[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29559-29560]
[DOCID:fr26my10-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

The 13th Annual Food and Drug Administration-Orange County
Regulatory Affairs Educational Conference in Irvine, California:
``Regulatory Affairs: The Business of Regulatory Affairs''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of conference.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
conference: 13th Annual Educational Conference co-sponsored with the
Orange County Regulatory Affairs Discussion Group (OCRA). The
conference is intended to provide the drug, device, biologics and
dietary supplement industries with an opportunity to interact with FDA
reviewers and compliance officers from the centers and District
Offices, as well as other industry experts. The main focus of this
interactive conference will be product approval, compliance, and risk
management in the four medical product areas. Industry speakers,
interactive Q & A, and workshop sessions will also be included to
assure open exchange and dialogue on the relevant regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The conference will be held on June 16 and 17, 2010,
from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The conference will be held at the Irvine Marriott, 18000
Von Karman Ave., Irvine, CA 92612.
    Contact: Linda Hartley, Food and Drug Administration, 19701
Fairchild, Irvine, CA 92612, Voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Orange County Regulatory Affairs Discussion Group

(OCRA), Attention to Detail, 5319 University Dr., suite 641, Irvine, CA
92612, Voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Web site: www.ocra-
dg.org.
    Registration and Meeting Information: See OCRA's Web site at
www.ocra-dg.org. Contact Attention to Detail at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Registrations fees are as follows: $725.00 for members, $775.00 for
non-members, and $475.00 for FDA/Government/Students. OCRA student rate
applies to those individuals enrolled in a regulatory or quality
related academic program at an accredited institution. Proof of
enrollment is required.
    The registration fee will cover actual expenses including
refreshments, lunch, materials, parking, and speaker expenses.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Linda Hartley (see Contact) at least 10 days in advance.

    Dated: May 20, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12615 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59216-59224]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. FRA-2006-26174; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AB83

Locomotive Safety Standards; Sanders

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is revising the existing requirements related to sanders
on locomotives. This rule modifies the existing regulations by
permitting additional flexibility in the use of locomotives with
inoperative sanders. The rule provides railroads the ability to better
utilize their locomotive fleets while ensuring that locomotives are
equipped with operative sanders in situations where they provide the
most benefit from a safety and operational perspective. The rule also
makes the regulations related to operative sanders more consistent with
existing Canadian standards related to the devices.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 18, 2007; petitions for
reconsideration must be received on or before December 18, 2007.
Petitions received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expense or delay.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration: Any petitions for
reconsideration related to Docket No. FRA-2006-24838, may be submitted
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal

information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Scerbo, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Motive Power & Equipment Division, RRS-14,
Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Michael Masci,
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    FRA has broad statutory authority to regulate railroad safety. The
Locomotive Inspection Act (formerly 45 U.S.C. 22-34, now 49 U.S.C.
20701-20703) was enacted in 1911. It prohibits the use of unsafe
locomotives and authorizes FRA to issue standards for locomotive
maintenance and testing. In order to further FRA's ability to respond
effectively to contemporary safety problems and hazards as they arise
in the railroad industry, Congress enacted the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (Safety Act) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et seq., now
found primarily in chapter 201 of Title 49). The Safety Act grants the
Secretary of Transportation rulemaking authority over all areas of
railroad safety (49 U.S.C. 20103(a)) and confers powers necessary to
detect and penalize violations of any rail safety law. This authority
was subsequently delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 CFR 1.49)
(Until July 5, 1994, the Federal railroad safety statutes existed as
separate acts found primarily in title 45 of the United States Code. On
that date, all of the acts were repealed, and their provisions were
recodified into title 49).
    Pursuant to its general statutory rulemaking authority, FRA
promulgates and enforces rules as part of a comprehensive regulatory
program to address the safety of railroad track, signal systems,
communications, rolling stock, operating practices, passenger train
emergency preparedness, alcohol and drug testing, locomotive engineer
certification, and workplace safety. In the area of locomotive safety,
FRA has issued regulations, found at 49 CFR part 229 (``part 229''),
addressing topics such as inspections and tests, safety requirements
for brake, draft, suspension, and electrical systems, and cabs and cab
equipment. All references to parts and sections in this document shall
be to parts and sections located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. FRA continually reviews its regulations and revises them
as needed to keep up with emerging technology.
    On July 12, 2004, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), on
behalf of itself and its member railroads, petitioned the FRA to delete
the requirement as contained in 49 CFR 229.131. The petition and
supporting documentation asserted that contrary to

popular belief, depositing sand on the rail will not have any
significant influence on the emergency stopping distance of a train.
Subsequent to the petition, FRA and interested industry members began
identifying various issues related to locomotive safety standards with
the intent that FRA would potentially address the issues through its
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC).

