D.3.p: The rule adds a provision that failure to
obtain or comply with a permit is subject to civil or criminal
penalties.
     602.G: The rule adds the option for the Director to
delegate burn permitting authority to a county, town, air pollution
control district, or fire district.
     602.H: The rule adds a requirement for the Director to
hold an annual public meeting to discuss the open burning program and
emission reduction techniques.
    The purposes of the revisions of Rules R18-2-1501 through R18-2-
1513 relative to the SIP rule are as follows:
     1501: The rule adds 23 definitions for improved clarity.
     1502: The rule extends the authority of ADEQ to regulate
prescribed burning to all areas of the state, all federal and state
land managers, and all private or municipal burners, except Indian
Trust lands.
     1503: The rule adds to the information required for the
annual burn permits for planned burning. The rule adds a requirement
for annual evaluation meetings on past burn projects.
     1504: The rule adds extensive requirements for a burn plan
to be submitted to ADEQ at least 14 days prior to ignition of the burn.
     1505: The rule adds extensive requirements for a daily
burn plan to be submitted to ADEQ by at least 2 p.m. of the previous
business day. ADEQ may

approve or modify the burn plan based on a change in weather conditions
and potential impact on the public.
     1506: The rule adds 12 additional factors for ADEQ to
evaluate daily burn plans for smoke dispersion on which ADEQ may
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the daily burn plan.
     1507: The rule adds a requirement for the burner to submit
a burn accomplishment form to ADEQ by 2 p.m. the next day. Wildfires
burning more than 100 acres per day in timber or slash or more than 300
acres per day of brush or grass must be reported by the entity with
jurisdiction for the area of the fire.
     1508: The rule adds extensive requirements for reporting
to ADEQ the beneficial use of a wildland fire incident exceeding 40
acres of timer or 250 acres of brush or grass.
     1509: The rule adds the requirement that as many emission
reduction techniques (ERTs) as possible be used. A list of 16 potential
ERTs is provided.
     1510: The rule adds the requirement that as many smoke
management techniques (SMTs) as possible be used. A list of 11
potential SMTs is provided.
     1511: The rule adds extensive requirements for monitoring
air quality before or during a prescribed burn or a wildland fire
beneficial use incident, if necessary to assess smoke impacts.
     1512: The rule adds a requirement for a prescribed-fire
boss to have formal training in fire and smoke management techniques.
     1513: The rule adds a requirement for the ADEQ Director to
conduct a public education and awareness program in smoke management.
    The purposes of the revisions of PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480 relative to
the SIP versions are as follows:
     480.A: The rule adds one definition, deletes three
definitions, and changes the rule number.
     480.C.1.f: The rule adds an exemption from permitting for
ceremonial destruction of flags.
     480.C.2.a: The rule adds an exemption from permitting for
control of an active wildfire by a public official.
     480.C.4: The rule adds an exemption from permitting for
prescribed burning by federal and state agencies.
     480.D.1: The rule adds the allowance to burn with a permit
for agricultural burning and prescribed burning in the absence of a
federal or state land manager.
     480.F: The rule adds the allowance to burn with a permit
and an approved waste burner household waste where no household waste
collection or disposal service is available on either farms of at least
40 acres or on a site where the nearest dwelling unit is at least 500
feet away.
     480: The revised rule deletes an exemption from permitting
for the training of government officials in criminal-enforcement or
national-defense activities and deletes an exemption from permitting
for safety flares.
    The purposes of the PCAQCD Rule 3-8-700 revisions relative to the
SIP rule are as follows:
     700.A.4: The rule receives exemption provisions from
section 710.E for subterranean detonation of explosives, fireworks and
pyrotechnics, and adds an exemption provision for ceremonial
destruction of flags.
     700.A.5: The rule adds the provision that fires set for
the disposal of materials shall be presumed to be larger than ``de
minimis.''
     700.B: The rule adds 12 definitions for improved clarity.
     700.C.1.c,d: The rule adds limitations on the amount to be
burned in one month for small-scale residential permits to less than 10
cubic yards of uncompacted material and for large-scale residential
permits to less than 20 cubic yards.
     700.C.2.b,c: The rule adds limitations on the amount to be
burned in one month for small-scale commercial permits to less than 10
cubic yards of uncompacted material and for large-scale commercial
permits to less than 20 cubic yards.
     700.C.2.d: The rule adds various requirements and
restrictions for commercial land-clearing permits of greater than 20
cubic yards. The rule also adds requirements for the use of air curtain
destructors for land clearing.
     700.C.7: The rule adds a restriction of 20 cubic yards for
a bonfire permit at civic events.
     700.D.2: The rule receives provisions for permit terms
from section 710.D and adds provisions for permit terms for training
exercises, commercial land clearing, and bonfires.
     700.D.3: The rule adds the requirement that permits may be
suspended due to air stagnation advisory, air pollution emergency
episode, excessive visibility impairment, or extreme fire danger.
     700.D.4: The rule adds the requirement for an applicant to
state the emission reduction techniques that will be used to minimize
fire emissions.
     700.D.5: The rule adds permit conditions to limit burn
times, limit wind speed, constantly attend the fire, completely
extinguish the fire, start burning without black smoke, have fire
extinguishing equipment on-site, have a waste burner over 50 feet from
any structure, notify the fire agency of commencement of burning,
prevent smoke dispersion into a populated area, prevent visibility
impairment, not create a public nuisance, not burn when Class I areas
might be affected, not cause uncontrollable spreading of the fire, not
burn during a stagnation advisory, and not burn during an air pollution
episode.
     700.E: The rule adds requirements for daily reporting on
burns.
     700.G.1: The rule adds a ``no-burn'' restriction whenever
monitoring and forecasting indicates that the carbon monoxide ambient
standard is likely to be exceeded.
     700.G.2: The rule adds a ``no-burn'' restriction by
operation of law whenever Maricopa Environmental Services Department or
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality declares a ``no-burn''
restriction in neighboring Maricopa County.
     700.H: The rule adds a provision that failure to obtain or
comply with a permit is subject to civil or criminal penalties.
    The purposes of the PCAQCD Rule 3-8-710 relative to the SIP rule
are as follows:
     710.C: The rule adds a prohibition against storing
materials subject to spontaneous combustion, except coal, without
adequate fire-fighting facilities.
     710.D. The rule transfers provisions for the term of a
permit to section 700.D.2.
     710.E. The rule transfers provisions for exemptions to
section 700.A.4.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
    SIP rules in PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for major
sources reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
reasonably available control technology (RACT), in moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas (see section 189(a)) or must require for major
sources best available control measures (BACM), including best
available control technology (BACT), in serious PM-10 nonattainment
areas (see section 189(b)). ADEQ regulates a moderate PM-10
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR

