Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems; Extension of Comment Period, 36563-36564 [2019-16040]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 395.2 should be expanded beyond the
animals identified in the Emergency
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
(including, for purposes of this
discussion, the animals added by
Section 12104 of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018, as discussed
above). Another possible approach
would be to adopt a definition of
‘‘livestock’’ broad enough to include all
eligible animals, including those
covered by the Emergency Livestock
Feed Assistance Act (as amended),
without listing them individually.
V. Questions
FMCSA requests that commenters
respond to the questions below, but the
Agency also welcomes comments or
questions on any other issues related to
the definitions of ‘‘agricultural
commodity’’ and ‘‘livestock’’ as those
terms are used in § 395.1(k)(1). Please
provide specific examples and, to the
extent practicable, quantitative or
qualitative data to support your
answers.
1. The statute and regulation define a
term with the same term: ‘‘Agricultural
commodity means ‘‘any agricultural
commodity . . . .’’ Does that lack of
detail cause compliance or enforcement
problems? Should FMCSA consider
adopting a list of specific agricultural
commodities, or clarify its current
approach utilizing the more general
definition? If you wish to suggest that
specific commodities (e.g., sod or other
types of horticulture) be included in the
definition, please explain how they fit
within the statutory definition, and
provide information about the average
and maximum transportation times and
the extent to which the commodities are
perishable.
2. Should FMCSA define or otherwise
clarify the term ‘‘non-processed,’’ as
applied in the definition of ‘‘agricultural
commodity?’’ If so, given the context of
harvesting and planting seasons
referenced in the applicable statute,
how should that term be defined? Please
provide examples of ‘‘non-processed’’
agricultural commodities that should be
included and discuss the distinction
between ‘‘processed’’ and ‘‘nonprocessed.’’
3. Would clarification or definition of
other terms used in the definition of
‘‘agricultural commodity,’’ such as
‘‘food,’’ ‘‘feed,’’ or ‘‘fiber,’’ be helpful?
Please provide recommendations and
data to support your suggested
definition.
4. Should the definition of ‘‘livestock’’
be revised to include aquatic animals in
addition to live fish and crawfish?
Please provide data to support your
answer, such as how far aquatic animals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
are typically transported and why you
believe the HOS exemption would be
appropriate for the transportation of
specific aquatic animals.
5. Is the list of animals in the
definition of ‘‘livestock’’ in § 395.2
adequate? As noted above, the Agency
intends to add llamas, alpacas, live fish,
and crawfish to the definition,
consistent with Agricultural
Improvement Act of 2018 amendment to
the Emergency Livestock Feed
Assistance Act of 1988. Should other
animal species be included? Please
provide data on the average and
maximum transportation times for
additional livestock you believe should
be included in the definition of
‘‘livestock’’ in § 395.2 and the impacts
of longer transportation times.
6. Are there cost or safety
implications of adding specific
agricultural commodities or livestock to
the current definitions of ‘‘agricultural
commodity’’ and ‘‘livestock’’? Please
provide data to support your answer.
7. Are there benefits of adding
specific agricultural commodities or
livestock to the current definitions of
‘‘agricultural commodity’’ and
‘‘livestock’’? Please provide data to
support your answer.
8. USDA regulations define
‘‘agricultural commodity’’ in a variety of
ways, depending on the underlying
statutory authority and regulatory
purpose. For transporters of agricultural
commodities subject to both USDA and
FMCSA regulations, what are the
practical implications of not having
consistent definitions of that term?
Should FMCSA adopt or cross-reference
any of the definitions applied by USDA,
to the extent they are compatible with
the statutory definitions of ‘‘agricultural
commodity’’ and ‘‘livestock’’
incorporated in § 395.2?
9. If the definitions of ‘‘agricultural
commodity’’ or ‘‘livestock’’ in § 395.2
were more consistent with applicable
USDA definitions of the terms, would
use of the definition for purposes of
§ 395.1(k)(1) result in cost or benefit
impacts to CMV drivers who transport
such commodities, the motor carriers
who employ them, growers or
distributors of those commodities, or
enforcement personnel? Please provide
data to support your answer.
10. Are motor carriers being exposed
to financial liability in situations where
their drivers complied with HOS
regulations and (1) the receiver refused
delivery because the shipment did not
meet contract specifications requiring
the driver to deliver to an alternative
location; and/or (2) the freight claim
was not paid or was reduced because
the grade standard of quality and
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36563
condition, or temperature at destination,
was not acceptable due to the driver’s
compliance with HOS regulations; (3)
the receiver refused delivery because
the shipment was late due to the
driver’s compliance with HOS
regulations; (4) the receiver made the
driver wait to unload because the
shipment was late and charged a late
delivery fee due to the driver’s
compliance with HOS regulations?