II. RSAC Overview

    In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations on rulemakings and other safety
program issues. The Committee includes representation from all of the
agency's major customer groups, including railroads, labor
organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested
parties. A list of member groups follows:

American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO)
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)
American Chemistry Council
American Petrochemical Institute
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA)
Amtrak
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Association of Railway Museums (ARM)
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED)
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA)
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*
League of Railway Industry Women*
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP)
National Association of Railway Business Women*
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*
Railway Supply Institute (RSI)
Safe Travel America (STA)
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transporte*
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA)
Tourist Railway Association Inc
Transport Canada*
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU)
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC)
United Transportation Union (UTU)
--------
    \*\Indicates associate membership

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to the RSAC, and after
consideration and debate, the RSAC may accept or reject the task. If a
task is accepted, the RSAC establishes a working group that possesses
the appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a
given task. The task force then provides that information to the
working group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous
consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to
the RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple majority
of the RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then
determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff
has played an active role at the working group level in discussing the
issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the
recommendation and the agency exercises its independent judgment on
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal. If the
working group or the RSAC is unable to reach consensus on
recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the issue
through traditional rulemaking proceedings.

III. Proceedings to Date

    On February 22, 2006, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the
task of reviewing existing locomotive safety needs and recommending
consideration of specific actions useful to advance the safety of rail
operations. The RSAC established the Locomotive Safety Standards
Working Group (Working Group) to handle this task and develop
recommendations for the full RSAC to consider. Members of the Working
Group, in addition to FRA, included the following:

APTA
ASLRRA
Amtrak
AAR
ASRSM
BLET
BMWE
BRS
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)
California Department of Transportation
Canadian National Railway (CN)
Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)
Conrail
CSX Transportation (CSXT)
Florida East Coast Railroad
General Electric (GE)
Genesee & Wyoming Inc.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
IBEW
Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS)
Long Island Rail Road
Metro-North Railroad
MTA Long Island
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS)
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
Rail America, Inc.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Agency
SMWIA
STV, Inc.
Tourist Railway Association Inc.
Transport Canada
Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
UTU
Volpe Center
Wabtech Corporation
Watco Companies

    The task statement approved by the full RSAC sought immediate
action from the Working Group regarding the need for and usefulness of
the existing regulation related to locomotive sanders. The task
statement established a target date of 90 days for the Working Group to
report back to the RSAC with recommendations to revise the existing
regulatory sander provision. The Working Group conducted two meetings
that focused almost exclusively on the sander requirement. The meetings
were held on May 8-10, 2006, in St. Louis, Missouri, and on August 9-
10, 2006, in Fort Worth, Texas. Minutes of these meetings have been
made part of the docket in this proceeding. After broad and meaningful
discussion related to the potential safety and operational benefits
provided by equipping

locomotives with operative sanders, the Working Group reached consensus
on a recommendation for the full RSAC.
    On September 21, 2006, the full RSAC unanimously adopted the
Working Group's recommendation on locomotive sanders as its
recommendation to FRA. The RSAC recommendation included the Working
Group's consensus rule text, and requested that FRA draft a regulatory
proposal related to the use of sanders on locomotives performing
switching service at outlying locations. The Working Group's discussion
of outlying locations was based on an apparent need to distinguish
locations that did not have sufficient access to a sand delivery system
from those that do have such access. FRA reviewed and accepted the
RSAC's recommendation and developed a regulatory proposal based on that
recommendation. The specific regulatory language recommended by the
RSAC was amended slightly for clarity and consistency, and FRA
independently developed proposed provisions related to the use of
sanders on locomotives used in switching service at outlying locations.
    On March 6, 2007, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). See 72 FR 9904. FRA solicited written comments from the public
in the NPRM in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553). Consideration of public comment allows FRA to access
additional viewpoints from interested parties and include them when
appropriate. By the close of the comment period on May 7, 2007, two
sets of comments were received. Comments were received on May 4, 2007
from the BLET, and on May 7, 2007 from the AAR. The comments can be
classified into three general categories: (1) Responses to specific
requests for comments that were made in the NPRM; (2) inquiries
regarding the treatment of locomotives that switch position en route
changing between lead and trailing positions in the consist under
paragraph 229.131(b)(1) and (b)(2); and, (3) remarks concerning the
portions of the NPRM that were developed independently by FRA (the
definition of sand delivery system and paragraph 229.131(c)(1)).
    In order to further clarify written comments received during the
comment period, comments were discussed by the Working Group at the
June 8, 2007 meeting in Chicago. The discussion, although limited in
scope, furthered FRA's understanding of the written comments that were
received. Obviously, there can be a tremendous benefit to clarity when
in-person oral communication is permitted, including: (1) An
opportunity for a party to refine a comment based on one or more
questions from the Agency or other party; (2) observations of verbal
tone and physical expressions that facilitate better understanding; and
(3) an opportunity to accommodate a party that is more effective at
communicating orally than it is in writing. Based on its thorough
review, FRA addresses each of the comments in the relevant regulatory
paragraphs of the section-by-section analysis provided below.
    FRA continues to agree with the Working Group's determination that
locomotive sanders provide limited safety benefits and that the primary
benefits derived from the devices are operational. Accordingly, this
final rule retains the NPRM's goal of preserving the limited safety
benefits of the devices while addressing the overly restrictive nature
of the existing provision. This rule provides appropriate relief from
the existing requirement by creating a more precise standard. The final
rule requires sander maintenance based on operational realities instead
of the current time-based standard. The final rule provides relief
according to specific identified operational conditions. The rule
distinguishes between the following conditions: lead and non-lead
locomotives; locomotives in road service and switching service; and,
locomotives at locations with or without a sand delivery system. These
distinctions better reflect current railroad operations while
maintaining the current level of safety provided by sanders. The rule
also harmonizes the sander requirement with the existing Canadian
requirements by placing a fourteen-day limit on service for lead
locomotives in road service with inoperative sanders.
    Throughout the preamble discussion of this rule, FRA refers to
comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made by members of the
Working Group. When using this terminology, FRA is referring to views,
statements, discussions or positions identified or contained in the
minutes of the Working Group meetings. These documents have been made
part of the docket in this proceeding and are available for public
inspection as discussed in the ADDRESSES portion of this document.
These points are discussed to show the origin of certain issues and the
course of discussions on those issues at the working group level. We
believe this helps illuminate factors FRA has weighed in making its
regulatory decisions, and the logic behind those decisions. The reader
should keep in mind, of course, that only the full RSAC makes
recommendations to FRA, and it is the consensus recommendation of the
full RSAC on which FRA is acting.