part 81), so ADEQ Rules R18-2-602 and combined Rules R18-2-1501 through
R18-2-1513 must fulfill the requirements of RACM/RACT. PCDEQ regulates
a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so PCDEQ Rule
17.12.480 must fulfill the requirements of RACM/RACT. PCAQCD regulates
a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so combined
PCAQCD Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/
BACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).

B. Do the Rule Revisions Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, BACM/BACT, and
RACM/RACT. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve a Rule

    The TSD describes additional revisions to PCAQCD Rule 3-8-700 that
do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next
time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving ADEQ Rule R18-2-602, ADEQ Rules R18-2-1501 through R18-2-
1513, PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480, and PCAQCD Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710
because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not
think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it
without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of
the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by June 15,
2006, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect
and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on
the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct
final approval will be effective without further notice on July 17,
2006. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable
SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 17, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(131) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (131) The following amended rules were submitted on December 30,
2004, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (1) Rule R18-2-602, adopted effective on May 14, 1979 and amended
effective on March 16, 2004.
    (2) Rules R18-2-1501, R18-2-1502, R18-2-1503, R18-2-1504, R18-2-
1505, R18-2-1506, R18-2-1507, R18-2-1508, R18-2-1509, R18-2-1510, R18-
2-1511, R18-2-1512, and R18-2-1513, adopted effective on October 8,
1996 and amended effective on March 16, 2004.
    (B) Pima County Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Rule 17.12.480, amended on October 19, 2004.
    (C) Pinal County Air Quality Control District.
    (1) Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710, adopted effective on June 29, 1993
and amended on October 27, 2004.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4516 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40636-40637]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0091]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of Existing
Information Collection Request: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking
Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. This ICR will enable FMCSA to document the burden
associated with the marking regulations in ``Marking of Self-Propelled
CMVs and Intermodal Equipment.'' These regulations require marking of
vehicles and intermodal equipment by motor carriers and intermodal
equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in interstate transportation. The
FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, ``Commercial Motor
Vehicle Marking Requirements.''