11. Do you believe ambiguities in the
current definition of the terms
‘‘agricultural commodity’’ or livestock,’’
as applied to the HOS exemption in
§ 395.1(k)(1), impact highway safety? If
so, how?
Issued under the authority of
delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Dated: July 23, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–15960 Filed 7–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0036]
RIN 2127–AM00
Removing Regulatory Barriers for
Vehicles With Automated Driving
Systems; Extension of Comment
Period
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM); Extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
In response to a request from
the public, NHTSA is announcing a 30day extension of the comment period on
the ANPRM on Removing Regulatory
Barriers for Vehicles with Automated
Driving Systems. The comment period
for the ANPRM was originally
scheduled to end on July 29, 2019. It
will now end on August 28, 2019.
DATES: The comment period for the
ANPRM published on May 28, 2019 at
84 FR 24433 is extended. Written
comments on the ANPRM must be
received on or before August 28, 2019
in order to be considered timely.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be
submitted by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
36564
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit your
comments, they must include the docket
number identified in the heading of this
notice.
Not that all comments received,
including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov. Please
see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below.
You may call the Docket Management
Facility at 202–366–9324.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. We will continue
to file relevant information in the docket
as it becomes available.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Hines, Director, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, Telephone: (202)
366–1810. Facsimile: (202) 366–7002.
Sara Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Vehicle
Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office
of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366–
2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
28, 2019, NHTSA published an ANPRM
to obtain public comments on the nearand long-term challenges of testing and
verifying compliance with existing
crash avoidance (100-series) Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for
Automated Driving System-Dedicated
Vehicles that lack traditional manual
controls necessary for a human driver to
maneuver the vehicle and other features
intended to facilitate operation of a
vehicle by a human driver, but that are
otherwise traditional vehicles with
typical seating configurations. The
ANPRM stated that the closing date for
comments is July 29, 2019.
On July 15, 2019, NHTSA received a
request from the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) for a
60-day extension of the comment
period. The request can be found in the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
docket for the ANPRM identified in the
heading of this notice. NHTSA has
considered this request and believes
that a 30-day extension beyond the
original due date appropriately balances
NHTSA’s interest in providing the
public with sufficient time to comment
on the complex and novel questions
raised in the ANPRM, with its interest
in safely addressing regulatory barriers
in a timely manner. This is to notify the
public that NHTSA is extending the
comment period on the ANPRM, and
allowing it to remain open until August
28, 2019.
We note that, in addition to
requesting an extension of the ANPRM
comment period, APTA also requested
NHTSA hold a public meeting or
webinar on the issues raised in the
ANPRM. NHTSA is considering
whether to hold a public meeting or
webinar on the issues raised in the
ANPRM, and will decide whether to do
so once the agency has considered the
comments received during the full
extended comment period.
Authority: Delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019–16040 Filed 7–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36563-36564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16040]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0036]
RIN 2127-AM00
Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving
Systems; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Extension of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the public, NHTSA is announcing
a 30-day extension of the comment period on the ANPRM on Removing
Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems. The
comment period for the ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on July
29, 2019. It will now end on August 28, 2019.
DATES: The comment period for the ANPRM published on May 28, 2019 at 84
FR 24433 is extended. Written comments on the ANPRM must be received on
or before August 28, 2019 in order to be considered timely.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
[[Page 36564]]
online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, they must include the
docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
Not that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov.
Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in
the docket as it becomes available.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hines, Director, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, Telephone: (202) 366-1810. Facsimile: (202) 366-
7002. Sara Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Vehicle Rulemaking and
Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992.
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 28, 2019, NHTSA published an ANPRM to
obtain public comments on the near- and long-term challenges of testing
and verifying compliance with existing crash avoidance (100-series)
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Automated Driving System-
Dedicated Vehicles that lack traditional manual controls necessary for
a human driver to maneuver the vehicle and other features intended to
facilitate operation of a vehicle by a human driver, but that are
otherwise traditional vehicles with typical seating configurations. The
ANPRM stated that the closing date for comments is July 29, 2019.
On July 15, 2019, NHTSA received a request from the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) for a 60-day extension of the comment
period. The request can be found in the docket for the ANPRM identified
in the heading of this notice. NHTSA has considered this request and
believes that a 30-day extension beyond the original due date
appropriately balances NHTSA's interest in providing the public with
sufficient time to comment on the complex and novel questions raised in
the ANPRM, with its interest in safely addressing regulatory barriers
in a timely manner. This is to notify the public that NHTSA is
extending the comment period on the ANPRM, and allowing it to remain
open until August 28, 2019.
We note that, in addition to requesting an extension of the ANPRM
comment period, APTA also requested NHTSA hold a public meeting or
webinar on the issues raised in the ANPRM. NHTSA is considering whether
to hold a public meeting or webinar on the issues raised in the ANPRM,
and will decide whether to do so once the agency has considered the
comments received during the full extended comment period.
Authority: Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-16040 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P