IV. Technical Background

    The NPRM provided a comprehensive technical discussion addressing
the usefulness of sand in the operation of locomotives. See 72 FR 9906-
08. The discussion evaluated: the effect of sand on adhesion, and
braking distance; as well as the current use of sand as instructed by
railroad operating rules and training. The discussion demonstrates that
having operative sanders benefits the locomotive, and that the benefit
could be realized while allowing greater operational flexibility. Two
expected benefits from the use of sand concern extended range dynamic
braking and lite locomotives. FRA expects the use of sand in
conjunction with extended range dynamic braking will provide some
benefit. Extended range dynamic braking is currently used extensively
to slow trains and (with rolling resistance and perhaps the independent
brake) bring them to a stop. Locomotive engineers may utilize dynamic
brakes rather than the automatic train brake, where possible, in order
to conserve fuel and avoid undesired emergency brake applications. FRA
also expects that sand applied on multiple axles could be an important
contributor to maintaining satisfactory stopping distances of lite
locomotive consists under unfavorable conditions (wet rail, etc.).
Locomotives are frequently moved in order to reposition power
throughout the fleet. For these lite locomotives, sand will remain on
the rail long enough to assist adhesion between the wheels and the rail
for a lite locomotive consist. FRA does not believe it is necessary to
reiterate the technical discussion in this final rule and directs
parties interested in that discussion to the NPRM. See 72 FR 9906-08.

V. Current Regulatory Impediments

    Relaxing the locomotive sanding requirement will maintain safety
and will allow railroads to better utilize their locomotive fleets. The
current requirement allows a locomotive found with a defective sander
to continue in service to the next forward location where repairs can
be made or the next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs first.
Under the new requirement contained in this final rule, a lead
locomotive in an over-the-road train may continue to be utilized by the
railroad for up to fourteen days; in the case of a trailing locomotive,
it may continue to be utilized by the railroad until placed in a
facility with a sand

delivery system or departure from an initial terminal.
    The final rule recognizes the reality that sanding may reach
optimal effectiveness even where one or more locomotive sanders in a
consist is inoperative. Locomotives are routinely equipped with two
sanders at each end. Often a consist will contain multiple locomotives.
Each locomotive in a multiple-locomotive consist distributes sand to
the rail. As a result, when each of the locomotives in a multiple
locomotive consist are operating with all sanders operative, the train
potentially distributes more sand to the rail than it will utilize. At
that point, the effect of the sand on the train would be the same if
one or two sanders in the consist were inoperative.
    Requirements for sanders can be traced back to the steam locomotive
era. At that time, sanding the rail was thought to enhance adhesion
between the steam locomotive wheel and the rail. Modern diesel
locomotives rely on wheel slip and wheel creep devices, as well as
sand, to provide adhesion between the wheel and rail. Where sanders are
inoperative on a diesel locomotive, the total loss of adhesion would be
less than it would have been for a steam locomotive. Notably, any
reduced adhesion would limit the ability of the locomotive to pull its
train. Loss of the ability to pull the train is a productivity concern
that is not being addressed by this final rule.
    This final rule also recognizes the fact that sanding the rail in
braking mode provides little additional adhesion to a train, because
train handling depends primarily on train brakes to maintain train
dynamics. The locomotive braking has limited effect. As stated in the
technical discussion contained in the NPRM, by the time the locomotives
in the consist have passed over the sanded rail, little to no sand
remains on the rail and little or no benefit is provided to train
braking.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