DATES: Please send your comments by September 14, 2018. OMB must
receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0091. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Frederick, Transportation
Specialist, Compliance Division, Department of Transportation, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email Address: [email protected]. Office hours are from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking Requirements
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0054.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Freight carrying commercial motor carriers, passenger
carrying commercial motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 218,389 motor carriers and IEPs.
    Estimated Time per Response: 26 minutes [12 minutes to affix DOT
Number + 14 minutes for affixing a carrier's name = 26].
    Expiration Date: August 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 774,249 hours spent by motor
carriers and IEPs marking CMVs with a DOT number and carrier
information.
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to require marking of vehicles and intermodal equipment by
motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in
interstate transportation based on the authority of 49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(8) and 31133(a)(10). The Secretary has delegated authority
pertaining to the marking of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) pursuant
to 49 CFR 1.87(f). The Agency's regulation governing the marking of
CMVs is codified at 49 CFR 390.21.
    Vehicle marking requirements are intended to ensure that FMCSA, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and State safety officials
are able to identify motor carriers and correctly assign responsibility
for regulatory violations during inspections, investigations,
compliance reviews, and crash studies. These marking requirements will
also provide the public with beneficial information that could assist
in identifying carriers for the purposes of commerce, complaints or
emergency notification. The marking requirements apply to motor
carriers and intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in
interstate transportation. The Agency does not require a specific
method of marking as long as the marking complies with FMCSA's
regulations. The program change decrease of 76,751 estimated annual
burden hours (774,249 proposed estimated annual burden hours-851,000
approved estimated annual burden hours) is due to adjustments in
respondent and response estimates. Data, as of September 29, 2017,
pulled from FMCSA's MCMIS and SMS databases indicated that there was a
decrease in the number of active interstate freight carriers and
intrastate hazardous materials carriers and a decrease in the number of
power units subject to Component 1 marking requirements, resulting in a
decrease of 94,799 burden hours. According to the September 29, 2017
snapshot, there was a decrease in the number of passenger carriers
impacted and an increase in the number of passenger-carrying power
units impacted by Component 2, resulting in an increase of 17,947
burden hours. Finally, greater precision was used in calculating the
number of respondents, responses associated with Component 3, resulting
in an increase of 101 burden hours.
    Two comments were submitted to the docket during the 60-day comment
period, in response to the 60-day Federal Register, 83(17885),
published on April 24, 2018. One comment was received from Greyhound
Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) and the other from Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA). Greyhound's comment, however, addresses
another ICR open during the same time period, ``Leasing and Interchange
of Vehicles,'' and not the Markings ICR. The comment submitted by
Greyhound will thus be addressed in the Leasing ICR response. The other
comment submitted by OOIDA raised two points. The first issue raised
deals with the phrasing of the associated regulation, part 390. OOIDA
asserts that current wording of the part does not permit certain
leasing situations. FMCSA notes that an ICR is not the venue for
regulatory change, even if the regulation is related to the subject
matter covered in the ICR. The second claim made by OOIDA is that the
aforementioned regulation does nothing to improve safety. As we stated
in the 2015 final rule the marking requirement enables ``investigators
and the general public to identify the passenger carrier responsible
for safety'' (80 FR 30164, 30166). Given these considerations FMCSA
does not believe changes to the ICR are appropriate based on these
comments.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its

functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the
FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on August 3,
2018.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-17568 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P