Section 229.5 Definitions
    FRA is adding the term ``sand delivery system'' in this section.
The term will mean a permanently stationed or fixed device designed to
deliver sand to locomotive sand boxes that do not require the sand to
be manually delivered or loaded. A sand delivery system will be
considered permanently stationed if it is at a location at least five
days a week for at least eight hours per day.
    FRA is also adding the term ``initial terminal.'' The definition of
this term will be identical to that currently contained in 49 CFR 232.5
and 238.5. The term will mean ``a location where a train is originally
assembled.''
Section 229.9 Movement of Non-Complying Locomotives
    FRA is amending this section to exempt locomotives operated under
paragraphs 229.131(b) and (c)(1) from the movement for repair provision
contained in Sec.  229.9. In general, Sec.  229.9 currently provides
movement for repair requirements for equipment found with non-complying
conditions under part 229. Paragraphs 229.131(b) and (c)(1) in this
rule contain specific requirements relating to the movement and
continued use of locomotives with defective sander equipment. Because
the paragraphs specifically address movement for repair, applying Sec.
229.9 would be superfluous or conflicting, and is no longer necessary.
    FRA is also making a clarifying amendment to this section of part
229. Section 229.9 currently contains the following exception that
reads: ``[e]xcept as provided in * * * 229.125(h).'' The exception
relates to locomotive auxiliary lights and although a correct citation
when originally inserted into the regulations, later amendments to that
section resulted in redesignation of the paragraphs. The exception
should refer to Sec.  229.125(g). Like Sec.  229.131(b) and (c)(1),
Sec.  229.125(g) sets forth movement for repair requirements specific
to that section. Consequently, FRA is making this clarification in this
regulatory proceeding.
Section 229.131 Sanders
    Paragraph (a). This paragraph establishes a general requirement
that locomotives be equipped with operative sanders before departing an
initial terminal. Any time a locomotive is in use before leaving the
initial terminal, it will be required to have operative sanders. The
term ``in use'' has been consistently applied to mean when a locomotive
is capable of being used. Thus, the locomotive does not have to
actually be used to be in use. Examples of a locomotive in use are when
a locomotive has been inspected, or a locomotive is on a ready track.
FRA agrees with the RSAC's recommendation that the initial terminal
would be an appropriate place to initially require operative sanders,
because it is a place where sander maintenance can usually be
accomplished without imposing a significant burden on the railroad. In
many instances, locations where trains are initiated are equipped with
sand delivery systems and are capable of making repairs to the sander
mechanisms. FRA notes that this rule will permit locomotives to be
released from daily locomotive inspections with inoperative sanders.
However, the rule will require sanders to be repaired or handled for
repair under Sec.  229.9 if defective when the locomotive is preparing
to depart from an initial terminal. In instances where repairs cannot
be performed, a locomotive may be dispatched from an initial terminal
but only under the strict provisions contained in Sec.  229.9. Thus,
the locomotive could only continue in use to the nearest forward
location where necessary repairs could be effectuated or to the
locomotive's next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs first. FRA
further notes that if a locomotive is at an initial terminal for its
train and that location has a sand delivery system or is otherwise
capable of making sander repairs, then the locomotive may not legally
depart that location with inoperative sanders. FRA also intends to make
clear that a locomotive's sanders will only be considered operative if
appropriate amounts of sand are deposited on each rail in front of the
first power operated wheel set in the direction of movement.
    FRA recognizes that this rule will be less restrictive than the
movement for repair provisions currently contained in Sec.  229.9. In
most instances, locomotives will likely encounter an initial terminal
less frequently than a daily inspection. This will facilitate more
efficient railroad operations. Under the current provision, a railroad
will take a locomotive out of service when a sander defect is found at
the daily inspection. By requiring operative sanders less frequently,
the new requirement allows the railroad to keep the locomotive in
service for longer periods of time. With more locomotives in service,
the railroad will be able to better utilize its power throughout its
fleet.
    Paragraph (b). This paragraph contains the requirements for
handling locomotives used in road service where sanders become
inoperative after departure from an initial terminal. Road service will
be distinguished from yard service because the type of service affects
the need for sand. Locomotives performing road service will likely be
in longer trains and run at higher speeds than those performing
switching service. The existing definition of switching service, as it
appears in Sec. Sec.  229.5 and 232.5, provides background for the
distinction between road service and switching service. Switching
service means ``assembling cars for train movements * * * or

moving rail equipment in connection with work service that does not
constitute a train movement.'' Any movement that is not considered
``switching service'' would be considered ``road service.'' Therefore,
any service which constitutes a ``train movement'' would be considered
``road service'' for purposes of this section. The preamble to the
final rule related to part 232 (66 FR 4104, January 17, 2001) contains
detailed discussion of the factors that are to be considered when
determining what constitutes a ``train movement.'' See 66 FR 4148-49.
    Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph establishes requirements related
to lead locomotives being used in road service where sanders are
discovered to be inoperative after departure from an initial terminal.
Once inoperative sanders are discovered on these locomotives, there are
four triggers that will determine how long a lead locomotive will be
permitted to remain in service with inoperative sanders. The triggers
are: the next initial terminal; a location where it is placed in a
facility with a sand delivery system; its next periodic inspection
under Sec.  229.23; or fourteen calendar days from the date the sanders
are first discovered to be inoperative, whichever occurs first.
    FRA agrees with the Working Group's determination that the four
triggering events will ensure that sanders are repaired in a timely
fashion while providing railroads the ability to better utilize their
locomotive fleets. Under the existing rule, a locomotive can move only
until the next daily inspection with inoperative sanders. Utilizing
four different triggers allows the railroad a greater degree of
operational flexibility. Each trigger provides a logical point at which
sander maintenance should and can be conducted without impacting a
railroad's operation to a significant degree. The initial terminal is
an appropriate place to require operative sanders for the reasons
stated in paragraph 229.131(a). When a locomotive is placed in a
facility that has a sand delivery system it is appropriate to require a
railroad to provide sander maintenance. Placed in a facility is
intended to mean actually placed on trackage with access to the sand
delivery system, and not merely passing through a location with a sand
delivery system on the premises. Similarly, when a locomotive is given
its required periodic inspection it is expected that the location will
be capable of providing repairs and additional sand to the locomotive
sanders with little burden. Permitting a lead locomotive to remain in
service for no longer than fourteen days is reasonable as it permits
the locomotive to reach the destination of a long-distance train run,
ensures timely repairs to the sanders, and is more consistent with the
current Canadian requirement.
    One commenter sought clarification on how FRA will enforce this
rule when a lead locomotive is switched to a trailing position en
route. As three of the triggering events are identical for both lead
and trailing locomotives, they would be equally applicable to either
type of locomotive and further clarification is unnecessary. With
regard to how the calendar-day triggering event will be applied, FRA
agrees that further clarification would be beneficial. After a lead
locomotive is switched to a trailing position, the days will continue
to be counted pursuant to the fourteen day requirement (along with the
three other triggers) of this paragraph. For example, if locomotive
XYZ-12345 is operating in the lead position and is found to have an
inoperative sander on Monday June 25, the calculation of days pursuant
to this paragraph begins on that day. Monday, June 25 is day one. On
Tuesday, June 26, locomotive XYZ-12345 is switched to a trailing
position in the consist. While in a trailing position, the days
continue to be counted. Tuesday, June 26 is counted as day two. Under
this scenario, the fourteenth calendar day for locomotive XYZ-12345 is
Sunday July 8. Therefore, if the inoperative sander is not repaired
prior to being used on or after July 9, the operating railroad would be
in violation of this paragraph.
    Comments were also received regarding the definition of sand
delivery system. One commenter suggested adding a requirement to have
each railroad identify to FRA all facilities that fit within the
definition, and obtain permission from FRA to close the facility or
reduce hours. While this comment is insightful, FRA believes that the
commenter's suggested requirement would be inconsistent with the spirit
of the RSAC's consensus rule text. The rule aims to maintain safety
while better accommodating current operational realities by providing
more flexibility when appropriate. Adding this requirement would create
a more rigid process that would significantly increase the burden on
both FRA and the railroads with a marginal effect on safety. According
to the rule that was proposed, railroads will be required to repair
inoperative sanders when the locomotive is placed in a facility
equipped with a sand delivery system. Formally identifying and changing
locations through an approval process would cause delay. The delay
would adversely affect operations and inhibit appropriate flexibility.
    Another commenter sought clarification regarding two related
issues: (1) Whether a mobile unit, for example a mobile truck, could be
considered a sand delivery system; and, (2) how the five day per week,
eight hour per day, requirement will be calculated? The rule does not
provide for special treatment for mobile units. Any unit that fits the
definition will be treated as a sand delivery system, including mobile
units. Railroads are expected to utilize all available information to
accurately anticipate which locations will be equipped with a sand
delivery system for each week. At a minimum, locations where on average
a sand delivery system is permanently stationed (i.e. is at the
location at least five days per week for at least eight hours per day)
over the previous four weeks, would be determined to be a location
equipped with a sand delivery system for the following week. This
determination may be refuted by the railroad with additional
information.
    Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph contains the requirements for
handling trailing locomotives that are being used in road service when
sanders are discovered to be inoperative after departure from an
initial terminal. Once inoperative sanders are discovered, the rule
sets forth three triggering events that will determine how long a
trailing locomotive will be permitted to remain in service with
inoperative sanders. The triggering events in this paragraph are
identical to those in paragraph (b)(1) except for the elimination of
the fourteen day requirement. FRA agrees with the Working Group's
determination that the need to provide sand to a trailing locomotive is
less critical than it is for a lead locomotive. The engineer operating
the train or locomotive consist may be more familiar with the lead
locomotive than with the trailing locomotive. The engineer is likely to
be operating from the lead locomotive, and thus, that locomotive is
less likely to be switched out of the consist while moving over the
road.
    The term ``trailing locomotive,'' as used in this paragraph,
specifically refers to a locomotive that is located behind the lead
locomotive in a train or locomotive consist. The NPRM specifically
included ``distributed power locomotives.'' A distributed power
locomotive, as defined in Sec.  229.5, is a locomotive that is part of
a distributed power system that provides control to a number of
locomotives dispersed in a consist from command signals originating in
the lead

locomotive. Distributed power locomotives are also trailing locomotives
because they are located behind the lead locomotive in the train. FRA
sought and received comments concerning the relevance of listing
``trailing locomotives'' and ``distributive power locomotives'' in the
rule text. Both commenters confirmed that distributive power
locomotives are a type of trailing locomotive. Thus, distributive power
locomotives are covered by this paragraph whether or not they are
specifically mentioned, because they are covered by the term ``trailing
locomotive.'' FRA believes that it is unnecessary to list both terms
and is removing the words ``distributive power locomotive'' in the
final rule.
    One commenter asked how FRA will enforce this rule when a trailing
locomotive is switched to the lead en route. FRA agrees that this issue
will benefit from clarification. A locomotive will be considered a lead
locomotive anytime it is placed in the lead position of the consist. If
a locomotive is switched into the lead en route, and the sanders are
known to be inoperative, the fourteen day requirement prescribed in
paragraph (b)(1) applies to that locomotive (along with the three other
triggers contained in paragraph (b)(1)) starting on the day when it is
switched to the lead. For purposes of counting the amount of days that
the locomotive has been in the lead, the calendar day that the
locomotive is switched into the lead will count as day one. The date
that the locomotive is placed in the lead is required to be recorded on
that locomotive's bad order tag. Updating the bad order tag on the day
that the locomotive is switched to the lead, to reflect the date that
the locomotive was switched to the lead, will ensure that the railroad
and FRA will be able to conveniently know the status of that locomotive
relative to the requirements of this rule.
    Paragraph (c). This paragraph establishes requirements for handling
locomotives used in switching service where sanders become inoperative.
The Working Group and the full RSAC recommended that the use of sand on
locomotives performing switching service should be distinguished from
locomotives being used in road service as described above in paragraph
(b). Included as part of the RSAC's recommendation to FRA in this area,
was a request that FRA unilaterally develop criteria for the handling
of locomotives being used in switching service that experience
inoperative sanders. The request specifically related to the
identification of what constitutes locomotives at ``outlying
locations'' and the identification of the triggering events for
repairing inoperative sanders on such locomotives. FRA accepted this
recommendation. FRA considered the discussions and views provided by
members of the Working Group when developing this portion of the rule.
    Rather than attempt to define what constitutes an ``outlying
location,'' FRA believes that the most appropriate method of
distinguishing between switching locomotives and the locations where
they operate, is to base the determination on the existence of a sand
delivery system at the location. FRA believes that locomotives being
used in switching service at a location with a sand delivery system
should be able to be maintained and handled for repair in a more timely
manner, with less disruption to railroad operations, than locomotives
being used in switching service at locations without sand delivery
systems. If there is no sand delivery system at a location, then the
railroad is required to send maintenance vehicles or crews to the
location or is required to move the locomotive to another location to
effectuate necessary repairs. This can have a significant impact on the
efficiency and continuity of switching operations at certain locations.
Thus, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) separate the requirements for
maintaining the sanders on locomotives being used in switching service
based on the presence of a sand delivery system at the location where
the locomotive is being used.
    Paragraph (c)(1). This paragraph contains requirements for handling
locomotives being used in switching service at locations that are not
equipped with a sand delivery system. In order to remain consistent
with the overall design of the recommendation submitted by the RSAC,
FRA believes that some operational flexibility needs to be provided to
locomotives being used in switching service at locations not capable of
quickly delivering sand or making necessary repairs. As noted above,
the simplest way of making this determination is based on whether or
not the location has a sand delivery system. FRA believes that seven
days is a reasonable amount of time to permit railroads to provide
necessary sander attention to a locomotive being used in switching
service at a location that does not have a sand delivery system. This
amount of time is consistent and within the time frame in which
locomotives used in switching service will need some other type of
maintenance or attention, most likely re-fueling. The seven day mark
appears to be a reasonable outer-limit for the requirement. The second
triggering event in this paragraph is if the locomotive becomes due for
its periodic inspection pursuant to Sec.  229.23 of this part.
    In the NPRM, FRA solicited and received comments on this paragraph.
While one commenter agreed that the proposed seven day time-line was
reasonable; another commenter suggested dividing the requirement into
two distinct groups to allow for more precise treatment. The commenter
explained that a requirement based on a given number of days would be
appropriate for the inoperative sanders that are inoperative because
they lack sand, however, sanders that are inoperative due to a
mechanical defect should be repaired sooner if mechanical forces have
an opportunity to inspect the locomotive. This suggestion has some
merit, but would likely overburden enforcement resources. Dividing the
requirement into two categories would add another layer of complexity
to the rule. Enforcing two separate categories would raise additional
issues that require further FRA investigation. For example, FRA would
need to find out why the sander is inoperative in order to determine
how to properly enforce the requirement. FRA believes that the less
complex scheme from the proposed rule will be more effective.
    Paragraph (c)(2). This paragraph establishes requirements for
handling locomotives used in switching service at locations equipped
with a sand delivery system. FRA agrees with the opinions of the
Working Group and full RSAC that sanders on these types of locomotives
can be maintained with little burden on a railroad's operation as they
are already at the location where sand can be delivered and effective
repairs can be effectuated. Therefore, FRA accepts the RSAC's
recommendation and retains the existing requirements applicable to
these locomotives. Consequently, when sanders become inoperative on
these locomotives they will have to be handled in accordance with the
provisions contained in Sec.  229.9.
    Paragraph (d). This paragraph will ensure that any locomotive with
inoperative sanders is properly tagged under the tagging provisions
contained in Sec.  229.9(a). As paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) provide
railroads with more flexibility with regard to using a locomotive with
inoperative sanders than what is currently permitted by Sec.  229.9,
FRA wants to ensure that proper notification and records are maintained
on in-service locomotives with inoperative sanders. Thus, FRA will
require that locomotives operating with defective sanders be tagged in

accordance with the provisions contained in Sec.  229.9(a). This will
also ensure that the individuals operating the locomotive are fully
informed as to the fact that the locomotive they are operating does not
have working sanders.

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of this rule.
Document inspection and copying facilities are available at 1120
Vermont Avenue, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Photocopies may also
be obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    As part of the regulatory impact analysis, FRA has assessed
quantitative measurements of cost and benefit streams expected from the
adoption of this rule. For the twenty year period the estimated
quantified costs are minimal. For this same period the estimated
quantified benefits have a Net Present Value of $70.6 million.
    The major benefits anticipated from implementing this rule include:
A reduction in the number of times locomotives have sand loaded or the
number of times the sanders are made operative. This reduction produces
a reduction in injuries related to the operation of filling sand boxes
on the locomotive and the number of missed days related to these
injuries. Finally, the rule would harmonize the sander requirement with
the Canadian rule by placing a fourteen day limit on service for lead
locomotives being used in road service with inoperative sanders.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impact on small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the
docket an Analysis of Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that assesses the
small entity impact of this rule. Document inspection and copying
facilities are available at the Federal Docket Management Facility
located at 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Docket material is also available for inspection on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. Photocopies may also be obtained by

submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of Chief
Counsel, Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA-2005-23080.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant
in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the
railroad industry is a railroad business ``line-haul operation'' that
has fewer than 1,500 employees and a ``switching and terminal''
establishment with fewer than 500 employees. SBA's ``size standards''
may be altered by Federal agencies, in consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
    Pursuant to that authority FRA has published a final statement of
agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' as being
railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class
III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). Currently, the revenue
requirements are $20 million or less in annual operating revenue. The
$20 million limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board's
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which is adjusted by
applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR part 1201).
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a
railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity.
    For this rule over 600 railroads could potentially be affected. The
rule will impact all locomotives except those propelled by steam power.
Given this application, only railroads that operate steam locomotives
exclusively, will be unaffected. For those railroads that will be
affected the impact will be minimal, if any. The focus is on permitting
additional flexibility in the use of locomotives with inoperative
sanders. It is anticipated that the additional flexibility will produce
mostly positive impacts, i.e., savings and injury reductions.
    The AISE developed in connection with this Final Rule concludes
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Thus, FRA certifies that this
rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act or Executive Order 13272. In order to determine the significance of
the economic impact for the final rule's Regulatory Flexibility Act
requirements, FRA invited comments in the NPRM. No comments were
received.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains a substantive change of one section of the
existing regulation, Sec.  229.131. The modification would not change
the current information collection activity. The information collection
burden associated with the final rule already exists under Sec.  229.9.
OMB clearance for the current rule has been granted and no further
approval is sought at this time.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. The OMB control number assigned for
information collection related to this rule is OMB No. 2130-0004.

Federalism Implications

    FRA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on August 4, 1999,
which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care in establishing
policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR 43255. This rule
will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. This
rule will not have federalism implications that impose any direct
compliance costs on State and local governments.
    FRA notes that the RSAC, which endorsed and recommended the
majority of the rule to FRA, has as permanent members two organizations
representing State and local interests: AASHTO and the Association of
State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State organizations
concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this rule. The RSAC
regularly provides recommendations to the FRA Administrator for
solutions to regulatory issues that reflect significant input from its
State members. To date, FRA has received no indication of concerns
about the Federalism implications of this rulemaking from these
representatives or of any other representatives of State government.
Consequently, FRA concludes that this rule has no federalism
implications, other than the preemption of state laws covering the
subject matter of this rule, which occurs by operation of law under

49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or order.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 4(c)(20) reads as follows:

    (c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. * *
* The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded:
* * * * *
    (20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements
that do not result in significantly increased emissions or air or
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any
mode of transportation.

In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency
has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with
respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $132,300,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$132,300,000 or more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.

Privacy Act

    FRA wishes to inform all potential petitioners for reconsideration
that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any agency docket by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 229

    Locomotives, Railroad safety, and Sanders.

The Final Rule

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 229 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 229--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143,
20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2401, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(c),
(m).

0
2. Section 229.5 is amended by adding alphabetically the definitions of
``initial terminal'' and ``sand delivery system'' to read as follows:

Sec.  229.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Initial terminal means a location where a train is originally
assembled.
* * * * *
    Sand delivery system means a permanently stationed or fixed device
designed to deliver sand to locomotive sand boxes that do not require
the sand to be manually delivered or loaded. A sand delivery system
will be considered permanently stationed if it is at a location at
least five days a week for at least eight hours per day.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 229.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec.  229.9  Movement of non-complying locomotives.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), Sec.  229.125(g),
and Sec.  229.131(b) and (c)(1), a locomotive with one or more
conditions not in compliance with this part may be moved only as a lite
locomotive or a dead locomotive after the carrier has complied with the
following:
* * * * *

0
4. Section 229.131 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  229.131  Sanders.

    (a) Prior to departure from an initial terminal, each locomotive,
except for MU locomotives, shall be equipped with operative sanders
that deposit sand on each rail in front of the first power operated
wheel set in the direction of movement or shall be handled in
accordance with the requirements contained in Sec.  229.9.
    (b) A locomotive being used in road service with sanders that
become inoperative after departure from an initial terminal shall be
handled in accordance with the following:
    (1) A lead locomotive being used in road service that experiences
inoperative sanders after departure from an initial terminal may
continue in service until the earliest of the following occurrences:
    (i) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
    (ii) arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a
sand delivery system;
    (iii) the next periodic inspection under Sec.  229.23; or
    (iv) fourteen calendar days from the date the sanders are first
discovered to be inoperative; and
    (2) A trailing locomotive being used in road service that
experiences inoperative sanders after departure from an initial
terminal may continue in service until the earliest of the following
occurrence:
    (i) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
    (ii) arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a
sand delivery system; or
    (iii) the next periodic inspection under Sec.  229.23.
    (c) A locomotive being used in switching service shall be equipped
with operative sanders that deposit sand on each rail in front of the
first power operated wheel set in the direction of movement. If the
sanders become inoperative, the locomotive shall be handled in
accordance with the following:
    (1) A locomotive being used in switching service at a location not
equipped with a sand delivery system

may continue in service for seven calendar days from the date the
sanders are first discovered inoperative or until its next periodic
inspection under Sec.  229.23, which ever occurs first; and
    (2) A locomotive being used in switching service at locations
equipped with a sand delivery system shall be handled in accordance
with the requirements contained in Sec.  229.9.
    (d) A locomotive being handled under the provisions contained in
paragraph (b) and (c)(1) of this section shall be tagged in accordance
with Sec.  229.9(a).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2007.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-20656 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17494]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0196]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Tulip Time Festival Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Lake Macatawa
in Holland, MI for the Tulip Time Festival Fireworks on May 12, 2018.
This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on
navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after the fireworks
display. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce
restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone.
No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being
enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or
a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (c)(1), Table 165.929, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on May 12,
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Kaleena Carpino, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Tulip Time
Festival Fireworks safety zone listed as item (c)(1) in Table 165.929
of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring
safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety
zone will encompass all waters of Lake Macatawa, within the arc of a
circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in
approximate center position 42[deg]47.496' N, 086[deg]07.348' W (NAD
83). As specified in 33 CFR 165.929, all vessels must obtain permission
from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone when it
is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety
zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide
the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of
this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be
contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2018-08316 Filed 4-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51833-51834]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0370; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. This
action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Tiverton VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON)
Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, 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 7400.11C 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: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 35570; July 27, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0370 to
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the
extension to the east associated with the Smith non-directional radio
beacon. The geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Exclusionary language is
removed as it is no longer required. And, the name of the city
associated with the airport in the airspace description is removed to
comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling
Airspace Matters.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and

unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1)
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Wooster, OH [Amended]

Wayne County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]52'29'' N, long. 81[deg]53'18'' W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Wayne County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-22178 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P